Dear Haters: “I Could Be Wrong”

VidAngel has taken some pretty brutal uneducated attacks in the last week from those on social media who HATE skipping/filters: “criminals”, “theft”, “pirates”…

In response I remembered a few comments from the Judge, who ruled against VidAngel, that might offer some context into how civil disputes actually work (and perhaps a little less judging🤞).

“And, again, I could be wrong and the Ninth Circuit could be wrong. I have no ego about that, but, if we’re going to play by the rules, you have a ruling, you appeal it, and a decision is made.”

From the Judge during trial on Tuesday, June 11th

“They [VidAngel] think that the Family Movie Act generally allows them to do that.  And they may be right. The Supreme Court may take up this issue and they may decide it.”

-From the Judge during trial on Friday, June 14th

“Obviously, the verdict didn’t come out the way you [VidAngel] would have liked, but at least it’s been my observation that you all are fighters, that you all are fighters and are reflective, thoughtful, and you will persevere through this.”

“And you will take this matter, whether it’s appealing this trial or appealing to the Supreme Court or appealing to your legislature, I have no doubt that you have perseverance and intellect that will get you far in your respective careers. So I wish you all the best.”

From the Judge during trial on the day of the verdict, June 17th


If the judge who made the ruling himself isn’t 100% about his own ruling, I am pretty sure we can ignore all the self-righteous comments accusing others of being criminals or thieves.

He might be right in the end.  We might be right in the end. In a case of first impression, we won’t know until we finish moving through the court system.  This is a civil disagreement NOT a criminal case.

…and it isn’t over.


24 thoughts on “Dear Haters: “I Could Be Wrong”

  1. I love VidAngel! I’m very thankful VidAngel provides the means to filter on several device platforms.
    Also if you don’t like VidAngel cool… many others do!

  2. any particular reason why you guys reposted someone elses post that contains the Lords name in vain? its one thing to see junk on yahoo all the time but was not expecting this.

      1. An * instead of o and a? Thanks for the clearplay/tv guardian quality edit, but vidangel filters work better than that.

        1. i was kinda thinking the same, is there no way to remove the words entirely, or at least put a black bar over both of them. i get this is how you guys present the words for us to choose when we pick the filters so we know but, granted default settings they should already be set. but this is a public post on your own site. “Out of Site, Out of Mind”. Rather disappointed.

  3. I’m really confused about why somebody would hate VidAngel so badly. Do they just love Hollywood so much that the idea of somebody “skipping” on a movie drives them insane?

    1. It’s the fact that they don’t have the authorization to edit the material. They are making a profit from the hard work of others without any sort of compensation or even notice to the creators. Many entertainment companies permit modifying work (such as how airlines show modified versions of movies) but you have to go through the right channels to obtain the rights to do so. VidAngel did NOT have those rights but decided to do it anyway. They knowingly chose to break laws. How would you feel if you spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours working on a project only to find out someone had come in and changed it? And that person was selling your work for their OWN profit with no regard for your rights as the creator?

      It’s not the idea that editing is wrong. It’s that VidAngel went behind the backs of these companies, and all the people that worked on those projects, because they couldn’t be bothered to abide the law.

      1. Perhaps you should read the full background and the judge’s opinion again. You seem to have missed the all the points.

      2. I understand what you’re saying, but I just want to point out that VidAngel tried to go through every channel. I purchased several movies so that through VidAngel I could edit them. I would never have purchased them otherwise. The law was created for this concept. VidAngel did all they could to provide this service. We’ll see how it pans out, but if it were criminal, trust me, Big Hollywood power would have put an injunction to stop it completely long ago. This is a tort case. They are being sued, not prosecuted. To protect their name, they have every right to complain about the accusations. I just wish it could all be done civilly and that Disney and others would at least consider a discussion.

      3. In it’s current streaming format, Vidangel only filters the movies and TV shows that we already pay for on Netflix, Amazon, etc.

        The producers of the programming are fully compensated by Netflix, Amazon, etc. Vidangel not only provides a service for their subscribers, they also provide a service to the program producers, because more people will subscribe to Netflix, Amazon because they can watch a filtered version.
        The net effect is Neflix, Amazon, etc make more revenue which in turn they can spend to buy more shows and movies from producers and they can make more movies and shows themselves which means more money for producers, actors and everyone else who makes a living in TV and movies.

  4. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with me being able to take out GARBAGE before watching a movie! I have the right to not fill my mind with filthy language, crude images and immorality. Till VidAngel, I refused to watch any R-rated movies, and some PG-13’s. Our son has VidAngel, and I finally watched a few classics that I’ve always wanted to see, minus the sex scenes and horrible language. Hollywood wants PORNOGRAPHY IN THE HOME. Well, my answer is NO! I demand the FREEDOM TO FOLLOW MY CONSCIENCE AND BALOGNA TO HOLLYWOOD’S BIG-HEADED POMPOUS “ART!”

  5. We love this service, Vidangel!! Thank you for providing it! Keep up the fight! We are sure hoping you win!

  6. I would have thought the film makers would be thrilled to have a service like Vid Angel open up a whole extra market that they couldn’t tap into. There is a market of people who will not watch R rated movies, or allow their children to view them. This allows more movies to appeal to a broader audience.

    Thank you to all who have come up with the concept and to all who fight for it!

  7. Persevere away!!

    Hopefully the supreme court will both uphold the law and make it clear there is every essence of freedom in the idea of merely skipping content.

  8. I also have paid good hard-earned money for content that I would not have otherwise thanks to VidAngel. I love being able to filter out the junk!

  9. Is there any updates on the legal battle?
    I know Vidangle has applied for chapter 11 bankruptcy, I know Disney was trying to get that turned to a Chapter 7. I thought there was some sort of hearing for bankruptcy at the end of July but there hasn’t been any more information.
    I just subscribed to CBS All Access and I am looking forward to the possibility of subscribing to HBO Max when it launches next year, but without Vidangle, it’s pointless to us! Could we get a small update?
    Love Vidangle!

  10. I hardly use vidAngel. But I support what they are there for and for this reason I am a subscriber. Thanks for removing Hollywood’s poison from family movies.

  11. I have been sad about not having VidAngel ever since the court injunction. Hollywood is so stupid! I used to watch their movies through VidAngel all the time, but have hardly watched movies since! The producers lost money; the artists lost money; and an arrogant Hollywood lost money. For a platform that will sell its soul over money, it is ironic indeed that they are willing to lose money here. It pretty much tells you who really runs the show in Hollywood! For an industry that prides itself on reality and screams to high heaven about censorship, if you pointed out how they are far removed from reality in depicted scenes that are so, to object to VidAngel providing their service to absurd! Get real, Hollywood!

  12. Neal, thank you for giving this link in another comment. Help me understand how you are defending your interpretation of the Family Movie Act on one hand, but are suing your own defense attorney for Malpractice on the other hand. (There is reference of your malpractice lawsuit in your SEC offering documents). It’s confusing to me that you are taking both these positions at the same time. Seems like the attorney you are suing will just say in his defense that Neal is still promoting that our copyright position is accurate. I’m confused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *