And the little guy gets stomped on. Wow.

VidAngel hit with $62.4M in damages in Disney lawsuit
By Liesl Nielsen, KSL.com | Updated - Jun 17th, 2019 @ 7:09pm | Posted - Jun 17th, 2019 @ 6:48pm

PROVO — Video filtering startup VidAngel must pay Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. a combined $62.4 million in damages for streaming movies without authorization, according to plaintiffs in the case.

This decision may be a death knell for the company, which has spent several years in legal back-and-forth with the Hollywood giants after launching its filtering service in 2013.

VidAngel previously allowed customers to stream movies for $1 each and filter out content they didn’t want to see. Disney, Lucasfilm (now part of Disney), Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox sued VidAngel for copyright infringement three years later.

Now, VidAngel must pay tens of millions of dollars in damages — though most thought the company wouldn't have to pay so much.

The trial followed a summary judgment issued in March that decided VidAngel violated copyright law and the studios’ public performance rights. The ruling also dismissed VidAngel’s arguments that the company’s actions were protected by the Family Movie Act and fair use law.

“We disagree with today’s ruling and have not lessened our resolve to save filtering for families one iota. VidAngel plans to appeal the District Court ruling, and explore options in the bankruptcy court. Our court system has checks and balances, and we are pursuing options on that front as well," VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon said in an emailed statement.

VidAngel filed for bankruptcy in late 2017 and is still in the middle of those proceedings.

A spokesman for the plaintiffs Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. said the judge's ruling was a warning to others about the unlawful use of content.

"The jury today found that VidAngel acted willfully, and imposed a damages award that sends a clear message to others who would attempt to profit from unlawful infringing conduct at the expense of the creative community."

Read KSL.com's timeline that details how the Provo startup even got to this point.

This story will be updated as more information becomes available.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46...es-in-disney-lawsuit

what is video filtering?

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
what is video filtering?

I'm not sure, but the Mouse wasn't having any of it.

Yeah, Disney is like the dark lord Sauron- they do not share power (or dollars)

It lets you filter out things Mormons feel is objectionable. Basically like watching a TV edit of a movie.

The problem appears to be that they just ripped copies of dvds, edited them and then charged people to watch the edited version. They didn't purchase a license from the studios like TV stations and Netflix do.

The simplified version of their service was that you bought the movie for $20, downloaded it, filtered out the content you wanted to take out, watched it and sold it back to them for $1.

Typical filtered content included language, certain violent acts (i.e., rape, murder), graphic sexual content, drug use, etc.

VidAngel's main argument was that the new owner should have the right to filter out personally objectionable content (since they paid for it). They would then graciously purchase the 'used' version back from the consumer. Or the consumer could decide to keep it.

My family used the service (when it was available) several times. We liked the option of filtering rather than 'fast forwarding' thru content we thought was presented in poor taste.

s.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
what is video filtering?

Unauthorized editing of content such as strong language, nudity etc.

Vidangel simply modified movies/content then passed the modified product on to consumers for a fee via their stream.

This was straight up infringement/copyright violations. I don’t know that it was sixty million dollars worth, but I have only loosely followed this case. It’s been going on for a while now.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
what is video filtering?

I'm not sure, but the Mouse wasn't having any of it.

It lets people remove elements of film they consider objectionable (e.g. sex scenes).

About 15 years ago, another Utah company got sued out of business by Hollywood for reediting films to remove objectionable content. The difference with this is the customer and software does the removal and the company transmits the video in its Hollywood form.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
what is video filtering?

Unauthorized editing of content such as strong language, nudity etc.

Vidangel simply modified movies/content then passed the modified product on to consumers for a fee via their stream.

This was straight up infringement/copyright violations. I don’t know that it was sixty million dollars worth, but I have only loosely followed this case. It’s been going on for a while now.

Company says that it streams the original movie, and the customer via software settings removes objectionable content. That doesn't seem like copyright infringement,

quote:

Company says that it streams the original movie, and the customer via software settings removes objectionable content. That doesn't seem like copyright infringement,

Yes, they were streaming a movie they had no rights to, in connection with video editing software that allowed unauthorized changes to that movie/protected intellectual property, for a fee that was outside of any licensing agreement.

How is this not infringement/copyright violations?

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
what is video filtering?

Unauthorized editing of content such as strong language, nudity etc.

Vidangel simply modified movies/content then passed the modified product on to consumers for a fee via their stream.

This was straight up infringement/copyright violations. I don’t know that it was sixty million dollars worth, but I have only loosely followed this case. It’s been going on for a while now.

Company says that it streams the original movie, and the customer via software settings removes objectionable content. That doesn't seem like copyright infringement,

It is if you don't have a license from the studio to stream the video.

Vidangel isn't paying the studio for the streaming rights, they were purchasing off the shelf DVDs and streaming them, or something to that effect.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:

quote:

Company says that it streams the original movie, and the customer via software settings removes objectionable content. That doesn't seem like copyright infringement,

Yes, they were streaming a movie they had no rights to, in connection with video editing software that allowed unauthorized changes to that movie/protected intellectual property, for a fee that was outside of any licensing agreement.

How is this not infringement/copyright violations?

I didn't know about streaming something they had DVD ripped. That's definitely infringement since DVDs clearly say they're for individual use replay w/o charging a watching fee.

Using software to allow viewers to filter out objectionable content doesn't seeem like infringement especially since ultimately they'll be edited versions for airplanes and TV. I should be able to filter what's displayed on my TV in my home.

quote:

Originally posted by sorenson:

Typical filtered content included language, certain violent acts (i.e., rape, murder), graphic sexual content, drug use, etc.

Maybe I've been living under a rock, but what Disney movies had any of that stuff???? I associate Disney with things like a prince looking for a gal who lost her glass slipper. Or a mermaid who wants to live on land, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by sorenson:

Typical filtered content included language, certain violent acts (i.e., rape, murder), graphic sexual content, drug use, etc.

Maybe I've been living under a rock, but what Disney movies had any of that stuff???? I associate Disney with things like a prince looking for a gal who lost her glass slipper. Or a mermaid who wants to live on land, etc.

It may say Disney in the title, but the very first line of the news story says, "Disney, Fox and Warner Bros." Fox and WB definitely have that stuff.

Also, Walt Disney Studios has made many acquisitions and includes Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures, and Blue Sky Studios. Disney also owns the ABC, ESPN, Freeform, FX, National Geographic Network, and A&E Networks.

South Park - illegally downloaded music