Slashdot Mirror
VidAngel Keeps Streaming Videos, Defying Movie Studios and a US Judge (deseretnews.com)
The Deseret News reports that Hollywood studios "aren't happy with VidAngel, saying in a statement Wednesday that the Utah-based streaming service 'continues to illegally stream our content without a license and is expanding its infringement by adding new titles' despite a judge's recent injunction." Or, as VidAngel explains on their blog, "We say we're legal. Disney says we're pirates." Long-time Slashdot reader goombah99 writes:
VidAngel...will edit any major movie of objectionable content exactly as you request (and no more than you request), then stream it to you for $1. Such bowdlerizing and DVD streaming services are expressly written into section 110 of Title 17, the copyright act (paragraph 11 added in the 2005 Family Viewing act). Therefore both aspects that the studios are suing over, the streaming of a DVD and the editing of it by a third party, is plainly legal... There's a petition to save this act from encroachment [signed by more than 30,000 families].
In just five days in October, VidAngel raised $10.1 million in a "mini-IPO" -- reportedly the fastest one ever -- to fund their ongoing fight against the movie studios. VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon says "We'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. We're happy to pay more. We're happy to rent more. We're happy to pay the prices the studios want us to pay. Just give us filtering."
In just five days in October, VidAngel raised $10.1 million in a "mini-IPO" -- reportedly the fastest one ever -- to fund their ongoing fight against the movie studios. VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon says "We'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. We're happy to pay more. We're happy to rent more. We're happy to pay the prices the studios want us to pay. Just give us filtering."
This is censorship in the same way Slashdot moderation is censorship. While it technically meets the definition, I don't see any harm here. It's not much different than simply choosing to look away and mute the volume when there's content you don't want to see or hear. The customers are in full control of what gets removed and what doesn't. Where censorship can become a problem is when authority decides to make it impossible or extremely difficult to view content. The service being offered here really isn't any different than moderating posts and letting the user decide whether to browse unfiltered at -1 or read at some higher threshold that removes some potentially objectionable content.
Their customer base is largely families who want to watch stuff but want certain bits they consider inappropriate jammed into their ears or eyes or presented to their kids. NOBODY is censoring anything to prevent YOU from seeing/hearing it. NOBODY is preventing you from consuming the content you want. They are just helping people who want 90% of something from being forced to absorb the other 10%.
If you order a meal at a fancy eatery because you like the meal, but it has green olives which you hate, do you have the right to simply remove the green olives before consuming the meal, or is it a terrible offense against civilization and the artistry of the chef? You're not removing the olives from anybody else's plate. You're not even inconveniencing the chef directly by asking him to remove the olives, nor are you asking him to remove olives from his recipe or to keep them out of anyone else's serving. Now, if this is ok, then why is it bad if you ask a third party to discreetly remove the olives from your meal for you, because they're better at it than you are and they'll even do it for you before you sit down to eat the meal? That's what's happening here.
Since when did filmmakers get the right to demand that you watch every moment of their films or you may not watch any of the films? People are free to turn away from a TV, or fast forward a video disc, and most on Slashdot support people being able to skip commercials (the HORROR! do you have a right to skip the "artistry" of that latest Viagra ad??)
Reminder: When the film Amadeus hit the big screen, the studio released it without the scene of Mozart's wife being assaulted. It was released on VHS tape years later also without that scene. Years later when released on BluRay, the only version released was the "director's cut" where that scene was added back in. This is one example and far from unique. Was the audience wrong to view the theatrical or VHS releases with the scene removed? Wrong to view the BluRay with the scene? Why was it OK for the studio to cut the sexual scene from the theatrical release, but then presumably wrong for some service now to come along and re-remove that scene for a family who wants to expose their children to the great film and the composer it is about while not exposing them to the actress's nude scene?
Get a life. Live and let live. Watch the media you want to watch, and tolerate others watching (or not) the parts they want (or don't want) to watch.
So assuming their legal argument is sound (and it's certainly better than I expected), if I were to request that they edit out just a few irrelevant seconds, and maybe that annoying copyright notice, we're good to go?
Sweet!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
That's as much censorship as you not watching certain YouTube videos.
The important part here is YOU. YOU decide. YOU and YOU alone say what you want to see and what you don't want to see. I hope you can see the difference, if not, allow me to point it out:
YOU deciding what you get to see: good thing
ANYONE ELSE deciding what you get to see: bad thing
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am sure that, like me, many had never heard of VidAngel. We will be checking it out. Thank you, content owners, for your continuing stupidity.
Censorship, under some common definitions, implies that it is imposed. This is not the case here.