Sharee - VidAngel believed that what they were doing was completely within legal limits, citing the Family Home Movie Act of 2005 which "allows the creation of technology that can edit a DVD or transmitted movie on the fly (during playback) and thus present a censored version of that movie."
ShareeJune 18, 2019
It is unfortunate that Hollywood chooses to make films with objectionable content. However, companies like VidAngel need to contract with the studios to do their editing out of the objectionable portions. They apparently did not do this, so the studios were within their rights to sue and the judge was right to award the settlement to the plaintiffs. Moral of this story: don't meddle with other people's property without their permission.
Comments | Return to Story
JaneJune 18, 2019
Sharee - VidAngel believed that what they were doing was completely within legal limits, citing the Family Home Movie Act of 2005 which "allows the creation of technology that can edit a DVD or transmitted movie on the fly (during playback) and thus present a censored version of that movie."
ShareeJune 18, 2019
It is unfortunate that Hollywood chooses to make films with objectionable content. However, companies like VidAngel need to contract with the studios to do their editing out of the objectionable portions. They apparently did not do this, so the studios were within their rights to sue and the judge was right to award the settlement to the plaintiffs. Moral of this story: don't meddle with other people's property without their permission.
ADD A COMMENT