Category Archives: Legal Battle

Those posts that are relevant to the legal battle.

Legal Update: Disney asked Judge to start up the CA legal battle again

UPDATE(11/9/2018): Judge Anderson has ordered to lift the stay in order that damages, if any, may be determined as soon as possible.


Hello Again VidAngel Supporters,

We had a significant legal hearing on Friday and, for those of you who are following the legal battle, you deserve an update.

What’s At Stake

As a reminder, Disney, 21st Century Fox, and Warner Bros. have been fiercely fighting this Chapter 11 process from the beginning. Their actions suggest that their only goal is to put VidAngel out of business to leave families without an option for filtering movies and TV shows on modern streaming devices.

What Happened

VidAngel appeared before Utah Judge Kevin R. Anderson to defend itself against Disney’s motion to restart the California legal battle. We’re hoping that Judge Anderson will allow this successful Chapter 11 restructuring to continue without needless obstruction.

The hearing went from 10am until around 4:30pm. In the end, Judge Anderson took his decision “under advisement” and committed to write an order as soon as possible.

We hope that Judge Anderson will deny Disney’s motion (and let us find a more cost-effective way to resolve the dispute in Utah).

Thank You

Many thanks to all those who supported us Friday. It was so inspiring to see your faces.  We’ll keep you updated.


Neal Harmon
Co-founder & CEO

We have a bill! (H.R. 6816)

Do you want to watch movies from Disney, Marvel, Fox and Warner Bros. on VidAngel?
Great news!

Congresswoman Mia Love recently introduced a bill (H.R. 6816) that allows you to watch movies from all studios, using your favorite devices while skipping whatever you choose. Ask your representative to co-sponsor H.R. 6816 right now:


“…there is confusion that requires an update to the FMA to ensure that parents and individuals have the ability to control the lawfully purchased content coming into their homes.”

–Congresswoman Mia Love


Thank you for contacting your representative and thank you Congresswoman Mia Love! (and thank you to the entire Utah delegation)
Neal Harmon
Co-founder & CEO

How “Disney vs VidAngel” Fits into the History of Film

I’ve received so many inquiries about the status of the lawsuit against VidAngel that I prepared a video update for all who have interest.

Significant Developments in the Disney  Lawsuit:

  • Jul ‘15 – VidAngel asked Disney to collaborate – launched service in Aug
  • Jun ‘16 – Disney sued VidAngel calling VidAngel “Pirates”
  • Dec ‘16 – Los Angeles Court issued a Preliminary Injunction
  • Jun ‘17 – VidAngel launched a new technology for filtering Netflix/Amazon
  • California courts would not address whether new technology was lawful and said to sue for declaratory relief
  • Aug ‘17 – VidAngel filed a declaratory relief lawsuit in Utah for new tech
  • Aug ‘17 – 9th Circuit Upheld the Preliminary Injunction
  • Oct ‘17 – VidAngel filed for Chapter 11 protection in Utah to pause the California litigation and focus on improving its new technology for Netflix and Amazon
  • Disney unsuccessfully asked the Utah bankruptcy court to dismiss VidAngel’s Chapter 11 filing
  • All legal proceedings now pending rulings by the Utah federal district court

Again, we want to thank our customers and investors for their patience and all their support. 

Onward and upward,






Neal Harmon

Co-founder & CEO



The Renegade Roots of Hollywood Studios (read more)

Thomas Edison and the Kinetoscope by Haneiro Perez (read more)

Motion Picture Patents Company (read more)

Thomas Edison Drove the Film Industry to California (read more)

Independent Moving Pictures (read more)

A hundred years ago, one Hollywood studio was a great, safe place for a woman to work (read more)

United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co. (read more)

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (read more)



VidAngel Uses Chapter 11 Protection to Pause Los Angeles Lawsuit to Reorganize Its Business Around The New Streaming Model

UPDATE: We have created a special page to keep everyone updated on the chapter 11 process.

VidAngel is still up and running. And generating millions in revenue.


Chapter 11 reorganization can be bad news. But in VidAngel’s case, it’s good news for VidAngel and filtering.


First, chapter 11 is simply a reorganization and part of our legal and business strategy. Per federal law, chapter 11 reorganization automatically pauses our lawsuit with Disney and the other plaintiffs in California.  This strategy also allows us to continue our new lawsuit in Utah, where we are seeking a legal determination that our new filtering system is legal.


