Vidange Legal?

[Guest]

My wife and I were getting mixed messages about whether Vidangel was shut down or declared legal or???  Here is a piece of the puzzle per Vidangel.

 

Is it just me?  Or is it weird to hear Matt's real voice vs his actor voice he has during Studio C?

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

My family has loved VidAngel, but we chose to cash-out. It may be months before the legal proceedings conclude, but right now it's not looking so good for them. They suggest the problem is their filtering of movies, but it sounds like the real issue is that VidAngel did not give royalties to Hollywood. They "sold" movies to customers, then bought them back. It's why they could charge $1 and offer movies that NetFlix and RedBox did not even have yet.  Part of me hopes they win. We'll sign back up.  We just didn't want to see our $19 swallowed up in their legal fees, given this is not purely a battle for cleaner movies.

[NeuroTypical]

Actually, they sold stock to fund their legal battle.  They've got millions, enough to fight all the way to the Supreme Court.  Here's their pitch video that raked in those millions:

Everyone should also watch Carb's video.  At least the first 3 minutes.  It's really cool and informative.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I love Vidangel, and I love Matt.  His sense of humor is very similar to my missionary son's. In fact sometimes when I mss my son, I watch Matt. And watching Matt makes me miss my son. 

True story...weird...but true. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

My wife and I were getting mixed messages about whether Vidangel was shut down or declared legal or???  Here is a piece of the puzzle per Vidangel.

 

Is it just me?  Or is it weird to hear Matt's real voice vs his actor voice he has during Studio C?

I believe that procedurally, a preliminary injunction has been granted.  Some of the factors that go into deciding whether to grant an injunction are the likelihood that the petitioner will win at trial, and the harm that would result if the injunction were not granted (along with a couple of other factors I don't remember at the moment).  As I recall it's sort of a balancing test, so if the threatened harm is very grave the court may grant an injunction even if its not immediately clear who will win at trial.

IIRC losing the preliminary injunction has pretty much ended other similar cases, because once their revenue streams stopped the respondents couldn't afford further litigation.  But that need not be the case, particularly if the respondent is well-funded.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe that procedurally, a preliminary injunction has been granted.  Some of the factors that go into deciding whether to grant an injunction are the likelihood that the petitioner will win at trial, and the harm that would result if the injunction were not granted (along with a couple of other factors I don't remember at the moment).  As I recall it's sort of a balancing test, so if the threatened harm is very grave the court may grant an injunction even if its not immediately clear who will win at trial.

IIRC losing the preliminary injunction has pretty much ended other similar cases, because once their revenue streams stopped the respondents couldn't afford further litigation.  But that need not be the case, particularly if the respondent is well-funded.

Come on Jag, what do YOU know about the law?

(just playing!) 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe that procedurally, a preliminary injunction has been granted.  Some of the factors that go into deciding whether to grant an injunction are the likelihood that the petitioner will win at trial, and the harm that would result if the injunction were not granted (along with a couple of other factors I don't remember at the moment).  As I recall it's sort of a balancing test, so if the threatened harm is very grave the court may grant an injunction even if its not immediately clear who will win at trial.

IIRC losing the preliminary injunction has pretty much ended other similar cases, because once their revenue streams stopped the respondents couldn't afford further litigation.  But that need not be the case, particularly if the respondent is well-funded.

I've heard a rumor that Vidangel is continuing their service in the face of the injunction.  So, they're continuing their revenue stream.  My relatives say they're still using it.  So, it must not be cut off.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

OK, so if the offering is not sold in Texas, does that mean I can't participate because I'm a Texas resident?  Or is there an online way for me to participate since stock is a national thing anyway?

[NeuroTypical]

I think the window to buy stock has closed, but I'm not sure. 

https://www.vidangel.com/news/category/legal/

What percent of the current VidAngel movie library is affected by the lawsuit? Which studios are involved?

53% of titles are owned by the plaintiffs (Disney, Warner Bros., Twentieth Century Fox, and Lucasfilm). However, if we are unsuccessful in getting a stay of the injunction, we will not offer titles from ANY studios until the court has ruled that we have a legal right to do so. We expect to receive an answer by approximately January 12th.

Because the vast majority of studios have not challenged VidAngel’s service, we are reaching out to them to ask whether they would object if we make their titles available while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether the issuance of injunction was proper.

[...]

 

If the lawsuit goes all the way to the Supreme Court, what is a realistic time-table for that process?

It will likely be a 3-5 year process to defend our service under the Family Movie Act all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think the window to buy stock has closed, but I'm not sure. 

 

It's never a good idea to buy stock in a company that is involved in life or death litigation, which Vidangel sort of is. If they lose the case where can they go from here? 

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe that procedurally, a preliminary injunction has been granted.  Some of the factors that go into deciding whether to grant an injunction are the likelihood that the petitioner will win at trial, and the harm that would result if the injunction were not granted (along with a couple of other factors I don't remember at the moment).  As I recall it's sort of a balancing test, so if the threatened harm is very grave the court may grant an injunction even if its not immediately clear who will win at trial.

IIRC losing the preliminary injunction has pretty much ended other similar cases, because once their revenue streams stopped the respondents couldn't afford further litigation.  But that need not be the case, particularly if the respondent is well-funded.

In this case, I believe the judge said that he believes VidAngel will NOT prevail, and that was part of his reason for granting the injunction. He also said that it was the Hollywood studios who were being harmed (loss of deserved revenue from streamed movies), NOT VidAngel.  All that leads me to believe this is not a simple battle to provide cleaned up movies, with Hollywood being the evil provider of filth, and not wanting their gar-bage messed with.  It's more about, uh...err...:::cough:::--yeah, MONEY!

