“Watch movies your way—however the BLEEP you want.”
That’s the motto of a new company that wants to change the way we consume video.
At issue is the question over whether Hollywood studios and auteurs can force us to consume their vision in toto, or if consumers—who purchase a movie or TV show—have the right to filter content to their liking.
As technology empowers consumers in every other sphere of life, it was only a matter of time before this question came to a head.
Enter VidAngel, whose business model is based on the premise that “individuals, in the privacy of their homes, should have the personal freedom to watch that content in the way they choose.”
Here’s how it works: A “community of taggers” (crowdsourcing and paid taggers) view films, and tag potentially offensive content. This allows consumers “to filter language, nudity, violence, and other content from movies and TV shows.”
You personalize the menu. Let’s say you love nudity, but are squeamish about violence. There’s an option for that. Or, let’s say you’re a parent who doesn’t mind nudity, violence, or language, but you’ve got a 5-year old baseball fanatic who wants to watch Major League. And, let’s say you don’t want him repeating certain lines, you can filter content to suit your needs.
Friction is kept to a minimum. Parents can filter content on a smart phone app, and then immediately stream it. (Despite the tag line, content isn’t literally “bleeped,” it’s seamlessly expurgated.)
In order to strictly comply with the laws, VidAngel had to jump through some major hoops. For every consumer streaming Die Hard on a given day, VidAngel has to own and maintain a physical copy. And since the law does not allow consumers to “rent” a filtered copy, they must buy it for $20 (the good news is they can sell it back to VidAngel for $19 within 24 hours).
Part of the problem the studios have with this product/service has to do with the low pricing. Consumers, they argue, can effectively “rent” and stream a VidAngel movie for less money than it would cost to see the same film on Netflix, Amazon, etc.
This price point, it turns out, is an important competitive advantage for VidAngel. It helps them stay competitive in a world where they must overcome other disadvantages. (Their competitors, for example, don’t have to wait until there is a physical Blu-ray or DVD available for purchase before they can legally offer it for sale via streaming.)
Hollywood studios are, predictably, unhappy about VidAngel—and lawsuits have been filed.
In some ways, this reminds me of the Uber story. Technology that empowers consumers also upends incumbent stakeholders. The world is changing, and I suspect that trying to stop technology that empowers consumers is a fool’s errand.
It’s hard to stop the future, which seems biased (for good or ill) toward more individual liberty at the expense of shared community and consensus.
The culture war is also an arms race. If Hollywood wants to abdicate its responsibility to police itself—and if we all agree that censorship is generally a very bad idea—then this is a logical compromise.
And because Hollywood already allows TV and airlines to filter content, arguments about the preservation of creative purity are harder to make.
If you find this story as fascinating as me, I recently talked to VidAngel co-founder and CEO Neal Harmon and General Counsel David Quinto, an intellectual property rights expert who spent years representing the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Stay tuned for the podcast.