Second, VidAngel is not going away. To the contrary, our new VidAngel system for Netflix, HBO, and Amazon is up and running. We have millions of dollars in the bank, and are now generating millions in revenue. Our original series, Dry Bar Comedy, is exploding and has had over 16 million minutes viewed in the last 7 days. If you are a customer, you will be able to continue to use VidAngel to filter movies in your home using your Netflix, Amazon, and HBO subscriptions.


Third, this filing should give us time to take care of our customers and investors. Thousands of our customers invested $10 million to help VidAngel win the legal fight. We want to ensure that VidAngel continues to grow like gangbusters so that the many families who took a chance on us get their investment back – hopefully with a good return.


Remember, our new VidAngel system is growing rapidly. Our goal here is to reorganize the business around our new streaming model, which means pausing the lawsuit long enough so that, even IF VidAngel eventually loses the lawsuit on our old system, we have enough revenue from our new system to pay any damages to Disney. That way, VidAngel can survive and reap a return for the many thousands of customers who invested in us.


Finally, we want to emphasize that this is Chapter 11 reorganization, NOT Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Chapter 7 is for companies going out of business. Chapter 11 is to protect companies that just need more time and flexibility to pay their obligations. Many companies, including Marvel, General Motors, and Delta Airlines have filed Chapter 11 reorganization and emerged as thriving, healthy companies. That is VidAngel’s plan, and we just took the first step.


To recap, VidAngel is:


  1. Pausing the California lawsuit
  2. Up, running, and making millions
  3. Exploding (over 16 million minutes viewed in last 7 days)
  4. Working to make a return for our investors
  5. Taking the same path as Marvel and Delta


We want to thank our customers and investors for all their support. We will keep you updated as we continue this legal battle – if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court.



Neal Harmon, Co-founder and CEO

Marvel movies now available on VidAngel

Great news! Marvel movies are coming back to VidAngel. Why?

Disney has chosen not to contest the fact movies owned by its subsidiaries are not subject to the California court’s injunction and so there will be additional titles available for filtering on VidAngel. Marvel is a subsidiary of Disney. There are several other subsidiaries of the plaintiffs you’ll recognize. For example:


We’re glad to be filtering titles from these great companies again. We also look forward to when we’re able to filter Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. titles again!

9th Circuit Court Ruling Has No Impact On VidAngel’s New System

(Los Angeles, CA—August 24, 2017) VidAngel, the market-leading entertainment platform empowering users to filter language, nudity, violence, and other content from movies and TV series on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and HBOusing modern streaming platforms such as iOS, Android, and ROKUhas been engaged in a high-profile legal battle with Disney, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and Lucasfilm for more than a year. These Hollywood studios are engaged in a legal effort to render the 2005 Family Movie Act useless in the 21st century, preventing VidAngel and other services from lawfully empowering parents and families to filter content on modern devices in their homes. VidAngel has responded by engaging in a robust, crowd-funded legal defense in which the company is prepared to take its case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Today, VidAngel appellate attorney Peter K. Stris issued the following statement in response to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to deny the filtering company’s appeal of a preliminary injunction granted by the Los Angeles District Court:

“We are of course disappointed in this decision and we’re reviewing our strategy for moving forward.”

VidAngel CEO Neal Harmon has also issued a statement:

“Today’s decision has absolutely no impact on VidAngel’s current service, we remain open for business. While all of the legal back-and-forth plays out, we know our customers are grateful to still have a way to protect their kids and filter harmful content. On the legal front, we are just getting started. We will fight for a family’s right to filter on modern technology all the way.”

About VidAngel VidAngel is the market-leading entertainment platform empowering users to filter language, nudity, violence, and other content from movies and TV shows on modern streaming devices such as iOS, Android, and Roku. The company’s newly launched service empowers users to filter via their Netflix, Amazon Prime, and HBO on Amazon Prime accounts, as well as enjoy original content produced by VidAngel Studios. Its signature original series, Dry Bar Comedy, now features the world’s largest collection of clean standup comedy and has earned rave reviews from audiences nationwide. 

Judge Says He Doesn’t Have Enough Information to Clarify the Injunction, Yet

VidAngel Customers,

We just received news from Judge Birotte that “without further factual development on this issue, the Court is not in the position to declare the rights of the parties with regard to this new service.” This is nothing to worry about, it just means the can was kicked down the road.

Judge Birotte’s denial of VidAngel’s motion today was based purely on procedural grounds and not on the merits of our case. Our attorneys are evaluating the decision and will decide next steps in the near future. It is important for everyone to note that this does not affect VidAngel’s new system, which is fully up and running, it simply delays our ability to provide customers with content created by the plaintiffs.

