Um no. In that case is there a difference between a DVD marked for rental and a DVD marked for sale when there was no technical difference between the two. In this case, digital streaming rights were never secured by VidAngel. They asserted that buying a DVD covers them. It does not.
You seem to ignore the term "authorized copy". VidAngel got their copies from ripping DVDs. That is not an authorized copy for distribution or redistribution. That is an authorized copy for archival purposes. From the arguments in June:
Hurwitz seemed skeptical. "The central issue for me is... you're not transmitting from the one that you actually bought from them," he said. "You're transmitting from a copy that you've ripped.... Why is that 'from an authorized copy' language not fatal to your claim?"
Also you seemed to ignore "no fixed copy of the altered version". If they ripped it and then made changes it to, VidAngel violated both (1) and (2)
Good to know about this app. I used to have media PCs for every TV. It's hard for me to justify the cost/effort anymore with streaming boxes like AppleTV, Roku
Do you really think a studio would sign off on an uncontroversial edit (no naughty bits, no violence or bad language) that butchers the plot line of their movie?
If they want to broadcast it on TV it is required that they make these changes. That is not up for discussion. So either they can control the edit or grant something the rights to someone else. Which leads me to my question: Do you think that a studio would grant a network (or anyone) the right to make any kind of edit they wanted thus forgoing all creative control.
Hurwitz seemed skeptical. "The central issue for me is... you're not transmitting from the one that you actually bought from them," he said. "You're transmitting from a copy that you've ripped.... Why is that 'from an authorized copy' language not fatal to your claim?"
I suspect that the networks do in fact do exactly this. Because I've seen a few movies made and then broadcast with significant differences in the amount of censoring done. Depending on which network they are shown on. The Ten Commandments immediately comes to mind. Specifically, that see-through gown that Anne Baxter wears. Some blur it out. Others don't.
But that doesn't mean the networks have bought a right to do the editing. It means there are multiple versions of edits. If you were a copyright owner which would make more sense: A TV network pays for right to broadcast a movie but being TV there are different edits to be made. Do you 1) grant the TV network the right to cut the movie themselves or 2) create an edit for them?
NBC doesn't buy the rights to release discs. If they did, they could release nipples/no nipples versions.
They certainly buy a right to broadbast. Other than it not getting past network censors would NBC do this. HBO on the other hand shows the movie entirely.
Another anecdote: When a local network aired Ronin, they cut out the part where Michael Lonsdale tells the story of the 47 Ronin. Without that (and if you don't know the actual background) the plot of the movie is unintelligible. I doubt the studio signed off on that change. The network just figured that this would be a good place for an ad. So yes; networks screw with content once they buy the rights.
Again nothing says the networks have a right to edit. They are multiple versions of edits. Certainly a network can work with a studio about particular edits like for time or content and format.
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.
I've read the act. Please cite which section allows VidAngel to do this.
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.
Except that you just said that the Family Viewing Act protects them. Have you read it because it clearly says that VidAngel should not do what they did.
Well it came from the same people that held a funeral for the iPhone because they believed their Windows Phone 7 was going to take the market and destroy Apple. You know that product line that doesn't exist anymore.
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.
I find it unlikely that the version being streamed is the MPEG1 version found on a DVD which isn't a good format to stream and has a max resolution of 720 x 576 (480p in the US)
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.
And if I don't accept that what they are doing isn't a clear case of copyright infringement? Their argument is circular. You first have to accept it isn't copyright infringement to start for them to win the argument that it isn't copyright infringement.
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.
Renting also requires a license which they don't have.
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.
I suppose VidAngel could actually step up and buy the rights to cut and re-release StarWars without the 'naughty bits'. Just like the TV networks do with movies like Original Sin [imdb.com] or Don't Look Now [imdb.com
I don't think that is how it works. The TV networks do not "buy the rights to cut and re-release" a movie for the most part. For TV showing, a version is created but the TV networks don't own the rights to it. The version most likely made for TV by the copyright owner. That's why you don't see NBC selling their version on Bluray or DVD.
