VidAngel lawsuit raises question of consumers’ right to home entertainment filtering

For over a decade, companies have been emerging aiming to offer filtering services for home entertainment.

In 2005, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced the Family Movie Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush, making home entertainment filtering legal, provided that the filtering meet three requirements:

1. The movie is an authorized copy.
2. The movie is watched in the privacy of home.
3. No permanent copy of the movie is created.

Despite the congressional act, multiple filtering companies have been sued and eventually shut down. Some of these companies include Clean Flicks, Clean Films and Play it Clean Video. Most recently, streaming app VidAngel was introduced. In order to ensure legality of their services, VidAngel purchases a physical copy of each movie, thus fulfilling requirement number one of the Family Movie Act. Then, viewers rent a streaming copy of the movie and choose which filters they prefer. The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) drops the “f-bomb” a record 506 times. With VidAngel, viewers have the option to turn those 506 bombs into 506 bleeps — as well as censoring any other material they may deem offensive. There is even an option to filter out the entire character of Jar Jar Binks — a character many viewers deem offensive, or at least annoying — in the Star Wars prequels.

The movies are intended to be watched in a private setting, which fulfills requirement number two. Afterward, viewers have the option to sell the movie back, per requirement number three.  

In June 2016, Disney, Warner Bros., LucasFilm, and 20th Century Fox filed a lawsuit against VidAngel, claiming the company’s methods violate the Copyright Act, which reserves rights of modification and distribution of material to its original creator.

VidAngel asserts that their methods are legal — but are they moral?

Many artists are vehemently against the practice of censorship. The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) claims that, “Removing or editing [a] film amounts to an inappropriate stifling of protected speech.”

The NCAC is made up of authors, filmmakers and other artists who assert that censorship, including movie filtering, infringes on an artist’s First Amendment rights.

“I see where VidAngel is coming from, but I’m of the opinion that we should be able to watch what we want to watch,” said Ben Krutsch, a vocal performance major.

Krutsch said people have the ability to change the channel or skip scenes in a movie that might be offensive.

“However, I don’t think a company should have the power to do that because it takes away from the original product,” he said.

Acting major Sydney Vance agreed that censorship can detract from an artist’s vision.

“If that’s how they intended for their art to be portrayed, then that’s how they would have done it and if you don’t like it, look for something else,” Vance said.

On the other hand, many families and family advocates argue they have a right to filter the media that comes into their homes.

Darcy Keady, an instructor for the Family and Consumer Human Development department at USU, believes individuals and families should have that right. Having worked in her field for over 14 years, as well as having adult children of her own, she worries about the content of the media children are exposed to.

Keady explained that movies and television can have a negative effect on a child’s brain development, depending on the media content. Profanity, violence and sexual content can all be detrimental. She said the way profanity is used in media and how it is used in everyday life cyclically influence one another.

“What you’re getting is a double-whammy. You hear it in a movie, you see it at school, and you think that’s the way life is,” Keady said.

As far as VidAngel’s policies go, Keady believes there is some gray area concerning its lawfulness. If movie and television studios were more willing to allow filtering, Keady thinks families would benefit. If not, she concludes that families will simply have to choose to avoid media they deem inappropriate.

In December 2016, VidAngel was ordered to cease streaming. However, the company was held in contempt of court and fined over $10,000 for continuing to add and stream movies against the judge’s injunction.

VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon called for an appeal but the company is still awaiting the court’s ruling. According to the company’s court documents, VidAngel is counter-suing the studios for antitrust violation. VidAngel claims some studios signed secret documents with the Directors Guild of America, thereby denying any filtering licenses to companies such as VidAngel.

While awaiting a final ruling, VidAngel supporters are rallying to preserve the company. Supporters are writing local representatives to request laws in favor of media filtering. A family from Florida even started a website in support of the company, as well as launching #savefiltering.

In the meantime, VidAngel is seeking clarification of the 2005 Family Movie Act in what they say is an attempt to “prevent the studios from continuing to misconstrue in the courts.”

— melodyj300@gmail.com

@melodyj300

Graphic by Emmalee Olsen