In the meanwhile, we’ll be posting the following notice on the plaintiffs works to let customer know why they are unable to filter those movies and TV shows.

Keep enjoying all the other great content while we sort this out.


Neal Harmon


Why Can’t I Filter Disney, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Bros on the NEW VidAngel?

Disney and other studios are trying to block even the NEW VidAngel System, even though we met all their previous demands.  Don’t worry, we have thousands of the best titles available. But in 3 minutes, here’s why they’re trying to block us, and how you can help.

A year ago, Disney sued VidAngel and persuaded a judge to temporarily close our old site. ‘Cause Disney used the same rationale it used on the Tower of Terror: “A lot of people love this. Let’s shut it down.”

We think they were in the wrong, as you can see in our video addressing VidAngel’s legality. But while we keep fighting the legal battle, we’ve released a new system that meets Disney’s demands:

  • 1) Pay creators through normal streaming channels, and…
  • 2) Don’t use decryption.


Yet Disney’s still trying to block us in court from filtering their movies. So it begs the question — how can it get all it wanted, and still not be happy?

Here’s the problem. Disney says Hollywood’s ok with filtering, just not with VidAngel’s model. But look at the history — Hollywood’s not ok with filtering. Except for filtering dollars out of actresses’ paychecks.

Sony recently tried to release cleaned-up versions of movies, but the Directors Guild threatened to sue for violating contracts that forbid filtering — contracts we know exist because of the Sony leak in 2014. So Sony backed down.

VidAngel (in the past) and our competitor ClearPlay (more recently) tried to filter using a Google Play plugin, but VidAngel got a cease-and-desist letter and ClearPlay was quietly blocked from adding new movies. Now that service doesn’t work at all.  And if ClearPlay’s new service gets big enough to bother Disney, it can be blocked in the same way, by enforcing anti-filtering contracts.

Hollywood studios may say they’re ok with filtering, but look at their actions. They’ve opposed the Family Movie Act, threatened to sue Sony, and actually sued VidAngel, ClearPlay, Cleanflix, and every other filtering company in history prior to VidAngel.

If you ask their permission, they reject you. And if you don’t ask, they sue you. They may say it’s not about filtering. But if Sauron sues Frodo and claims it’s not about the ring, you won’t believe him ‘cause he’s clearly obsessed with the ring. Though that analogy’s not perfect, ‘cause Sauron’s empire is way smaller than Disney’s.

But now you can help. Senator Orrin Hatch and other members of Congress are working to find a solution that allows families to filter on any device and any streaming platform. Please contact your own representatives, and ask them to support Senator Hatch’s efforts.

Here’s how.

Most effective: visit their offices. Very effective: give them a call. It’s like texting, but with your voice. Effective: Post on their Facebook and Twitter since, unfortunately, e-mail messages are often ignored.

To make it easier, you can go to and enter your Zip Code to find their contact info and our advice on what to say.

Thanks for all you do. Now go enjoy our other titles.

LEGAL UPDATE: Setting the Record Straight About Disney’s False Set of Claims Concerning VidAngel and ClearPlay

VIDEO: Setting the Record Straight Concerning Disney’s False Claims About VidAngel and ClearPlay

UPDATE: We have discovered that in some instances, on some devices, it is possible to stream 1080p from on Google Chrome. We have corrected the video and images in this post accordingly.

VidAngel is back! But Hollywood isn’t going to let stay up without a fight.

Disney claims it supports parental filtering but in the words of a well-respected former U.S. Senator, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”

Does Disney’s rhetoric match reality?

Let’s find out.

FACT: Disney is trying to block VidAngel’s new system from filtering movies. Here is a short video we submitted to the court Monday night taking a deeper look at its arguments:

It took 45 mins of repeatedly watching heads get blown open before we were able to get ClearPlay’s filters to work without crashing. After doing so, we counted at least 65 pauses while playing the movie. This is NOT what Congress intended when it passed the Family Movie Act, the law sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch that made filtering for families legal.

Want to know how you can help? Go to, tell your Member of Congress to clarify the FMA to ensure its future. 


And, for those who are interested, let’s look at the other facts:

  • FACT: June 8th – Disney tells the Ninth Circuit that if VidAngel comes up with a system that isn’t “premised on the DMCA,” VidAngel should file a motion to clarify the preliminary injunction. Watch here.

