Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Studio-Defying VidAngel Launches New Video-Filtering Platform (yahoo.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the filtering-on-demand dept.

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."

26 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid People by Albert71292 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Stupid People by Trondheim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously there's a market for filtering, as VidAngel as other companies that have come before them have done quite well before being sued into oblivion. For example, my kids wanted to watch, "The Martian." I didn't want them hearing the foul language, so we watched it using VidAngel. I was satisfied, and the kids enjoyed it. How does that make me a stupid person?

    2. Re: Stupid People by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Problably the naive idea that they haven't already heard those words from their peers?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: Stupid People by guruevi · · Score: 2

      You're putting your kids in a bubble away from the rest of the "normal" world. They'll hear foul language eventually, why not guide them through while you're there? When they go to prom, will you tell them to be abstinent or do you give them a condom?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re: Stupid People by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That may be true. That doesn't mean that he has to contribute to the situation if he doesn't want to. This peculiar anti-liberty attitude seems to be inspired by a certain sort of bigotry that isn't applied in an equal fashion.

      If you're not defending people you personally despise, then you don't quite get this freedom thing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re: Stupid People by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can. Few do. Teach abstenance, but what does a responsible parent do for a fallback position? Would you rather tell the kid about condoms/birth control, or about the morning-after pill, or about adoption services? You have a duty to your child... but also the potential grandchild.

    6. Re: Stupid People by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Whose freedom are we talking about? The child's, or the author's? The freedoms of a parent end both where the freedom of the child begins and where the freedom of the author begins. Violating both can be illegal, or at least highly unethical.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: Stupid People by kqs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why not all freedoms?

      Authors are allowed to create whatever they want (or at least, whatever they can convince someone to fund.) I'm allowed to watch whatever I want.

      But authors don't have the freedom to force me to watch what THEY want. You seem to be missing that. If I want to watch the author's movie with the dirty bits cut out, that's my freedom and has nothing to do with the author, as long as their original version exists.

      Note that if this legally holds up, then I would expect similar services to pop up which add swearing and nudity to movies. Seems equally valid.

      Note that I think that trying to protect children from language and sex is pointless and IMO more harmful than showing it to them and discussing the context with them. But people have the right to be stupid, and kids mostly turn out okay in the end.

    8. Re: Stupid People by kqs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The technical term for parents who teach abstinence is "grandparents". This is demonstrable. Look at the teenage pregnancy stats for various US states. Seriously, look it up. In general, the more conservative, the more pregnancies. It's not that liberal states have less teenage sex, they just have more available birth control and more kids who know how important it is.

      The average time between puberty and sexual activity hasn't changed all that much throughout history. It used to be that kids had later puberty and early weddings; now it is very early puberty and late weddings.

    9. Re:Stupid People by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was about to click submit on pretty much the same comment, but then I realized that I had done plenty of on-the-fly censorship when reading to my kids at bedtime. Dr. Doolittle for example is a great book but it has some racist baggage that did not need to be discussed just at that moment.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    10. Re: Stupid People by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2

      It's only accepted if the author carves that out contractually. If a studio licenses your book and wants to kill off your protagonist in their movie version of it a third of the way in, he's theirs to slay unless there is language in your agreement forbidding it. Editing movies for time, or using time-compression technology, to shorten them to fit into specific broadcast slots is a tradition as old as TV, as is removing the naughty bits to make a film show-able on an airline. Directors have always groused about their "Art" being "butchered" for TV and airplane, and that's cute and all, but they take the paycheck nonetheless. This is another revenue stream for the studios, another "window," and they will cater to it. And the "auteurs" will make noise, because it makes them feel better about caving in to the Family Values crowd, but cave in they will. Everybody wants to be paid.

    11. Re: Stupid People by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Dude, they are using the words, they just don't know what they mean yet.

      Spy on them a little.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re: Stupid People by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you use an ad blocker?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re: Stupid People by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      The adds are an integral part of the website as authored by their creators, just as much as any given scene. Whether it's product placement, or a sex scene ... it's as intended by the author.

      VidAngel don't modify the scenes, they just don't deliver them.

      You're bending over backwards and sticking your head up your ass simply because white Christians want this service. You are sacrificing your ability for rational thought for a hatred programmed into by propaganda.

    14. Re: Stupid People by pruss · · Score: 2

      If I buy a book, I don't have to read it all. I can skim to my heart's content without violating the author's rights. If I buy a DVD, I can mute and fast forward to my heart's content. Why shouldn't it be OK to automate this process? It's ok for me to have a list of times to skip and manually skip them. Why would it not be ok to automate the process, say by having servos push the buttons on the remotes and a camera looking at the time display on my DVD player? And if that's ok, why not something less crude?

    15. Re: Stupid People by godefroi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, Slashdot, never change. I should be able to take apart my hardware and change it up in any way I see fit. I should be able to take apart my software and change it up in any way I see fit. I should be able to do whatever I want with my media, like time shift it, or format shift it, except skipping over the swear words. I shouldn't be able to do that.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
  2. Re:Filter in by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    Isn't mutual respect a necessary component of a working libertarian system?

    The market will either reward or punish their actions based on what people really think of its value. It's as close to the "true democracy" that most people who want it are ever going to get.

    I know, some people want "true democracy" so they can vote away the property of others, but most people just want to have a sense of input to outcomes (which most voters don't actually have now).

    Aside from that, I don't see how this business model works with end-to-end authentication. Netflix stopped working on rooted phones, so it's not an issue for me any more (there's my market input to Netflix's decision).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. Freedom? Choice? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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 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
    1. Re:Freedom? Choice? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Who exactly are you to decide what is or is not worth someone else's time for the purposes of entertainment?

      Why do people like you get so personally offended by the way that somebody else wants to view a movie, to the point that you want to dictate the way they watch it in their own home?

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  4. Is this good or bad? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We use ad blockers on the internet. Isn't this the same thing?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. Nothingburger? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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 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?

  6. Re:Alternative reality by Trondheim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't the very act of watching a movie suspending yourself from reality?

  7. Why the double standard? by Solandri · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Re:Art isn't intended to be piecemeal by jdastrup · · Score: 2

    No, they're making money by altering someone else's creative work without permission. Do you get paid by other people to operate your remote and modify movies for them? No? Ah.

    No, they are not altering. Do you ever skip commercials? If so, you are deciding that you are not interested in 100% of what the network is showing you. To compare it to art, VidAngel customers are simply choosing to view one part of the "museum" and avoid another part. Nobody should be forced to walk the entire Louvre if they don't want to. Or, you don't have to walk a full 360' around the Statue of David - nothing is wrong with just looking at the front, or the back, or whatever part you are interested in.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Wow, it's fun to watch people squirm by sideslash · · Score: 2

    (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.