Slashdot Mirror
Studio-Defying VidAngel Launches New Video-Filtering Platform (yahoo.com)
Last December VidAngel fought three Hollywood studios in court for the right to stream filtered versions of movies. Now fogez reports that "they have come up with a new tactic in their attempts to bring filtering choice into the streaming media equation. Instead of leveraging the legal loophole that landed them in court, VidAngel is now going to insert themselves as a filtering proxy for services like Netflix and Amazon." From the Hollywood Reporter:
Its new $7.99 per month service piggybacks on users' streaming accounts. Customers log into the VidAngel app, link it to their other accounts and then filter out the language, nudity and violence in that content to their heart's desire... "Out of the gate we'll be supporting Netflix and Amazon and HBO through Amazon channels," says Harmon, adding that Hulu, iTunes and Vudu will follow... Harmon says it remains to be seen if the studios will fight VidAngel's new platform, but his biggest concern is how Amazon and Netflix will respond. He says his company has reached out to the streamers, and he hopes they'll raise any concerns through conversation instead of litigation... "VidAngel's philosophy is very libertarian," he says. "Let directors create what they want, and let viewers watch how they want in their own home. That kind of philosophy respects the views of both parties."
The original submission describes the conflict as a "freedom of choice versus Hollywood."
The original submission describes the conflict as a "freedom of choice versus Hollywood."
If people don't want to see or hear things they find offensive, just don't watch those movies or TV shows. Stick with G-Rated fare.
"A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
then filter out the language, nudity and violence in that content to their heart's desire...
Is there a service which would filter in the language, nudity and violence sorely missing in Hollywood movies made of books for teens?
VidAngel's philosophy is very libertarian
Yet they don't respect creative freedom or intellectual property of others. Isn't mutual respect a necessary component of a working libertarian system?
The directors/writers/etc don't put language, nudity and violence just for the fun of annoying special snowflakes like yourself. It's part of the characters, part of the experience, part of the story. If you remove things, it's not worth your time.
I hate extreme violence, gore and horror movies in general. So I don't watch horror movies. See how easy that was? Now do the same.
#DeleteFacebook
We use ad blockers on the internet. Isn't this the same thing?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Let directors create what they want, and let viewers watch how they want in their own home.
That's a stupid idea and just feeds into the notion that people can suspend themselves from reality and filter out anything and everything they find offensive.
And that whole quote about being libertarian is just baloney. How about, instead of paying for and/or viewing the creator's content that you don't approve of, just don't buy or view that content. Pay for content that you do like instead. Voting with your wallet would cause market pressures to squeeze out the content that caters to your distortions.
And if no one creates content that you like then that's just too fucking bad. Find a different form of entertainment for you and your spawn.
Just like Blockbuster, who removed the final scene from their copies of Catch 22, thus ruining the movie.
There is a difference between sex and violence for the storytelling and sex and violence for its own sake.
The problem is that Hollywood no longer knows the difference, thus creating demand for a product/service like this.
It's a tricky thing, art. While art is and always has been a commercial enterprise to some degree, it's also intended as a communication medium. In effect, altering the artistic work also distorts the message of the artist(s).
I'm not 100% against this on principle, but I find it a dangerous road. It's very similar to editing an interview to destroy the relationship between question and answer. Do I think that some borderline films could benefit from a "kids" edit? Sure. Do I think it should happen without the input of the originators of a work? No.
I will finally be able to watch the nonviolent, nonprofane Reservoir Dogs Kumbaya cut, all 58 seconds of it?
The directors/writers/etc don't put language, nudity and violence just for the fun of annoying special snowflakes like yourself. It's part of the characters, part of the experience, part of the story. If you remove things, it's not worth your time.
I hate extreme violence, gore and horror movies in general. So I don't watch horror movies. See how easy that was? Now do the same.
You could just as easily go the other way.
Directors/writers/etc don't subtitle their movies or overdub them. Does that mean I shouldn't watch anime that's been dubbed in English by volunteers?