  • FACT: June 19th – VidAngel submits a motion to clarify the injunction based on the new filtering system. Read motion.

  • FACT: June 20th –  Disney asks the judge either to strike VidAngel’s motion or allow it at least three months to look into every aspect of VidAngel’s business, obviously trying to drain our resources and buy time. Read motion.

  • FACT: June 21st – Senator Orrin Hatch announces his support of VidAngel and filtering.  Read story.

  • FACT: June 22th – VidAngel opposes Disney’s requests to strike or for more time and discovery: Read opposition.

  • FACT: The Court DENIES Disney’s requests to strike and for time time to conduct further discovery (give it up for small victories!).

  • FACT:  July 3rd – Disney files opposition to the new VidAngel Technology. Read opposition

  • FACT: July 10th – VidAngel files its reply. Read Reply.

  • UPDATE: July 31st – hearing in LA scheduled to present the truth to the District Court.

We think the Schells’ comment below posted on Facebook sums up Disney’s opposition well:

  • FACT: Disney’s words lead one to believe they support filtering, but its actions tell an entirely different story.

Want to know how you can help? Go to, tell your Member of Congress that Disney’s Mickey Mouse image on filtering is Fantasy, or Fantasia if you wish.

CALL TO CONGRESS: Ignore Misleading and False Representations Made by the ACU on Behalf of Big Hollywood. Instead, Stand with Parents and Families, Your True Constituents

On June 8, 2017, the American Conservative Union published a blog post calling on Congress to support Hollywood over parents and families, falsely attacking VidAngel in the process. That blog post can be found here:

Years ago, former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. While the American Conservative Union is certainly free to advocate for the interests of Hollywood studios, it is not free to change the facts. The ACU’s blog is replete with falsehoods and misleading information. We’re addressing each item in this blog post.

First False ACU Claim: We do not write in opposition to “filtering,” as explained in more detail below. In fact, we support the efforts of lawful filtering services to give families more options that comport with their values. Rather, we urge more careful scrutiny of the claims of those calling for such an update, concerned that what we see here is really a case of wolves in sheep’s clothing, advocating to undermine important principles of property rights and free markets under the banner of protecting family friendly “filtering” services.

Response: The ACU is using the oft-repeated Disney argument in this case, claiming that it supports filtering while doing everything it can to undermine and eliminate services offering filtering.

Second False Claim: For more than a decade since the enactment of the Family Movie Act, there have been no disputes or litigation over the operation of filtering services that enable individuals to use technology to automate the skipping and muting of content they consider offensive in the home. Companies like ClearPlay have offered filtering services for use in connection with legally acquired DVDs and BluRays, as well as with licensed streaming content. TVGuardian provides a “foul language filter” for television programming received over the air or through cable and satellite services. Ufilter is a more recent entrant into the market, claiming to do the same for streaming services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. All of these services exist in a market enabled by the Family Movie Act, and we are not aware that any have called for Congress to intervene further in this market.

Response: The filtering industry nearly died because every company but one was shut down, the sole survivor being ClearPlay. But it is slowly dying as consumer habits move away from discs to streaming services and modern devices such as iPad, Roku, Apple TV and others (86 percent of VidAngel users watch on devices ClearPlay is unable to support). TVGuardian is also on life-support as interest in its technology shrinks and it struggles to stay relevant. Hollywood has not fought these technologies because they have no future.

VidAngel, on the other hand, delivers a filtering experience that Americans actually want to use (see Google Trends chart comparing VidAngel and ClearPlay below). Contrary to the ACU’s inaccurate claim, every VidAngel customer who watched a filtered movie had the exclusive right to a specific, lawfully purchased DVD or Blu-ray disc–just like any Redbox customer or customer of any DVD rental service.

Through 2016, the studios had sued every service that ever offered to filter content for family viewing and, even as of today, the studios have never licensed any service to filter motion pictures for family viewing. The services now operating cannot filter high definition content, do not work with modern apps, do not provide a good user experience, and can easily be disabled by the streaming services they ride on.

The studios hope that by limiting the quality and convenience of filtered content, filtering will never be able to compete on a level playing field with unfiltered content. And, given ClearPlay’s inability to filter new releases on Google Play streaming since September of 2016, it is obvious that other unofficial services built on top of streaming providers can also be shut down at any time…

Third False Claim: The sole exception is VidAngel, the filtering-enabled streaming service that was recently shut down by a court, not because of its filtering activities, but because it was copying DVDs and BluRay discs to cloud servers and using those unlicensed copies to stream movies and television shows for $1 in direct competition with licensed streaming services, but without a license from a single copyright owner.

