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."
Dear VidAngel,
I have the following video I would like you to edit, then stream to me. Could you please cut off the dialog parts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Had to research:
VidAngel buys a bunch of DVDs.
VidAngel sells you the DVD stream for 20 bucks (this can't be legal but ok).
You then watch the stream and sell it back to VidStream for 19 bucks (or less, based on a ticking clock)
Again, I don't see how buying one physical disk allows you to stream that movie to an infinite amount of people, but here we are. They have no shot of winning in court.
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 legal argument is better than I expected it to be. However, there are two big problems with their argument:
As another commenter pointed out, they claim to sell the video for $20, then immediately buy it back for $19, they also stream it the customer (bandwidth costs) and edit it (server farm / cpu costs). It's quite obvious they're charging $1 to stream it to you, the "sell it for $20 and buy it back for $19" is a gimmick, it's bullshit. Nobody is buying movies from them, they're paying $1 to stream it.
Their fair use argument regarding DMCA is bogus. They claim that bleeping some words is "transformative", but the relevant portion of the fair use test is if they transform it to a different type of work that DOES NOT COMPETE with the protected work. For example, one may make a sculpture from CDs, or use book pages as wallpaper - nobody is going to buy your wallpaper *instead of* the original book. People WILL choose to stream from Vidangel *instead of* an authorized source such as Netflix or Amazon.
Lastly, the transformative aspect is only *one* part of the four-prong test for fair use. Other considerations include "is it commercial?" They are indeed selling the streaming, doing it commercially, so on that basis it's unlikely to be fair use. It's not educational, etc. It really doesn't match the definition of fair use well.
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.
Since most commenters have not read the legal reference, here is what it says:
"...the following are not infringements of copyright: (11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology."
That's pretty clear. They are allowed to make temporary changes to audio or video content during transmission for private home viewing, provided only that they are modifying an authorized copy.
It sounds to me (IANAL) like they have a very strong case.
Of course, their record keeping needs to be spotless, guaranteeing that they never sell more copies than they have in stock, and that any specific streaming instance can be traced to a specific authorized copy.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
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.
> VidAngel will only lose if their legal arguments are inaccurate
You mean they'll loose when they can't pay all the lawsuits anymore. Hollywood is good friends with the current administration, that doesn't eactly help VidAngel.
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.
I was about to post how every prior company that did this died, but apparently not. There are a few still around! OMG! I am buying one, because there's loads of movies I want my kids to see, with a few slight alterations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks and ClearPlay
Here is a Slashdot article about ClearPlay and CleanFlicks. The zdnet article link is dead, so use the wayback machine.
Here is another Slashdot article about ClearPlay
Trilogy Studios Movie Mask looks like it never actually came out.
However, everyone who tries to stream DVD or live TV content gets shut down. Here's a few:
Slashdot on Kaleidescape
Slashdot on Aereo
Those lawyers you mentioned have been arguing about what is and isn't a "bonafide sale" since at least the 1800s. Why? Because it matters. This looks a heck lot more like paying $1 to stream than a bonafide sale.
In general, judges tend to not like smartasses who try to make claims like this that they know, and everybody knows, are bullshit.
Censorship, under some common definitions, implies that it is imposed. This is not the case here.
I'll fight censorship by your side but this isn't censorship.
This isn't SJWs forcing their tastes and opinions on others, they're petitioning to preservce the OPT-IN service. It's post-distribution, the original distro is untouched, the individual gets what they want without compromising everyone else.
Maybe your post was simply lazy can't-RTFS ignorance, but hey, maybe it was cleverly orchestrated, maybe you deliberately posted something thick so everyone (incl myself) would come out and make the distinction.
OnTopic: If there's really such a Family Viewing Act that explicitly protects bowdlerizing, Disney&c's lawyers probably know it and this is probably intimidation/cashbleed tactics.
A friend of mine told me about VidAngel a few weeks ago, and my feeling is that they're trying to do a tightrope walk, blindfolded, while wearing ice skates.
Their business model hinges on the sell/resell gimmick that solely exists on a balance sheet. It's shaky ground to stand on.
CleanFlicks lost out because they altered the movies, which either fell under "derivative work" or "CSS decryption", either way not a good idea. They lost in court.
RealNetworks (still a thing, apparently) tried having a product that allowed movies to be ripped to one's own computer, but included more DRM than the original DVD. They lost in court.
Aereo distance-shifted OTA broadcasts, limited to one viewing per antenna, and one antenna per user. They lost in court.
Zediva bought DVD players and DVDs, paired them 1:1, and allowed one user to stream a movie from an available DVD player. They lost in court.
Vidangel is walking a trail blazed by dead bodies, forged by lawyers who have no intention of providing a compromise that reflects reality. Once they get big enough, the MPAA will come after them as well. They might win against Miramax and MAYBE Universal, but once the sleeping Mouse is awakened by their family-friendly edit of Rogue One, I wouldn't bet a counterfeit wooden nickel on them willing that court case - Disney will win on attrition alone.
After all, it is power, not money, that perpetuates this behavior.