Studio-Defying VidAngel Launches New Video-Filtering Platform (yahoo.com) 201
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."
Stupid People (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.
Re:Stupid People (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Stupid People (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Stupid People (Score:5, 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.
Re: Stupid People (Score:3)
Re: Stupid People (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only accepted if the author carves that out contractually.
Not in my country, it isn't.
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.
Even if this were legal, how does it cover third parties? This "VidAngel" is a studio contracting the author?
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
If they do consent to it, that's their decision. I never questioned the possibility of an author consenting to modifications. Regardless, that just confirms the existence of author's rights.
Re: Stupid People (Score:2)
Re: Stupid People (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you use an ad blocker?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the end result the same?
Re: (Score:2)
You are sacrificing your ability for rational thought for a hatred programmed into by propaganda.
You're talking to those Christians now, right? It describes them neatly.
Re: (Score:2)
But VidAngel no longer redistributes anything, that's the whole point of using the existing streams instead of streaming anything from their own servers. It's a bunch of software with data which filters content retrieved by users themselves, just like add blocker software.
So ready to fold? Go full retard, be consistent and also condemn add blocker software? Or just choose insanity and pretend there is some fundamental difference which doesn't exist?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stupid People (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually an accepted authors' freedom to not have their works adulterated by third parties. It indeed doesn't infringe on your freedom not to watch the work with your children.
Tell this to every author of a movie that has been shown on TV. They get edited in many ways just to show them on broadcast TV.
Re: (Score:2)
They might be united on some things like diversity, but they aren't completely united. They aren't all true believer progressives, there's a fair few AIPAC members in Hollywood as well. Who won't mind pushing a bit of glorification of the (diverse) US military. Gotta keep people enthusiastic about going to war in the Middle East after all.
Re: Stupid People (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the dominant powers in the US used to be interested in sharing power with the little people.
Less and less.
Re: (Score:2)
Swear words are useful (for emphasis and getting attention) when used rarely. They're detrimental to your social standing in many groups when over-used. It's perfectly reasonable to wish to reduce your kids' exposure to them in order to send your kids the message that those are not words to use casually every day. The idea is not to prevent them from knowing what the words are, or to prevent them from screaming a 4 letter word when an anvil falls on their foot.
Re: Stupid People (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, they are using the words, they just don't know what they mean yet.
Spy on them a little.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalence. How exactly is "foul" language carcinogenic?
Re: (Score:2)
How is it NOT? Repeated exposure to foul language increases likelihood of your using it. If you only hear cursing once in a while you are far less likely to use it than if you find it normally used all around you.
Come on, use even an ounce of common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: profanity comes from a different neurological circuit than normal language - it's a linguistic circuit we share with monkeys. Monkeys use it for vocalizations that warn of predators, and perhaps other dangers. So, profanity uses the brain's "yikes, a predator has appeared" circuit.
I'm very OK with kids not developing that circuit before they're teens (at which point not only is it inevitable, they need it). There's enough to cope with when you're still trying to make sense of the world in basic
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that's my point, isn't it. It's not about the particular words, it's about activating a neurolinguistic circuit, one predating man as a species, used to alert the group to predators, and the instinctual negative reaction to those words - whatever sound you use, it means "oh shit!".
Controlling your kids thought when they're young is the job of parents. If you're not doing that, you're not parenting. Teenagers are different, of course, but by then you've had your chance to set their trajectory.
Re: (Score:2)
Please refer me to the reams of documentation there must therefore be that prove hundreds of thousands yearly are actually killed by harsh language. ;)
Re: Stupid People (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
They are providing them with a living example of a nicer world, so when they do join the normal world they will realise that's not all the world can be.
If you have to hand your kid a condom so he'd use it when necessary you've failed as a parent. Giving advice to remain abstinent and having provided enough knowledge of the world and the independence to put that knowledge into practice (ie. buy a condom) are not mutually exclusive.
Re: Stupid People (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I pulled a few links together, but that's always tricky for people on the Internet... what is your definition of "non-biased"? I encourage you to go search around yourself if you have doubts... there's a whole lot of data, from a whole lot of countries, and it is all pretty consistent.