[Guest]

So, apparently, the rumor I heard is sorta true.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've heard a rumor that Vidangel is continuing their service in the face of the injunction.  So, they're continuing their revenue stream.  My relatives say they're still using it.  So, it must not be cut off.

I don't think so.  I just checked the website and EVERY movie and TV show says "unavailable".  

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't think so.  I just checked the website and EVERY movie and TV show says "unavailable".  

Same here, nothing. Super bummer

[Ironhold]

9 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

In this case, I believe the judge said that he believes VidAngel will NOT prevail, and that was part of his reason for granting the injunction. He also said that it was the Hollywood studios who were being harmed (loss of deserved revenue from streamed movies), NOT VidAngel.  All that leads me to believe this is not a simple battle to provide cleaned up movies, with Hollywood being the evil provider of filth, and not wanting their gar-bage messed with.  It's more about, uh...err...:::cough:::--yeah, MONEY!

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........

 

People could take advantage of the resources God's given us to collaborate and produce family-friendly fare on their own. 

It's my understanding that video cameras and editing software of the kind needed can be acquired off-the-shelf these days, and so it's just a matter of piecing together a script and finding acting talent. 

From there, it's a matter of getting it out to the world. 

[Sunday21]

I cant access VidAngel either. I loved that service and after using it I really don't want to go back to watching non filtered movies. What a shame!

[Sunday21]

Great! VidAngel is starting to create their own content! How about a Book of Mormon movie? There is lots of content in that book! 

Or the Edgar Eager books? I wonder if these books are in the public domain? The books eg half magic etc would make great movies. He died 1964. 

[zil]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

I loved that service and after using it I really don't want to go back to watching non filtered movies.

And these are the only two options available?  Man, I wish someone had told me.

[prisonchaplain]

7 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........

 

People could take advantage of the resources God's given us to collaborate and produce family-friendly fare on their own. 

It's my understanding that video cameras and editing software of the kind needed can be acquired off-the-shelf these days, and so it's just a matter of piecing together a script and finding acting talent. 

From there, it's a matter of getting it out to the world. 

Pureflix comes to mind. Cloud Ten Studios (Canada). God's Army movies, etc.  A few Christian-themed movies have even crossed over to large general audiences.  Good stuff.  IMHO VidAngel could and perhaps can be a part of wholesome cultural influence--but even secular artists deserve their pay and honor.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

How about a Book of Mormon movie?

I hesitate to mention this, but there was a Book of Mormon movie (called "The Book of Mormon movie") released around 2000. It was a well-intentioned, very sincere effort to capture 1 Nephi. In this man's opinion, it was a disaster. I am not the only one to feel that way. So I'm all for a Book of Mormon movie, but I insist on my personal script approval.

[Vort]

My reflexive reaction is to support VidAngel -- people trying to offer clean content, people who seem to share my values, etc. I have watched some VidAngel stuff, and I have enjoyed it. But if the shoe were on the other foot and my work was being Bowdlerized by people who just couldn't bear e.g. LDS themes in a movie, I'm not so sure I would approve.

Remember the "Free the Birdies" story that made the rounds on the internet five or ten years ago? Originally, it was a horrible yet wonderful life-changing experience of an LDS family, given as an LDS sacrament meeting talk with a very specific focus on doing temple work. But by the time most of the internet saw the "talk", the uniquely LDS themes had been stripped out of it, and it was reduced to a vaguely Christian-ish anecdote about life after death.

Now, I personally don't think that sort of sacred story should have been shared openly at all. But if it was to be shared openly, at the very least it should have been shared in its original form, and not watered down for consumption by the larger non-LDS religious community.

I can very well imagine that many outside the VidAngel community feel the same way. Not sure I disagree with them.

Ultimately, I think VidAngel is a bandaid on an amputation stump. If a show is too profane or filthy or violent to watch without VidAngel, then why are we watching it at all? Shouldn't we focus our efforts and consumer interests on content that is intrinsically worthy of our minds? Do we really believe that removing the larger chunks of dog poop from our cookie dough renders the rest a healthy and yummy snack?

[NeuroTypical]

Mmm... cookie dough...

That aside, we're not talking about changing or altering someone's production.  We're talking about a sort of automatic fast-forward button, coupled with an automatic mute button, so we see and hear less of someone's production.  Producers of music/art/stories/music meant for public consumption have always had a simple answer to our request for cleaner, less offensive, less violent stuff  - "If you don't like it, just fast forward past it or don't watch it."  Now the technology is there to do it effortlessly, and now the complaint is about protecting the message someone wants to deliver.  

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 1/4/2017 at 0:36 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Mmm... cookie dough...

That aside, we're not talking about changing or altering someone's production.  We're talking about a sort of automatic fast-forward button, coupled with an automatic mute button, so we see and hear less of someone's production.  Producers of music/art/stories/music meant for public consumption have always had a simple answer to our request for cleaner, less offensive, less violent stuff  - "If you don't like it, just fast forward past it or don't watch it."  Now the technology is there to do it effortlessly, and now the complaint is about protecting the message someone wants to deliver.  

 

Also, movies have always been filtered, at least to a degree, when they were aired on television, but suddenly with VidAngel it's a problem?

[Ironhold]

4 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

Also, movies have always been filtered, at least to a degree, when they were aired on television, but suddenly with VidAngel it's a problem?

The alterations are often done by either the company that owns the rights to the film, the distributor (with permission), or the network (with permission). 

Either way, it comes back down to the "with permission" angle. 

[Sunday21]

I so miss this service! I was about to try Game of Thrones...sigh!