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.
That doesn't matter. VidAngel has no rights to distribute the movie themselves. That's like saying I have no food license but my friend and neighbor has one so I can sell food out of my restaurant which has no business affiliation with my neighbor.
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.
All you are saying is that VidAngel has committed copyright infringement hundreds to thousands of times. Buying 1 copy doesn't grant you the right to sell a stream of that movie.;
The difference is that ClearPlay doesn't alter the movie. What they sell is an ability for the user to skip/mute sections through an add-on. The add-on decides what parts to skip or mute based on the user choices.
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 first sale doctrine relies on work not to be modified. For example I can sell all of my old CDs without any issue. I can't decide to put own new remixes of the songs I own AND then sell the remixes.
The only question then will be if a DVD (or I assume Blu-ray) license also confers streaming rights.
As a business, the answer is unequivocally no. In terms of Fair Use, I can rip movies and put it on my media server and stream to any one of my TVs in my house. I can't decide to charge people for that service outside my home as a business unless I secure the necessary rights. For example Netflix can't stream a movie they want even though they might provide the DVD/Bluray as part of their mailing business. Streaming rights are separate.
. If you already paid for the license to a copyrighted work, it shouldn't matter to the content creator how you get it.
You paid the license for a particular format and version. You didn't get the rights to every version and of the work. For example, if you bought a VHS of a movie doesn't mean you automatically get the DVD version when it comes out. For some DVD/Blurays, you are getting a digital copy bundled with it because the particular version comes with a digital copy. But that is not always the case.
The distinction between getting the bits that make up the movie via a physical medium like a DVD or by streaming is completely artificial.
Describe "artificial". A DVD version is MPEG video with PCM, DTS, MPEG-1 Audio Layer II (MP2), or Dolby Digital (AC-3) for audio protected with a CSS encryption at a max resolution of 720 Ã-- 576. A streaming version of the same movie is most likely H.264 video with PCM, AC-3 or Dolby Digital Plus protected by a encryption tied to the streaming service with 720p, 1080p and some 4K resolution. Other than the fact that many technical aspects are different would I call the difference "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).
No you would not. The problem that you don't understand is that Amazon Video has no interest in making their format compatible with Google Play and vice versa. Also, unless the particular version of the Blu-ray you bought came with a digital copy, you're asking either service to provide you with a free stream that you didn't pay for directly or indirectly to them?
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.
If you don't want the work of ripping a Bluray yourself, you can pay the copyright owner for a digital version. What you want is something free that you didn't pay for.
For a start, if they keep only the one copy as "cloud backup" for the owner, it is allowed to.
Your assertion fails because VidAngel isn't using this cloud copy as a backup. If they are streaming it, it fails the logic test that it is a "backup" for archival purposes.
Since compressing the bits makes the extra copies disappear, just symlinks is fine. If I were writing the system, I would have symlinks for each customer pointing to the DVD they bought.
That makes no sense legally nor technically. At this point it seems like you are looking to justify copyright infringement in any way possible.
Second, that copy is not streamed,another copy, temporary, therefore not a copy for the purposes of copyright, is sent. Again, this is allowed
So you are asserting that VidAngel is not making a copy but multiple copies. That alone is copyright infringement. Second, please cite any case law where VidAngel is allowed to make multiple copies (without permission) of a DVD for the purposes you describe.
And by giving edited "patch notes" to the player to skip bits, it's no different than chapters in "ordinary DVDs", and nobody claims that the chapter points in the direct access video disk is the infringement of the movie so accessed. Again, allowed.
Please cite your case law where modifying a copyrighted work and selling or renting it is allowed.
Your post seems like you are completely confused about copyright. In your own personal collection, you can do all that you describe: You cannot do all the above as a business and sell/rent modified copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright owner. The term again is "AS A BUSINESS"
Essentially the court implies that censorship alone is a breach of copyright.