Directors/writers/etc don't make fun of their movies either. Does that mean I shouldn't watch MST3K movies?
This entire issue seems like a total nothing-burger. People are willing to pay money to watch movies in a specific way, that's fine.
The thing about rights is when you dictate what *other* people can and can't do. Why do we worry about people quietly enjoying modified movies in the privacy of their home?
The movies go by real fast.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yet they don't respect creative freedom
An author is free to create a work. A subscriber ought to be free to create out the parts of a work that the subscriber doesn't want to view, including categories of parts listed by a service provider that classifies parts by category, and especially including categories that other legislation and regulation deem "indecent" or "harmful to minors" (such as 18 USC 1464, 47 USC 231, and foreign counterparts).
or intellectual property of others.
"Intellectual property" is a seductive mirage.
For the moment, let's assume that by "intellectual property" you meant copyright. What have studios done to show that their copyrights deserve more respect than the laws restricting dealing in works that are "indecent" or "harmful to minors", other than just existing?
I keep seeing VidAngel mentioned, but their promotion is rather deceptive.
Here's how it works:
1. VidAngel buys a DVD.
2. You buy the DVD off of them. You don't actually get it - it remains in their collection. But it's legally your property.
3. VidAngel will then stream you your DVD (by violating the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions) and optionally cut out the bits you want to cut.
4. VidAngel then buy the DVD back, for slightly less than you paid.
Why this workaround? Because money, of course! They are running a rental business in effect, but claiming to be only buying and selling. This allows them to make only a single one-off payment for each simutainous viewer, rather than paying the far more expensive per-play royalties, which means they can offer their service really cheap. They claim this usage is allowed by the Family Movie Act, but what they are doing goes well beyond what the FMA allows.
I do approve of anyone conning Hollywood out of money, but make no mistake about it: This is a con. It's the kind of creative legal theory that lawyers love, but judges usually smack down in court.
VidAngel combines this with some rather impressive marketing. They tend to target right-wing news sites (thus the name) to make themselves out as defenders of the family, protecting your children from all the ickyness that Hollywood is trying to force on them. They even proudly boast about being sued on their website, claiming that this is Hollywood's attempt to shut them down for obstructing the flow of sex and violence.
Any other business, people would be all over them for not respecting the wishes of all customers. But Hollywood somehow gets a free pass?
"The restaurant owner doesn't exclude blacks just for the fun of annoying special snowflakes like yourself. It's part of the character of the restaurant, part of the experience. If you force them to allow blacks, it's no longer a unique experience and not worth your time.
"I hate restaurants which exclude certain races. So I don't go there. See how easy that was? Now do the same."
If you want to produce art and give it away, you can do whatever you want with it IMHO. But the moment you start selling it, you become a business. And like all businesses, you have to comply with anti-discrimination clauses which prohibit exclusion based on race, gender, religion, etc.
How can they think this is legal? They are distributing a derivative work without any rights to do so (the edit-sheet alone is a derivative work even if the original work comes from elsewhere). We know the astronomical fines for non-commercially distributing a barely modified version of the work (i.e. a re-encoded version) so what do expect them to get for this wilful commercial distribution?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Another excuse for parrents to be nonassertive and nonconfrentational.
Love the behavior of entitlement. Right
"VidAngel's philosophy is very libertarian", say the company's founders.
Not really. The company was founded by Mormons in Provo, Utah to cater to that market. Why? Because the Mormon leadership "discourages" the church's membership from watching R-rated (and worse) movies. This has nothing to do with some grassroots market demand for cleaned-up versions of Hollywood blockbusters. It stems from the practices of a particular cult that has banned R-rated movies, but whose adherents want to watch them anyway and are looking for a loophole to assuage their consciences.
You can't claim to embrace to libertarianism when the original problem is caused by obedience to a high control group, a.k.a. a cult.
