This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Provo-based company VidAngel Inc., a streaming site that caters to people who want edited versions of TV shows and movies, must immediately stop operations regarding movies from four Hollywood companies, after a federal judge in California granted a motion for a preliminary injunction Monday.
The injunction stems from an ongoing dispute between the plaintiffs — Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. — and VidAngel.
The order from U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte "temporarily enjoin[s]" Vidangel from "streaming, transmitting or otherwise publicly performing or displaying any of plaintiffs' copyrighted works" in any way, as well as prohibits the company from "circumventing technological measures protecting plaintiffs' copyrighted works," "copying the works onto computers or servers," and "engaging in any other activity that violates ... plaintiffs' anti-circumvention right."
Recently, VidAngel has released a video via Facebook encouraging users to sign a petition to "save filtering" by proclaiming support for the company.
"If VidAngel gets shut down, it's the end of filtering," the video states.
VidAngel claims to "empower" users to filter out unwanted language, nudity, violence, and other content from "movies or TV shows they own."
In a VidAngel news release Monday, CEO Neal Harmon accused Hollywood studios of "a repeated pattern in their decades-long campaign to put movie filtering services out of business by seeking a shut-down decision in trial court."
"Previously, such a decision has signaled the end of the legal battle," Harmon said. "As such, while we are extremely disappointed — for the countless people who rely on our service regularly to enjoy movies using filters — our customers have given us not just the mandate to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court, but the financial resources as well. We will aggressively pursue an appeal and take this case to a higher level where we have always believed we will ultimately prevail."
The injunction is disappointing to VidAngel users like Isaac Painter, of Lehi, who said the site has opened up possibilities that weren't available for him and his family otherwise.
One example is when he, his wife and their 3-year-old watched the PG-rated 2016 version "Pete's Dragon" movie through the site, he said, and were able to filter out a few spots where the words "God" and "Jesus" were used in vain.
"From a religious standpoint, we just don't want to hear those names taken in vain," Painter said. "I know a lot of times producers feel offended we filter it out, but I feel offended when they put it in."
What producers see as an "artistic touch," others see as "unnecessary," he added.
He has enjoyed the power VidAngel gives users to "be able to watch the movie the way I want to watch the movie."
"Violence in a war movie doesn't bother me," he said, but nudity or strong language does.
Aside from VidAngel, there "really aren't" many options for people who want to filter movies, Painter said.
"Some obscure websites" allow a person to order a pre-filtered movie, he said, but the problem there is that it is filtered in the way someone else thinks is appropriate.
Additionally, ordering movies that are already edited can lead to giant plot holes, he said. If a filter leaves a plot hole in movies streamed through VidAngel, Painter says he can simply go back and adjust the filters.
Before VidAngel, Painter would go online to the IMBD parents guide to see what is in the movie. One scene of something Painter found offensive could prevent him from watching the entire thing.
"There are a lot of movies now that I simply won't consume," he said.
"I really don't know fully what Disney's side of the argument is," he added, noting that the lawsuit sounds like a "big brother" picking on someone smaller.
According to original court filings in June, VidAngel allegedly failed to pay for movie and television rights, but the company filed a counterclaim stating its actions and business plan are legal under the Family Movie Act.
As a first step to fight the injunction, the company will file a stay, Harmon told The Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday night, before appealing in a few months.
"If granted," he added, "we'll be able to continue with all the movies on the site."
VidAngel will also be launching some original films over the next year as it moves into more of a studio role, as well as adding some licensed content from stand-up comedians and independent movie companies. The new additions will remain on the site even if the court mandates that other content be taken down, Harmon said.
Through VidAngel's site, users can "buy" a movie for $20, view it and then "sell" it back for $19 in VidAngel credit that same day.
On the website, users select the film they want to view, then are taken to a page where they must select at least one filter to apply to the movie, such as filtering out certain words, nudity or violence. Users then view the movie, and when it is finished, they are given the option to either "sell" it back for VidAngel credit or keep the movie.
VidAngel operators can allegedly offer the cheaper rate because they haven't paid the same fees as other streaming sites, which plaintiffs claims "blatantly violates the Copyright Act and confers on itself unfair and unlawful advantages," court documents state.
A list of releases scheduled to be added to the VidAngel site this month includes titles like "Jason Bourne," "Suicide Squad" and "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children."
A counterclaim filed in July by VidAngel accuses the Hollywood companies of distorting facts in favor of their argument and denies allegations of law breaking, court documents state. The counterclaim also alleges the Hollywood companies have a history of hostility toward any kind of filtering of their products.
The Hollywood companies acknowledged in their lawsuit that the Family Movie Act allows companies to edit films — usually for so-called inappropriate content — but only with the permission of copyright holders.
In 2006, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch ruled against similar video-cutting companies — including Utah County-based Cleanflicks — in a copyright lawsuit filed by 16 Hollywood directors, forcing the firm to shut down operations.
Twitter: @mnoblenews