- Status
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
This is the problem:
F
ForeverJoy
Guest
We adore the VidAngel service and hope they will win the battle against Hollyweird.
T
Tim_D
Guest
They are editing and making money off of copyrighted material without the permission of the producers. How in the world does anyone think they will be victorious? That’s called copyright infringement. It is against the law. They should be shut down.
F
ForeverJoy
Guest
The Family Movie Act of 2005 protects our choice to filter movies. VidAngel tried many different ways to give the big studios money for their content, however it seems that the Hollyweird studios had/have a closed door agreement to not do business with any filtering services.
But the FMA said filtering companies don’t need Hollyweird’s permission to filter as long as they meet three specific criteria: 1. The movie is an authorized copy 2. Watched in the privacy of the home, and… 3. No permanent filtered copy is created.
VidAngel tried several different ways to pay the studios for their content but kept getting turned down. Instead they go to big box stores and buy authorized DVDs instead of licensing, just like Redbox.
Hollywood’s excuse that they are losing money is bogus. There are lots of families that are watching more movies than they otherwise would have just because the filtering service is available. It’s amazing how entertaining movies can be without all that extra garbage.
But the FMA said filtering companies don’t need Hollyweird’s permission to filter as long as they meet three specific criteria: 1. The movie is an authorized copy 2. Watched in the privacy of the home, and… 3. No permanent filtered copy is created.
VidAngel tried several different ways to pay the studios for their content but kept getting turned down. Instead they go to big box stores and buy authorized DVDs instead of licensing, just like Redbox.
Hollywood’s excuse that they are losing money is bogus. There are lots of families that are watching more movies than they otherwise would have just because the filtering service is available. It’s amazing how entertaining movies can be without all that extra garbage.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Seems a way to circumvent the end product, which is maybe good for the family watching, but does nothing to change the original videos that are being produced. I wonder if a movement on self-imposed ban on movies one finds distasteful would send a clearer message on what people want to see.
T
Tim_D
Guest
Be that as it may, they are still using copyrighted material that is the property of the studios and are doing itwithout their permission. It is completely the right of the studios and the copyright holders to turn them down if it is something that they do not wish to be a part of.
F
ForeverJoy
Guest
Boycotts almost never work. And many families already avoid a lot of movies based on their personal beliefs. Rarely does a family friendly movie come out that’s not rated G and targeted at little kids.
People have been asking for cleaner movies for years, but Hollywood keeps pushing the boundaries on language, violence and sex. And no, even manyfiltered movies still aren’t appropriate for kids based on the content or situation. But there are also lots of adults who don’t want to sit through f-bombs and sex scenes, parent or no.
It doesn’t hurt the studios if I decide that I don’t want my 12yr old to see and hear all the garbage they put into otherwise entertaining movies. Except, he might grow up and refuse to fall down that rabbit hole as an adult. And even scarier, might raise more kids with standards of their own. Horrors!
People have been asking for cleaner movies for years, but Hollywood keeps pushing the boundaries on language, violence and sex. And no, even manyfiltered movies still aren’t appropriate for kids based on the content or situation. But there are also lots of adults who don’t want to sit through f-bombs and sex scenes, parent or no.
It doesn’t hurt the studios if I decide that I don’t want my 12yr old to see and hear all the garbage they put into otherwise entertaining movies. Except, he might grow up and refuse to fall down that rabbit hole as an adult. And even scarier, might raise more kids with standards of their own. Horrors!
F
ForeverJoy
Guest
The Family Movie Act says they don’t need the studio’s permission for a private viewing of a filtered but non-permanent version of the movie, and that those who provide the technology to enable editing for private viewing should not be liable to the copyright owners for infringing on their copyright.
Huntsman v. Soderbergh, No. Civ. A02CV01662RPMMJW, 2005 WL 1993421 (D. Colo. 2005)
K
Kit15
Guest
T
Tim_D
Guest
Exactly. I don’t know why people are having such a hard time about this.
W
Wesrock
Guest
I don’t know that I can take seriously any post that substitutes “Hollyweird” for every instance of Hollywood.