CDC numbers for 2015 are here [cdc.gov]. 41% had full heterosexual intercourse. Rates of oral sex and hand jobs are higher. Numbers
Re: (Score:2)
Google it - depending on how you calculate it's between 50 and 75%. How well do you trust your kids.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
You're deluded if you think all your kids are truly abstinent.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Sex is for sustaining life too... how did you make kids?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"How does that make me a stupid person?"
You're a stupid person for assigning such power and ability to something like mere fucking words, you goddamned moron.
You're also a fucking tool for performing copyright infringement, but that's another story altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a participant in the whole chain of copyright infringement. The streaming company most likely does not have license to modify the movie in such a manner. If you watch it, specifically ordering it with stripped content, you've contributed to the overall act if they provide and do not have license to do so.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, as any judge would say.
Re: (Score:2)
"As is often the case, you have a preconceived bias for the studios"
You must not read, because I HATE the studios, thus my bias is against them, not for them.
Back to school for you.
Phantom Edit? (Score:2)
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?
Just like Blockbuster (Score:1)
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.
Re: Just like Blockbuster (Score:2)
Re:Stupid People (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom? Choice? (Score:4, 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.
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.
Nothingburger? (Score:4, 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.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they don't have the right to do that, I said it destroyed the experience and so makes the whole thing pointless.
And while I agree with you on the anime subtitles, I disagree on the dubbed versions. People doing dubbing usually lose something in the voice, intonations, tone of the voice, etc. It's extremely rare to have a voice sound exactly the same, so it changes your perception of the characters. And IMHO that makes it a bad thing. But to each his own.
Why the double standard? (Score:3)
"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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they let me filter out the clothed scenes, I'm good with it. Bonus points for being gender specific.
Re:Freedom? Choice? (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Usually the term "snowflake" is used by conservatives, so I'm kind of confused. They love censoring that shit, not just for the people who want it, but for everyone. And you want to dictate how people watch entertainment in their own home. That sure sounds conservative to me.
I think you need to re-check the party line and get back in it. You're definitely supposed to be for censorship, especially nudity.
Remember the towering moral outrage over Janet Jackson's boob? It gave conservatives everywhere a ca
Re: (Score:2)
The directors/writers/etc don't put language, nudity and violence just for the fun of annoying special snowflakes like yourself.
Somtimes they do. Directors may insert something into the movie just to get a particular rating. This was most egregious back in the '80s, when a PG rating meant lower movie sales than "R". So they often inserted foul language just to get the coveted "R" rating. That is part of why PG-13 was added.
Is this good or bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
We use ad blockers on the internet. Isn't this the same thing?
Re: Is this good or bad? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking the ad is not the same thing as altering the ad; people who create things have a right to expect that somebody else can't alter it and tell people they're seeing what you intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Using adblockers in your browser is like skipping the part where Bambi's mom dies by pushing fast forward on the remote.
If you want a comparable scenario, you'd have to pay some service to act as your proxy to do the filtering for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's like fucking your wife, if you want your offspring to be yours, you have to do it yourself, too.
Alternative reality (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Alternative reality (Score:2)
Art isn't intended to be piecemeal (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Then what's the appropriate market-based way to ensure that all "originators of a work" offer "input" on their "borderline films" to producers of edited versions?
Re: (Score:2)
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 don't think this is a problem in this context. End users *know* they are not watching the 'artist intended' version of the film, and the fact that they are watching a sanitized, incomplete version does not preclude them from later viewing the unaltered version, or prevent anyone else from doing so. If I purchased a painting and cut off half of it to then hang the first half in a frame, am I distorting the message of the artist? Yes. Is that my right? Well, I paid for the painting. The painting analogy fal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wow. So content creators should decide what you watch, and not you. That has got to be the most insane thing I've ever heard. I suppose if you have never pressed FFW or REW for any reason whatsoever, then you're not a hypocrite. We get it, you disagree with the reason VidAngel's customers are fast forwarding, rewinding and muting, but to say that their reason is wrong? Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
No... You should absolutely decide what content you consume. Nor did I call it "wrong". I'm trying to determine if you misread my intention, or if you're just trolling. What I'm saying is, the original piece is designed to convey a message. A third party should not have the right to alter that piece for consumers without the involvement of the original artist or owner of the work. You have EVERY right to skip what you wish. Note, I'm not saying third party commentary is in any way wrong (it can actually be
Re: (Score:2)
All Vid Angel is doing is acting as a fancy remote to fast-forward or mute for you
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: Art isn't intended to be piecemeal (Score:2)
Isn't that the whole question? Are we allowed to look from a different angle or must we watch only through the director's lens?