No the court is saying selling any alteration without the permission of the copyright owner is a breach of copyright. While VidAngel might want the court to rule on whether their alterations are justified or moral, the court doesn't have to decide that.
Unfortunately none of that gets around the fact that VidAngel had no permission to stream. It also ignores the fact that a DVD is not legally or technically a stream. It is a physical object. So your assertion that VidAngel is "using VidAngel's service to stream the customer's DVD" fails both from a legal standpoint and a technical standpoint. It's like saying I am streaming my house if I'm renting it.
Except VidAngel wasn't selling an original DVD or VHS tape. They were altering a version then selling their version. You need the copyright owner's permission to do that.
Personally I've waited because my estimation was that if I bought 4K equipment when it first came out, I'd likely have to replace it all anyways by the time 4K content was widely available. I mean not all the TV stations in my area are 1080p yet. Some are still 720p.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with customer service, but people have been know to use CD trays as cup holders, shove two floppies into a drive, etc. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit from someone claiming they didn't know they needed a 4K TV to watch 4K content with an AppleTV. Also there are some people looking to make quick money. Like the two guys who sued Apple over the original iPhone not having a user-replaceable battery.
One of Jobs' better attributes was having a vision and getting others to focus on that vision. Reportedly one of the first things he did after getting back to Apple was draw a 4 box grid. Personal and professional on one axis. Mobile and desktop on the other. Apple would reduce the large number of computer models to just 4. It helped Apple refocus on the basics. Today, Apple's products are larger grid but they still don't make a large number of models.
Compete in what way? Can it save and replay terabytes of music and videos? No, that is not the purpose. But it can stream Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc. at a fraction of the power requirements and price. Your media PC probably cost way more that but can do more.
But that's too practical of you getting something only when you can use it. Of course many here on slashdot would probably chastise you that you didn't have a VR set either even though there's not a whole lot you can do with one of them.
My next TV will probably be 4K only in that some 4K TVs are cheaper than 1080p versions. Just never plug a "smart" TV into the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Um no. In that case is there a difference between a DVD marked for rental and a DVD marked for sale when there was no technical difference between the two. In this case, digital streaming rights were never secured by VidAngel. They asserted that buying a DVD covers them. It does not.
Hurwitz seemed skeptical. "The central issue for me is ... you're not transmitting from the one that you actually bought from them," he said. "You're transmitting from a copy that you've ripped. ... Why is that 'from an authorized copy' language not fatal to your claim?"
Also you seemed to ignore "no fixed copy of the altered version". If they ripped it and then made changes it to, VidAngel violated both (1) and (2)
Good to know about this app. I used to have media PCs for every TV. It's hard for me to justify the cost/effort anymore with streaming boxes like AppleTV, Roku
Do you really think a studio would sign off on an uncontroversial edit (no naughty bits, no violence or bad language) that butchers the plot line of their movie?
If they want to broadcast it on TV it is required that they make these changes. That is not up for discussion. So either they can control the edit or grant something the rights to someone else. Which leads me to my question: Do you think that a studio would grant a network (or anyone) the right to make any kind of edit they wanted thus forgoing all creative control.
Hurwitz seemed skeptical. "The central issue for me is ... you're not transmitting from the one that you actually bought from them," he said. "You're transmitting from a copy that you've ripped. ... Why is that 'from an authorized copy' language not fatal to your claim?"
I suspect that the networks do in fact do exactly this. Because I've seen a few movies made and then broadcast with significant differences in the amount of censoring done. Depending on which network they are shown on. The Ten Commandments immediately comes to mind. Specifically, that see-through gown that Anne Baxter wears. Some blur it out. Others don't.
But that doesn't mean the networks have bought a right to do the editing. It means there are multiple versions of edits. If you were a copyright owner which would make more sense: A TV network pays for right to broadcast a movie but being TV there are different edits to be made. Do you 1) grant the TV network the right to cut the movie themselves or 2) create an edit for them?
NBC doesn't buy the rights to release discs. If they did, they could release nipples/no nipples versions.