Response: VidAngel has sued the studios for violating the antitrust laws because the studios have colluded to deny streaming licenses to any company that offers filtering. Because the studios have never licensed anyone to filter content for home viewing, Congress crafted the Family Movie Act to protect third parties (such as VidAngel) that filter the content of discs at the specific request of consumers and then stream that filtered content to the consumer for private viewing. Congress recognized that studios could control what they charge for discs and when they release them for sale, and also recognized that because discs are sold to the public, the studios could not prevent filtering based on discs as they could by refusing to issue a license to any filtering service.

Fourth False Claim: It is ironic that a company purporting to champion family values instead operates in violation of the Ten Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Steal. We support a vibrant marketplace for technologies that allow families to control the content that comes into their homes. What we do not support are efforts to mask clearly unlawful activities beneath the family friendly banner of “filtering.” VidAngel and its surrogates claim the need to update the Family Movie Act to accommodate filtering in connection with streaming services and to counter a “war on filtering.” But as much as they want to make their dispute about filtering, they appear to be fighting a nonexistent war as a ruse to avoid the real issue of copyright infringement.

Response: Are these same leaders accusing Redbox of stealing? No, but only because the studios entered into licensing agreements with Redbox as the consequence of an antitrust lawsuit Redbox brought against them. VidAngel and Redbox are fundamentally the same. They buy discs and permit customers to watch them over and over again.

VidAngel has spent millions of dollars to purchase, not steal, content. It lawfully bought thousands of DVDs of the motion pictures it offered and re-sold them to its customers. Anyone who pays for a DVD sold lawfully is allowed to watch it. But the studios say that VidAngel customers must pay twice to watch a movie once: they must not only pay for the disc but must also pay for a stream (notwithstanding that the studios do not permit filtered content to be streamed).

What’s more, for many business reasons associated with its disc-based model, VidAngel is, and has always been, more than happy to pay for a streaming license, but the studios refuse to sell a streaming license that permits filtering.

Fifth False Claim: We would expect copyright owners to bring infringement claims against any company doing what VidAngel does, regardless of whether the infringer also offers filtering. The Family Movie Act already allows filtering in connection with licensed streaming services, and plaintiffs in the VidAngel litigation repeatedly state that they do not object to lawful filtering services. That is why ClearPlay—VidAngel’s leading competitor in the filtering market—is not the subject of litigation. ClearPlay has been in the market for filtering in connection with streaming services for years and has indicated plans to roll out additional new services this year, as is its right.

Response: Disney and others have created a catch-22 scenario. They say that VidAngel must purchase a streaming license but they refuse to sell one that permits filtering. They will not even sell filtered streaming licenses to large distributors, such as Google. ClearPlay created a technical hack that allowed it to work with Google Play but its hack was shut down for new titles by Google in September 2016 because Google has signed contracts with the studios that prohibit it from allowing filtering.

That service, to date, has not returned.

ClearPlay for streaming is a bolt-on service that can be shut down at any time. Read the Family Movie Act. It says nothing whatever about “licensed streaming services.” It says that authorized “copies” may be filtered and Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines “copies” as tangible objects. And ClearPlay was sued by the studios for selling a DVD player that enabled filtering in the home. The Register of Copyrights testified to Congress in 2003 that ClearPlay’s in-home filtering was lawful under existing law. Because ClearPlay was sued anyway, Congress reacted by passing the Family Movie Act. Only then did the studios give up their lawsuit against ClearPlay.

Sixth False Claim: It is also telling that ClearPlay has not joined with VidAngel in calling for changes to the law, instead telling the court in the VidAngel litigation that “[t]he cause of filtering is not helped by VidAngel’s unlawful behavior, especially coupled with incessant undermining statements towards those that are lawfully and legally filtering content.” Congress anticipated just this kind of mischief and drafted the law to nip it in the bud. As the authors of the Family Movie Act explained, “an infringing transmission of a performance to a household [is] not rendered non-infringing … by virtue of the fact that limited portions of [the motion picture] are made imperceptible during such performance or transmission,” and “the Act does not provide any exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions of section 1201 of title 17.”

Response: It is most telling that the former CEO of ClearPlay, Bill Aho, who helped get the Family Movie Act passed in 2005, has formed to seek a solution for filtering for the streaming age. He has recognized that his the benefits of the Family Movie Act will end as technology leaves discs behind and has therefore dedicated time and energy to seeking a solution with Congress.