Re: Art isn't intended to be piecemeal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is it should also be illegal to re-wind or watch scenes of a movie out of order or skip to watch the end of the movie before you watch the main portion.
After all that is altering the original vision as to how the movie should be watched.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am redistributing as much as the other application is re-distributing. I am filtering how the movie appears, just as they are. If the application is running locally, how is that different from my own local manipulation of the content?
Furthermore I am technically "redistributing" the content through my TV where alone can view it...
So I will wind up with (Score:1)
I will finally be able to watch the nonviolent, nonprofane Reservoir Dogs Kumbaya cut, all 58 seconds of it?
Use it to watch porn! (Score:2)
The movies go by real fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, in and out!
This is great! (Score:2)
I want to be able to watch television with all the bad dialogue, stupid plots and idiotic characters filtered out.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... you don't want to watch TV?
Wait, do I get that straight? (Score:2)
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.
Wow, it's fun to watch people squirm (Score:3)
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.
Getting away from these freaks is why I use NF (Score:2)
When are we going to finally start taxing religions and make these people dry up and blow away?
Re: (Score:3)
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 mod
Re: Filter in (Score:2)
Copyright is the law. So is decency. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [cornell.edu], 47 USC 231 [cornell.edu], and foreign counterparts).
or intellectual property of others.
"Intellectual property" is a seductive mirage [gnu.org].
For the moment, let's assume that by "intellectual proper
Re: (Score:2)
including categories of parts listed by a service provider that classifies parts by category
The subscriber isn't doing this! A third party is doing it and charging for the privilege.
That's what I meant by this.
Re: (Score:2)
It would obviously be legal for VidAngel to do this with books. Buy the book, white out any profanity, sell it on at a markup. Not sure what the beef is here.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the procedure to obtain a license from a motion picture's copyright owner to produce and exhibit the motion picture in "this movie has been edited for time and content" form?
Re: (Score:2)
If this was ultimately about filtering content that effect the age rating of a production, the studios could follow the lead of the porn industry and produce "soft" and "hard" versions of the movies while keeping up the integrity of the story.
What's the free market solution to encourage studios to be willing to produce such family cuts?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they don't respect creative freedom or intellectual property of others.
They in no way limit the ability of other to create. The creators get paid the same, either way. The "creators vision" of the show still exists. All is good.
Some viewers just want to see Han shoot first regardless what the creator wants, and that's their right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Utah doesn't have higher 'community standards'. It's been proven in court.
A hero lawyer turned a Utah prosecutors argument against him, Fuckwit DA claimed Utah had higher 'community standards'. Hero lawyer used that argument to subpoena direct TV's porn rental records.
Guess what? The only parts of the USA that rival Utah's porn viewing is the deep bible belt. They (utah and the bible belt) also rent more of the more depraved porn than the rest of the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh.
The rest of the nation is smart enough to get their depraved porn for free from the internet, because they aren't dumb enough to pay to filter it.
Re: (Score:2)
Schhhh. Right now DAs are afraid to raise the argument. Don't cheese it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who'd have thought that the unreasonable fear of "eeeek, icky pron!" would actually do some good?
Re: (Score:2)
Bad Lieutenant. The first one; Harvey Keitel. Most realistic cop movie ever made BTW. Get the unrated director's cut for unfiltered, pitiful, cop depravity.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem that you are unfamiliar with how VidAngel actually works. As a user you pick which filters are used. The list of options includes a variety of profanities, nudity of varying levels, violence and gore, and of all things starting and ending credits. Or at least that is how it has been described to me by users of the service. It would seem that as a user there is a huge variety in what you can choose to filter, or not. They essentially let you preprogram the viewing of a movie or show such that y