They certainly buy a right to broadbast. Other than it not getting past network censors would NBC do this. HBO on the other hand shows the movie entirely.
Another anecdote: When a local network aired Ronin, they cut out the part where Michael Lonsdale tells the story of the 47 Ronin. Without that (and if you don't know the actual background) the plot of the movie is unintelligible. I doubt the studio signed off on that change. The network just figured that this would be a good place for an ad. So yes; networks screw with content once they buy the rights.
Again nothing says the networks have a right to edit. They are multiple versions of edits. Certainly a network can work with a studio about particular edits like for time or content and format.
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.
I've read the act. Please cite which section allows VidAngel to do this.
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.
Except that you just said that the Family Viewing Act protects them. Have you read it because it clearly says that VidAngel should not do what they did.
Well it came from the same people that held a funeral for the iPhone because they believed their Windows Phone 7 was going to take the market and destroy Apple. You know that product line that doesn't exist anymore.
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.
I find it unlikely that the version being streamed is the MPEG1 version found on a DVD which isn't a good format to stream and has a max resolution of 720 x 576 (480p in the US)
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.
And if I don't accept that what they are doing isn't a clear case of copyright infringement? Their argument is circular. You first have to accept it isn't copyright infringement to start for them to win the argument that it isn't copyright infringement.
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.
Renting also requires a license which they don't have.
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.
They are agreements. It is called TV versions.
I suppose VidAngel could actually step up and buy the rights to cut and re-release StarWars without the 'naughty bits'. Just like the TV networks do with movies like Original Sin [imdb.com] or Don't Look Now [imdb.com
I don't think that is how it works. The TV networks do not "buy the rights to cut and re-release" a movie for the most part. For TV showing, a version is created but the TV networks don't own the rights to it. The version most likely made for TV by the copyright owner. That's why you don't see NBC selling their version on Bluray or DVD.
No they don't. They don't stream. Their service works on top of Google Play.
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.
That doesn't matter. VidAngel has no rights to distribute the movie themselves. That's like saying I have no food license but my friend and neighbor has one so I can sell food out of my restaurant which has no business affiliation with my neighbor.
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.
Other than the copyright infringement?
All you are saying is that VidAngel has committed copyright infringement hundreds to thousands of times. Buying 1 copy doesn't grant you the right to sell a stream of that movie.;
The difference is that ClearPlay doesn't alter the movie. What they sell is an ability for the user to skip/mute sections through an add-on. The add-on decides what parts to skip or mute based on the user choices.
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 first sale doctrine relies on work not to be modified. For example I can sell all of my old CDs without any issue. I can't decide to put own new remixes of the songs I own AND then sell the remixes.
The only question then will be if a DVD (or I assume Blu-ray) license also confers streaming rights.
As a business, the answer is unequivocally no. In terms of Fair Use, I can rip movies and put it on my media server and stream to any one of my TVs in my house. I can't decide to charge people for that service outside my home as a business unless I secure the necessary rights. For example Netflix can't stream a movie they want even though they might provide the DVD/Bluray as part of their mailing business. Streaming rights are separate.
. If you already paid for the license to a copyrighted work, it shouldn't matter to the content creator how you get it.
You paid the license for a particular format and version. You didn't get the rights to every version and of the work. For example, if you bought a VHS of a movie doesn't mean you automatically get the DVD version when it comes out. For some DVD/Blurays, you are getting a digital copy bundled with it because the particular version comes with a digital copy. But that is not always the case.
The distinction between getting the bits that make up the movie via a physical medium like a DVD or by streaming is completely artificial.
Describe "artificial". A DVD version is MPEG video with PCM, DTS, MPEG-1 Audio Layer II (MP2), or Dolby Digital (AC-3) for audio protected with a CSS encryption at a max resolution of 720 Ã-- 576. A streaming version of the same movie is most likely H.264 video with PCM, AC-3 or Dolby Digital Plus protected by a encryption tied to the streaming service with 720p, 1080p and some 4K resolution. Other than the fact that many technical aspects are different would I call the difference "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).
