Slashdot Mirror
Selling Alterable Versions of Star Wars Is Still Infringement, Says Court (arstechnica.com)
A federal court ruled that video-on-demand streaming service, VidAngel, which enables the filtering of objectionable content to make it family friendly, is breaking U.S. copyright law. Ars Technica reports: VidAngel buys movie discs and decrypts and rips them. It then streams versions that allow customers to filter out nudity, profanity, and violence. In doing so, it breached the performance rights of Disney, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Brothers, the court ruled. VidAngel purchased a disc for every stream it sold, some 2,500 titles in all. "Star Wars is still Star Wars, even without Princess Leia's bikini scene," the opinion said. Just because objectionable content is removed, that doesn't necessarily transform the content enough to allow this type of behavior under a fair use analysis, the court wrote Thursday. VidAngel also unsuccessfully argued that it was protected under the Family Movie Act (FMA) of 2005. That legislation allows the cracking of encryption to remove objectionable content so long as no fixed copy of the altered version is created. The court didn't agree, however, because VidAngel didn't have the permission in the first place to stream the content.
The court didn't agree, however, because VidAngel didn't have the permission in the first place to stream the content.
Which basically means that's what the court ruled on, and videos being altered in this fashion before stream never even came up.
Nothing to see here. No precedent was set regarding the actual act of alterations.
1) Remove all scenes of Jar Jar from Episode 1-3
2) Sell new de-Jarred version
3) Profit!!!
The service actually sells the DVD to the customer for $20. After the customer is done with the DVD, they sell the DVD back to VidAngel for $19. So, in fact, the DVD is the customers at the time that the customer is using VidAngel's service to stream the customer's DVD to the customer's PC.
Not germane to the current cast, but I should add, VidAngel's current incantation uses streaming services, and instead of a the whole buy/sell DVD method, there is a flat monthly fee of $7 for access to the service, and a customer can watch as much content as they have access to.
It works like this: Customer signs into VidAngel account. Customer then signs into streaming service via VidAngel's website (Amazon, NetFlix, and HBO steaming services are currently supported). Customer then streams any show they would otherwise have access to stream from Amazon (including ones they rent/buy, or have "free" with their Prime account), NetFlix or HBO, but with the filters that they have selected within VidAngel.
There is no reason this couldn't work with other streaming products a customer has access to via VUDU, Hulu, etc. The product is in fact licensed to stream to the customer, and the customer is using a player (VidAngel) to skip/mute the objectionable parts.
Sounds like they're pinning the validity of their service on the first sale doctrine, which says that once a content creator sells a license to a copyrighted work, the buyer can choose to then re-sell it to someone else essentially transferring their license to the new owner.
The only question then will be if a DVD (or I assume Blu-ray) license also confers streaming rights. I hope they win. If you already paid for the license to a copyrighted work, it shouldn't matter to the content creator how you get it. The distinction between getting the bits that make up the movie via a physical medium like a DVD or by streaming is completely artificial. More importantly, if they win it should clear the way for you to stream movies from (say) Amazon Video if you've already bought them from (say) Google Play, as well as stream the movie from any service if you've already bought the Blu-ray (HD) or DVD (SD).
Which IMHO makes a lot more sense than a system where your TV getting the bits via reading an optical disc is somehow different than it getting the bits over the Internet. I've been using a variant of that - buying movies on Blu-ray (I don't own a Blu-ray player), then downloading it from a pirate site to add to my Plex server's library. The end result is the same, it just saves me the work of ripping the Blu-ray myself.
They are playing a bit of a semantic game, but the "streaming" aspect should be a legal red herring, in this case.
The "you own the DVD" portion of their service basically renders the service a complicated DVD player with a really long connection to your monitor.
If you accept the model they have constructed - their customers buy the DVD and then the company buys it back - then they have a pretty good argument that they are not violating copyright.
But it is clear that because they are in fact not selling anything, but renting a viewing of the movie and using "we own the DVD" as a license to stream it, this is not going to fly.
It is a shame that the content providers can't reach some sort of agreement with this kind of service, because there are lots of movies that would be great to watch with the family, but have one or two brief moments that are not appropriate for the kids. Many movies have just have an adult joke or a few curse words sprinkled about and are otherwise fine for little kids. But many parents don't want their kids picking up that kind of language. Or maybe they don't want to have to explain some sex-joke to a 6 year old. There clearly is a demand for this sort of service. I hope the copyright holders can get it together and allow it to happen.
Well, it certainly would make enforcement of copyright impossible. All you'd have to do whenever you were accused is to go out and buy a DVD/BluRay and say "look, here's my legal copy". More importantly, it would create a completely unworkable legal concept of "sameness". Consider things like the Star Wars special edition DVDs, is the digital clean-up, new CGI and alternate shooting scene is that the same movie? What about a director's cut, additional dubs and subtitles, a HDR remaster? Is a remix of a song the same song? Is a Linux port of a Windows game the same game? Is the GOTY version the same as the vanilla version? Is the audio book and eBook the same as the paper book? What would a narrator get paid, if people feel they own the book already? How about a translation, does that have any value or are all translations included too? On the other hand, if you say only exactly the same it's easy to make every version have a new cover.
Owning a copy clearly doesn't give you the right to stream it to anyone else, copyright law is pretty clear on that point. The question is whether you can circumvent that through sale and buyback agreements so that temporarily you're the owner and VidAngel is only providing a service to stream your copy to your screen. Basically it's Netflix's old DVD model made all digital where the discs never ship they just make a really, really long virtual HDMI cable over the Internet. Not sure why that would be illegal, streaming a movie you own from your Dropbox account should be legal even though they don't have a distribution license. But I haven't read the legal reasoning...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You are incorrect. To understand this better one needs to actually have read the Family Viewing Act. It contains some rather surprising, and refreshing, exceptions to copyright laws and content delivery restrictions. What Vid Angel and others are doing seems to be highly protected under this law.
The strategy the content companies have taken is the "bring me a rock" strategy where every company before and after vid angel that tries to sell bowlderized films, the company says yes that's all legal if you do it correctly but you are doing it wrong. They then fail to spell out what to them would be doing it right. Just everybody is doing it wrong.
I really enjoyed vid angel's original model because it made is affordable to strip out content of films that I was uncomfortable showing kids in the house (not just my kids). Their later model was much less convenient so I didn't use it.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Altering the performance is specifically legal. Some legislators wanted it, so got it in exchange for tougher copyright laws elsewhere.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures - Family Movie Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction 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 (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.