Netflix says it has not 'endorsed or approved' VidAngel's new technology

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • St George Guy Washington, UT
    June 16, 2017 3:52 p.m.

    The new model is like a remote control with a mute and a skip button. You can tell the remote beforehand what to skip or mute instead of manually pushing the button. If the new model is illegal then the mute and skip button should be illegal also.

  • IAlaw Malvern, IA
    June 16, 2017 2:53 p.m.

    The analogy about "painting a smile on the Mona Lisa" is a terrible one. That is not what's happening. That analogy would be sort of fair if VidAngel were to sell DVDs containing edited versions of the original.

    A better analogy is VidAngel standing outside of the museum, selling special glasses that make it look like Mona Lisa has a smile, and then Da Vinci throws a temper tantrum, accusing VidAngel of defacing his work.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 16, 2017 9:35 a.m.

    @Glassy
    If you decide to fast forward through parts of a movie you can do that but when a business takes a licensed product and alters it for resale that is illegal. Please stop trying to act like there is no difference.

  • Glassy Enterprise, UT
    June 16, 2017 7:58 a.m.

    What's with the "Mother may I" mentality of our society today? Why would anyone think that Netflix or Amazon care how I watch the content I have paid them for? -- or if I filter it to make it more acceptable to me? Why would I be obligated to get their permission? Do I have to ask them before I leave the room? If I streamed their content through my Roku device or through my streaming-enabled DVD player, with my TV turned off (i.e., the ultimate filter) would I really need their permission? Sheesh, people! I'll bet some of you are still carrying around the hall pass your teacher gave you in the first grade. Take a risk! Live dangerously! Use the mute button on your remote, or the fast-forward even! --Or be really radical and subscribe to VidAngel and let them do that for you!

  • Trentcon El Paso, Texas
    June 15, 2017 11:32 p.m.

    “I understand that movies and television have gotten pretty scandalous but I don't think it is right to set out to change content to suit your preference.”
    You may not like it, nor the creators, but that's the very right that is given by the FMA, to change content to suit your preference, so long as it is not someone else's edited preference, and for your home use only (not put into theatres public viewing, ect)
    “I don't think the creators of the content will allow this to happen either.”
    You may be right, because they are a stubborn bunch and not only do they want to share their art, they want to share their smut along with it, they do have motives and want to always push the envelope because that's supposedly what artists in their opinion do (but really that's just where the money is at) Lawsuits are all about the money anyways.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 15, 2017 9:17 p.m.

    @Riverton Cougar
    Actually it is more like a company taking the painting and painting a smile on it without permissions. then selling it for a profit. It's odd that business based on the premise of morality would make thier living in such a morally and legally grey area.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2017 9:10 p.m.

    This reminds me of Utah's liquor laws and the Zion curtain. Some people want to go to bars and pretend the alcohol isn't there. They want to watch R-rated movies and pretend the profanity isn't there. Do you really get a moral exception from pretending?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    June 15, 2017 7:07 p.m.

    "You might as well paint a smile on the Mona Lisa because you don't agree with the way her face looks."

    Obviously painting a smile on the original Mona Lisa would be bad, but how about painting a smile on your copy of the Mona Lisa?

  • sghobbs Albuquerque, NM
    June 15, 2017 6:59 p.m.

    I actually hope this works out for them this time. I was a day one critic of the DVD ripping model, which I called out as clearly illegal. This, however, IMO, is exactly what the FMA was designed to protect, though I'm unclear on any conflicts they may have with terms of service, etc. More power to them for trying the hard way.

  • rogerdpack Orem, UT
    June 15, 2017 6:52 p.m.

    It's not so much the filtering, as possibly terms of use/contract issues. Also, there may be other legal issues at play because basically they stream it to the cloud, filter it there, and stream it back to your device. Does this violate the DMCA or not? Kind of a grey area there. Also, who did they actually talk to at Netflix and Amazon? It's very unclear how this is going to turn out. In the meantime, there are other companies that are trying to stay away from the grey area of the law, Clearplay and Play It My Way. for instance :) ...

  • Kelly, San Diego, CA San Diego, CA
    June 15, 2017 6:38 p.m.

    By requiring an authorized copy and prohibiting making a permanent copy, the Family Movie Act was crafted to not need artists' endorsements to filter. Thus in theory, filtering companies shouldn't need endorsements from Netflix, et. al. Although streaming likely involves proprietary software that may need to be 'hacked' to effectively filter which would require some legal clearance.
    I believe the real problem is that the FMA envisioned individuals in their homes making their own editing decisions. Filtering companies make the editing decisions and their customers merely decides which of the company's edits to use. That is in effect selling an edited movie which is illegal. The only difference is the number of edited versions filtering companies make possible. In other words, the FMA was not intended to create a market for independent, post release movie editors.
    The reaction of directors, writers and producers to Sony's recent statement about making clean versions of their movies demonstrates the complexity of this issue

  • screenname Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2017 6:26 p.m.

    It'd be the equivalent of looking at the Mona Lisa with colored sunglasses on, not painting a smile on her. Vidangel's filtering services do not change the art for anyone but the person who chooses to view it that way. A right as inherent in art as artistic integrity.

  • midvale guy MIDVALE, UT
    June 15, 2017 4:34 p.m.

    This type of technology is not going to be endorsed by any of the online streaming services. To think that you can go in and alter content that "artists" have painstakingly prepared is ridiculous. You might as well paint a smile on the Mona Lisa because you don't agree with the way her face looks. I understand that movies and television have gotten pretty scandalous but I don't think it is right to set out to change content to suit your preference. I don't think the creators of the content will allow this to happen either.