F
ForeverJoy
Guest
They are not a streaming service, but a FILTERING service. Such services are allowed and protected by Congress by the Family Movie Act of 2005. You cannot watch unfiltered content when you use VidAngel. They are trying to provide a service to a specific group of people who want, and are allowed by law, to watch filtered content. It’s not illegal or copyright infringement because they are compliant with the provisions set up by FMA.
They don’t buy their DVDs/Blueray disks from Redbox. They buy authorized disks from retailers. That is the same model Redbox uses since they couldn’t get a license from the studios either. VidAngel buys one copy for every rental they estimate a movie will have. For example, if they only have 5 copies of movie “A” and a sixth person wants to watch it, they will be asked to wait until later until some of the 5 copies are watched and sold back.
It is legal, and already protected by the Family Movie Act of 2005.
They don’t buy their DVDs/Blueray disks from Redbox. They buy authorized disks from retailers. That is the same model Redbox uses since they couldn’t get a license from the studios either. VidAngel buys one copy for every rental they estimate a movie will have. For example, if they only have 5 copies of movie “A” and a sixth person wants to watch it, they will be asked to wait until later until some of the 5 copies are watched and sold back.
It is legal, and already protected by the Family Movie Act of 2005.
W
Wampa
Guest
It seems pretty unlikely that they are going to win on copyright grounds. The law doesn’t look kindly on sleight-of-hand maneuvers to avoid “technically” breaking the law. In this case, they are selling the movies for $20, then rebuying them for $19, to try and say that the consumers are private DVD owners playing censored versions of movies in their own homes for private purposes (which the Family Home Movie Act allows). It’s pretty obvious they are in reality renting out streaming movies at $1, which is not allowed by the FHMA.
That said, I do hope VidAngel wins in its suit against the studios, because the studios have refused to license their films to filtering services since the passage of the FHMA, which they opposed. That’s rotten.
Note, my background info came from Video filtering service VidAngel plays ‘creative’ with the law, loses injunction
That said, I do hope VidAngel wins in its suit against the studios, because the studios have refused to license their films to filtering services since the passage of the FHMA, which they opposed. That’s rotten.
Note, my background info came from Video filtering service VidAngel plays ‘creative’ with the law, loses injunction
W
Wampa
Guest
Oops, I meant to say I hope VidAngel wins its antitrust suit, because I assume they will lose the copyright battle in the end.
D
didymus
Guest
I’m against VidAngel, ClearPlay, the Family Movie Act and any kind of filtering. If you don’t like a movie don’t watch it, subscribe to PureFlix.
If I wrote a book or made a movie I sure wouldn’t want people out there selling chopped up versions even if they were paying royalties.
If I wrote a book or made a movie I sure wouldn’t want people out there selling chopped up versions even if they were paying royalties.
F
ForeverJoy
Guest
Abridged books and movies adapted for television are chopped up versions of the originals.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Fair enough. But at the same time, simply because we create a work doesn’t mean we can dictate how a person chooses to consume it with no caveats. We cannot go into the movie theater and force someone to open their eyes during the scary part. Or to go into their home and force them to read the racy scene before proceeding to the book’s conclusion. People will make their own decisions. If they want to skip past part of it, why shouldn’t they be able to do so?
I can understand about not wanting people to sell edited derivatives without (name removed by moderator)ut from the content creators, but this is where I think the waters get murkier—particularly with the increased capabilities of technology. Selling an abridged copy is one thing. Assisting people in hitting the “skip” button or “mute” button at the opportune time is different, I think. But with current technology, it can be hard to draw that line.
T
Tim_D
Guest
Those are done with the permission of the creator. It is a far, far different thing than if one were to edit another’s work not just without his permission, but against his wishes.
I agree with the sentiment that if you don’t want to see something in it, then don’t watch the movie.
C
cominghome1966
Guest
Based on the limited research I did on the VidAngel business model when I first heard about it, I didn’t have a good feeling about it. Something just didn’t seem right, but I didn’t do enough research to p(name removed by moderator)oint what it was. I thought it sounded like a very interesting business model, but something just seemed off about it.
I agree that it seems more like a streaming service than a filtering service. Maybe that is the issue.
I agree that it seems more like a streaming service than a filtering service. Maybe that is the issue.
- Status