VidAngel ordered shut down

[didymus]

Abridged books and movies adapted for television are chopped up versions of the originals.

But they are done with the approval of the author or whoever owns the rights.

 

[Moneyball]

Too bad, I really liked the service. Using the service really gave me a better sense of just how much garbage there is in the average movie, even decent ones. I’m no lawyer so I’ll refrain from making legal arguments, I’m just disappointed that Warner Bros, Disney, Fox, etc don’t already offer similar filtered versions themselves.

 

[Tim_D]

Using the service really gave me a better sense of just how much garbage there is in the average movie, even decent ones.

Then why do you even bothering watching them at all? I just don’t understand. If you watch a movie, censored or not, then you still support it, which in your lingo means that you would be supporting “garbage.”

It sounds like someone complaining about explicit sex in porn movies. If it offends you, then stay away from it.

 

[didymus]

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.

I get what you’re saying but my approach has always been to judge movies, books, &c as a whole. If there are disturbing elements I’ll take that into account and maybe watch anyway.
If you want to skip or mute, fine. But as you say this new tech changes things and I think it turns the movie into something completely different from the original.

 

[randomuser]

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.

The Family Movie Act of 2005 protects new technology, not copyright infringement.

ClearPlay brand DVD players are what’s protected by the FMA. I can buy the DVD of “Wolf of Wall Street” or “Goodfellas” and watch a sanitized version of the movie as long as it is played on the ClearPlay DVD player.

In the ClearPlay example: I (the private consumer, not VidAngel) am utilizing new technology (ClearPlay) to achieve the same goal.

 

[Moneyball]

Then why do you even bothering watching them at all? I just don’t understand. If you watch a movie, censored or not, then you still support it, which in your lingo means that you would be supporting “garbage.”

It sounds like someone complaining about explicit sex in porn movies. If it offends you, then stay away from it.

That’s a silly comparison. The only reason people watch pornography is to get sexually aroused, so censoring all the sexually explicit parts would be undercutting the central theme of the whole movie. On the other hand, censoring swear words and explicit scenes unrelated to the plot of a blockbuster/classic movie doesn’t do that.

You’re also conflating specific scenes from a movie with the entirety of a movie… even great movies can have some “garbage” in it.

Also, watching movies doesn’t “bother” me, I enjoy it.

 

[Tim_D]

That’s a silly comparison. The only reason people watch pornography is to get sexually aroused, so censoring all the sexually explicit parts would be undercutting the central theme of the whole movie. On the other hand, censoring swear words and explicit scenes unrelated to the plot of a blockbuster/classic movie doesn’t do that.

You’re also conflating specific scenes from a movie with the entirety of a movie… even great movies can have some “garbage” in it.

Also, watching movies doesn’t “bother” me, I enjoy it.

No, whats silly is claiming a moral superiority about wanting to be free from seeing what one considers objectionable, yet still indulges in watching a movie that is *by its nature objectionable * because it contains those things, even though edited. Putting blinders on does not change the nature of the movie.

To me, it is the height of arrogance to dismiss things that one finds objectionable as “garbage.” If something doesn’t appeal to you, then fine, but just because someone may lack the maturity to watch something that often times can be true to life doesn’t make it “garbage” just because it has a curse word in it. A movie about Italian mobsters will be true to life if it contains cursing, violence, sex and murder. If it makes you feel good about yourself to watch an edited version so that you won’t expose yourself to “garbage,” then go for it.

 

[Moneyball]

No, whats silly is claiming a moral superiority about wanting to be free from seeing what one considers objectionable, yet still indulges in watching a movie that is *by its nature objectionable * because it contains those things, even though edited. Putting blinders on does not change the nature of the movie.

To me, it is the height of arrogance to dismiss things that one finds objectionable as “garbage.” If something doesn’t appeal to you, then fine, but just because someone may lack the maturity to watch something that often times can be true to life doesn’t make it “garbage” just because it has a curse word in it. A movie about Italian mobsters will be true to life if it contains cursing, violence, sex and murder. If it makes you feel good about yourself to watch an edited version so that you won’t expose yourself to “garbage,” then go for it.

Who’s “claiming moral superiority”? In this post alone you’ve accused me of lacking maturity, of demonstrating the “height of arrogance”, and of “indulging” in objectionable art. If one of us is attempting to claim moral superiority, it isn’t me.

Every movie ever made has been edited, even producers will often offer different versions of the same movie, some with alternate endings. There’s no reason to think that movies and tv shows have intrinsic unchanging natures, so your key premise fails imo.

In any case you don’t even know which scenes of which movies I’m talking about, so you’re assuming all sorts of things. You’re free to believe what you want of course, but I’m not required to converse with uncharitable posters.

Happy Boxing Day.

 

[Joe_5859]

VidAngel created their own video:

Is VidAngel Legal?

Obviously, they have a vested interest in showing that it is legal, but I thought they made a pretty strong case—at least for filtering in general if not for their service in particular.

I particularly like the line:

“Everyone has their choice. Sure, what a director puts in may offend some viewers and what a viewer takes out may offend some directors. But being offended doesn’t mean you get to make choices for other people.”

That’s kind of the whole thing in a nutshell for me.