Quick! Hide all the posts you don't agree with! Ban all users with dissenting opinions!
I want to be able to watch television with all the bad dialogue, stupid plots and idiotic characters filtered out.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'd like to see them filter out the nudity and sexiness out of Cassette Girl. In the end there will only be a few seconds of video left.
Has anyone tried watching Brian de Palma's Scarface through VidAngel? Any other films you think would be fun to watch through their censorship service?
I ordered the version that filters out swearing and njiggers. It's just like watching TV in the 1960s.
The official DVD standard had a 'branching' metadata option where alternative 'cuts' of a movie could be created in realtime using one set of video data.
There is nothing to prevent a video player from combining perfectly legal non-IP infringing meta data describing a 'censorship' edit, and a movie itself- allowing the user to experience a 'censored' cut no matter how hard the studios rage. All modern media players have enough memory (for buffering) and processing power to do new edits in real-time.
The audio can be 'blanked' at the moment of objectional language. Scenes removed or even blurring boxes applied to portions of a scene for less visual damage. The method would be similar to an external subtitle file- but unlike accurate subtitles which do infringe written/spoken IP- new edit data is in no sense a 'derived' or 'directly' infringing work.
VidAngel merely needs a player that accepts the meta-data edit file, and an online resource of meta-data new edits. There is no reason DRM protection cannot still be in full play either. It is the user that will be triggering dynamic censorship of their own viewing, so studios really have to grow up and stop objecting.
I'd never watch a censored anything- but since I properly understand Human Rights, I have zero issue with the idea of people wishing to censor their own input.
People move away from TV because networks butcher and cut movies so they can show them before watershed, turn to Netflix and Amazon to finally see them fully and then hire a company that does the same butchering that the TV networks did?
If stupidity would squeak, some people would have to sleep in an oil can.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Watch everybody change their opinion...I'll type it in the body, less butthurt.
Phantom Edit? Is fixing, to the extent it could be, a terrible SW move a public service or an outrage?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
(Disclaimer: I sometimes watch R rated movies, I don't filter them. I "filter" some movies for my kids by totally disallowing them from watching them, not by use of VidAngel.)
It is fascinating to see people commenting here who any other day of the week would be pirating movies off torrents, and today are full of righteous indignation when people watch films WHICH THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO WATCH, and apply a viewing filter to it.
Also fascinating that this is supposedly a tech blog, and here we have people "hacking" movies and TV to suit themselves, and suddenly it's like "Oh noes!!! The evil TV content hackerz are doing bad things by buying something and then modifying it to suit their own tastes!!! If they don't use it exactly like I use it, then they are bad people!!!" (Am I wrong here? Nope, I'm not wrong.)
Seriously, step outside your own shoes, take a look at yourselves -- and laugh. (I'm certainly laughing at you.) Then maybe consider chilling and adopting a more libertarian view here instead of this Puritanism that wants to force a particular worldview on other people -- in this case, forcing people to consume media with strong language/violence/nudity.
These losers have been imposing their will through advertisers and whatnot for decades. One of the huge benefits of using Netflix is that they don't appear to give a flying F to these "Moral Majority" freaks.
When are we going to finally start taxing religions and make these people dry up and blow away?
If filtering is illegal, then this blog better not filter this fucking comment or I'll sue them too!
Personally I think VidAngel needs to die a quick and painful death as a company. Their self-righteous attitude of deciding what is socially acceptable is quite frankly unacceptable to me. But enough about that.
How will content streamers like Netflix and Amazon take to having a company sit on top of their services and filter content? I think the answer is "not well". This isn't a DVR situation where people can choose to skip parts of the content. It's a third party editing and filtering their content for commercial purposes.
The other side of this coin is Reader's Digest Condensed Books. Those were/are legal and are derivatives of the original works. Cliff's Notes are another one. I would be interested to know if they pay for the ability to sell modified copies or if they're different enough that they are exempt. But it's the same concept - the edit the content.