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."

13 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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. Re: Stupid People by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you use an ad blocker?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. 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. 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?
  3. 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?

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion