VidAngel

Perhaps because what Vidangel does is theft, You can not sell what you do not own and you definitely can not change what you do not own. If you steal you get busted as they did. Liking their cause does not make it an less unlawful.

You can not distribute modified versions of any copy written material without the permission of that properties owner, that is not exactly new law it goes back a couple of hundred years or so.

If you don;'t like the way a film was made simply do not buy the film. The creator makes the film they want to make and have no obligation to make the film you want them make, or let any third party edit it.

1stSgt Nelson Kerr They were not busted for theft, they paid their mandatory streaming fees. Secondly there has been no court decision as the case is still pending, the injunction is at the 9th court. They were issued a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement, which is subject to interpretation and will likely go before the supreme court, I don't hold much value in 9th Circuit court decisions.

Secondly you actually can modify versions of movies and sell so long as you pay the distribution fees, that is thanks to the 2005 Family Home Movie Act. The problem is Most of the Hollywood companies refuse to sell them licenses which is where the latest appeals decision is at now.

They did not gave the legal right to stream nor the right to mangle someone else's product. So theft works very well

The right to filter was given by congress. The injunction is based around using a centralized image of the disk (exactly how Netflix operated) vs using decentralized streamed images. The loss of income to the movie owners was never debated in court. Only the validity of the Family Home Movies Act.