No you would not. The problem that you don't understand is that Amazon Video has no interest in making their format compatible with Google Play and vice versa. Also, unless the particular version of the Blu-ray you bought came with a digital copy, you're asking either service to provide you with a free stream that you didn't pay for directly or indirectly to them?
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.
If you don't want the work of ripping a Bluray yourself, you can pay the copyright owner for a digital version. What you want is something free that you didn't pay for.
For a start, if they keep only the one copy as "cloud backup" for the owner, it is allowed to.
Your assertion fails because VidAngel isn't using this cloud copy as a backup. If they are streaming it, it fails the logic test that it is a "backup" for archival purposes.
Since compressing the bits makes the extra copies disappear, just symlinks is fine. If I were writing the system, I would have symlinks for each customer pointing to the DVD they bought.
That makes no sense legally nor technically. At this point it seems like you are looking to justify copyright infringement in any way possible.
Second, that copy is not streamed,another copy, temporary, therefore not a copy for the purposes of copyright, is sent. Again, this is allowed
So you are asserting that VidAngel is not making a copy but multiple copies. That alone is copyright infringement. Second, please cite any case law where VidAngel is allowed to make multiple copies (without permission) of a DVD for the purposes you describe.
And by giving edited "patch notes" to the player to skip bits, it's no different than chapters in "ordinary DVDs", and nobody claims that the chapter points in the direct access video disk is the infringement of the movie so accessed. Again, allowed.
Please cite your case law where modifying a copyrighted work and selling or renting it is allowed.
Your post seems like you are completely confused about copyright. In your own personal collection, you can do all that you describe: You cannot do all the above as a business and sell/rent modified copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright owner. The term again is "AS A BUSINESS"
Essentially the court implies that censorship alone is a breach of copyright.
No the court is saying selling any alteration without the permission of the copyright owner is a breach of copyright. While VidAngel might want the court to rule on whether their alterations are justified or moral, the court doesn't have to decide that.
Unfortunately none of that gets around the fact that VidAngel had no permission to stream. It also ignores the fact that a DVD is not legally or technically a stream. It is a physical object. So your assertion that VidAngel is "using VidAngel's service to stream the customer's DVD" fails both from a legal standpoint and a technical standpoint. It's like saying I am streaming my house if I'm renting it.
Except VidAngel wasn't selling an original DVD or VHS tape. They were altering a version then selling their version. You need the copyright owner's permission to do that.
Personally I've waited because my estimation was that if I bought 4K equipment when it first came out, I'd likely have to replace it all anyways by the time 4K content was widely available. I mean not all the TV stations in my area are 1080p yet. Some are still 720p.
I don't know if you've ever dealt with customer service, but people have been know to use CD trays as cup holders, shove two floppies into a drive, etc. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit from someone claiming they didn't know they needed a 4K TV to watch 4K content with an AppleTV. Also there are some people looking to make quick money. Like the two guys who sued Apple over the original iPhone not having a user-replaceable battery.
One of Jobs' better attributes was having a vision and getting others to focus on that vision. Reportedly one of the first things he did after getting back to Apple was draw a 4 box grid. Personal and professional on one axis. Mobile and desktop on the other. Apple would reduce the large number of computer models to just 4. It helped Apple refocus on the basics. Today, Apple's products are larger grid but they still don't make a large number of models.
Compete in what way? Can it save and replay terabytes of music and videos? No, that is not the purpose. But it can stream Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc. at a fraction of the power requirements and price. Your media PC probably cost way more that but can do more.
But that's too practical of you getting something only when you can use it. Of course many here on slashdot would probably chastise you that you didn't have a VR set either even though there's not a whole lot you can do with one of them. My next TV will probably be 4K only in that some 4K TVs are cheaper than 1080p versions. Just never plug a "smart" TV into the internet.
[dadjoke] Let me google that for you [/dadjoke]