The reason for ClearPlay’s involvement is obvious – ClearPlay and VidAngel have been litigating a patent dispute for three years, during which time VidAngel has become far more successful than ClearPlay. ClearPlay’s motive for siding with the studios against its more successful competitor is transparent.

The claim that “the Act does not provide any exemption” from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) begs the question: Is any exemption required? The answer is “no” for several reasons.

First, the DMCA distinguishes between “access control” and “use control” provisions. The studios contend only that VidAngel violates an “access control” provision. Such provisions control who is or is not allowed to access the content of a DVD. Anyone who acquires an authorized DVD is allowed to access its content. The studios’ complaint concerns VidAngel’s use of the content, but such use is not prohibited by the DMCA.

Second, to treat the access control provision as a use control provision would prevent many fair uses of copyrighted materials. That’s why the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed suit last year seeking to have that provision of the DMCA declared unconstitutional. That suit is pending in the Washington, D.C. district court.

Third, it is a core principle of statutory construction that an older law (the DMCA) should be read in a manner that harmonizes it with a more recent statute (the FMA). The FMA was intended to end all litigation involving filtering by affording flexibility in using various technologies to accomplish its purposes.

Fourth, as the DMCA had been interpreted by the courts when the FMA was enacted in 2005, damages were a necessary element of any DMCA claim. Because the studios would be paid for their content when they sold DVDs, they could not have alleged damage and therefore could not have alleged a DMCA violation. The DMCA violation the studios allege against VidAngel is based on a 9th Circuit case decided years after the FMA became law.

Seventh False Claim: We see no reason to upset this balance, which recognizes the importance of copyright and contracts in supporting a robust market for video streaming. Nor do we see any reason for the kind of incursion into the market being urged by VidAngel, which seeks to regulate the terms of video distribution agreements and impose technology mandates on internet streaming services. These proposals are both a solution in search of a problem and fundamentally inconsistent with conservative values.

Response: VidAngel wants not just a robust market for video streaming but a robust market for filtered video streaming. It therefore seeks to prohibit the studios from requiring authorized streaming services to prevent filtering. VidAngel does not seek to impose any technology mandate on streaming services (or anyone else). For about nine months during 2016-2017, no service was able to filter any new filtered motion picture content owing to studios’ use of contractual bans on filtering. The studios say they support filtering, but they expect filtering services to play a cat-and-mouse game to avoid being blocked by the authorized streaming providers they ride on while trying to attract customers with technology necessarily inferior to the technology available to streaming services that do not filter. They can be put out of business at any time (as has now happened multiple times with both VidAngel and ClearPlay).

Eighth False Claim: VidAngel should not be allowed to wrap itself in saints’ garb, cloaking its behavior in the mantle of family values while undermining the core conservative principle of property rights and free-market principles that support a vibrant creative economy. While we, too, find some movies and TV shows inappropriate for families, the solution lies in innovative products and services legally deployed in the marketplace—not congressional mandates which undermine core Constitutional rights and interfere with existing, well-functioning markets.

Response: The studios should not be able to hide behind what they term “core conservative principles” when they have fought free market principles for decades. They fought the Sony Betamax (the precursor to the VCR and greatest boom in wealth in home-video history); the Redbox video rental service by trying to cut off supply; every filtering company that increased the studios’ sales; and now VidAngel.

What the studios want is a “market” where they alone determine how, where, when and who streams every motion picture.

Fundamentally, they want complete control, but their history has shown repeatedly that they fight legal markets that benefit them. And speaking of fundamental conservative principles, the Constitution states that copyright law exists to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” The Constitution makes clear that copyright law should benefit the copyright holder, in order to benefit the public.

Yet the studios want copyright law to benefit them without any consideration of public benefit. By continually opposing filtering, the studios are pursuing their own agendum while harming the millions of American families who are forced to watch objectionable content or not watch at all. As proven in the record before the Court, filtering increases the reach of artistic expression to larger audiences while providing the studios millions in sales. It inarguably promotes the “Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

Excluding the filtering audience through limitations placed on devices, platforms, contracts, or other means, contorts the law away from its original intent. VidAngel does not seek any Congressional mandate; merely a clarification that the FMA allows competitors in a free market to offer innovative products and services–such as high quality, individually filtered, content delivered to any modern device a consumer wants to use to watch it.