Channels & viewing

[DBDukes]

@currah 

Like VidAngel, you are making false statements. Whether yours are knowingly so, or based on lies you were told, I can't say. I'm not your judge. You'll face Him later.

Roku has not turned its back on VidAngel. A search of this board will show that Roku is changing how non-certified apps work, in that there is a 120-day limit and a 20-user base for each non-certified app. VidAngel is being impacted for the same reason PornHub is being impacted: they don't have a channel that has passed certification.

Both VidAngel and PornHub have taken the same approach and lied to their user bases by claiming to be targeted by those with different morals (referring to Roku). This is not a morality issue, insofar as Roku's actions are concerned. While VidAngel and PornHub have very different products, both VidAngel and PornHub have taken the same misleading approach, and that says a lot about them and the similarity of their business morals.

The rest of what you said is good information for those dissatisfied to know. But the untrue statements that you led with need to be corrected. And people need to know the type of company for which they are taking up arms.

[Anonymous]

Roku won't take calls on this subject

[Wraith1000]

@Anonymous 

Of course they won't. They have some kind of internal agreement with some studio, streaming provider, or Directors Guild of America.  A lot of them are against filtering of any kind. Even though it goes against their best interests, they want to force us to watch their filth.  Roku is in league with this.  Who is the author of filth?  Who do you serve by promoting and encouraging filthy content, Roku?

[Wraith1000]

@DBDukes

A lot of unsubstantiated remarks there. You say VidAngel lies, so where is your proof?  Oh wait, you don't have any.  What you say doesn't ring true to me.  Comparing them to PornHub?  LOL

As Matthew said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits". Sorry, I believe VidAngel.  Ruku is playing a very despicable game.  Roku will not tell them what they need to do to meet certification.  They have tried multiple times previous to this change.

[DBDukes]

@Wraith1000 

VidAngel lost a $64-million decision against Disney and Warner Bros. A later agreement dropped it to under $10-million. Why did VidAngel have to pay anything and go bankrupt? Because VidAngel violated the rights of Disney and Warner Bros. As content owners, Disney and Warner Bros. have rights. You may not like it, that is the law.

By their fruits? VidAngel profited on the fruits of others, against the rights of others, and against the law. So, yeah, I know them. And their business practices are a low as the business practices of PornHub. And I bring that group up because they are telling their masses that Roku is leading a charge against them, imposing Roku's morality on them. Roku is being attacked from both sides, by two companies that produce very different products, but with the same dirty tactics.

Go follow VidAngel as a bearer of light in this dark world. Then go look up who else was called a bearer of light.

[Wraith1000]

@DBDukes 

First of all, you are talking about VidAngel's prior business model, not their current one which is completely different.

You obviously didn't follow the case very closely.  VidAngel did not blatantly steal or cheat anyone, they simply implemented a system which they thought complied with the wording of the Family Movie Act of 2004 -- wording which had never been legally tested or challenged.  They hired a world class legal team to represent and help them with the implementation.  They knew from the beginning that it would be challenged, even if legalized by the FMA.  Hollywood does not like filtering.

They purchased EVERY DVD and Blu-Ray legitimately from retail outlets such that each stream represented a physical disc (1:1).  Each user then had to purchase a disc for $20 before receiving a filtered stream.  Where VidAngel got in trouble was with decryption and storage (digitally) of those discs.  The FMA legalizes filtering and you have to decrypt to filter, so the interpretation is rather subjective.  Just because they lost doesn't mean Judge Birrotte was right.  Their intention was to take the case to the Supreme Court, but it was ultimately too expensive and time consuming.  And with their new business model it was less appealing to do so.

VidAngel's new business model is fully legitimate. They use licensed streams for all filtering.  In fact, during the court case they even called out ClearPlay as an example of legitimate filtering.  Wanna take a guess at what ClearPlay's approach was?  It's the same thing that VidAngel is doing now.

By the way you seem like a troll on this forum, so this will be my last reply to you.  You can believe what you want.

[Kenporon]

You’re seriously comparing a porn app to Vidangel in being denied, you’re just reinforcing the sad point of the condition of this World, and the reason Vidangel is so important today. 

[atc98092]

People are confusing the term "supported". Roku has never supported VidAngel. It has never been available in their channel store. A private channel does not constitute support of that channel, and the Roku user agreement has always stated that private channels could be removed at any time without warning. While past history can explain why VidAngel wasn't there before, we have no idea why they are not meeting the Roku standards at this time. From what I've read, I agree that it would be a good channel to have available, but Roku is the final decider on what channels will be available on their devices. 

Roku is not taking this action against VidAngel. They are removing access for ALL non-certified channels. That's literally hundreds of channels that different people offered for different reasons. Roku is moving to the same standard that Apple does for their products. Even Google restricts access to their app store, although it's pretty simple to side-load an app on an Android device. 

There is a wide variety of content that Roku is no longer allowing to be accessed via non-certified (private) channels. There is no vendetta against any specific provider. I support Roku's ability to control access to their platform. I'm not certain I agree with their current decision to not certify the current VidAngel app, but they must have their reasons. I do feel it's a loss for many, many users, and overall it appears to be a loss for Roku as well.

[currah]

PornHub has nothing to do with anything and I'm not sure why you incorporated them into your reply.  Do you represent Roku, or are you just responding like you have some sort of knowledge.  VidAngel has been applying for approval without response.  Is this not true?  Why wouldn't Roku explain?  Yes, they owe an explanation to their customers.  Why aren't they providing one.  VidAngel is explaining their efforts to their customers with transparency.  Where is Roku's transparency?  I hope your reply isn't that. If they won't then others will fill in the blank.  

[atc98092]

The adult channels are just another example of content that is being removed from Roku devices, and many users are upset about it. It is comparable, even though the content itself is completely opposite. 

I do wish Roku would explain to VidAngel why they channel isn't being accepted, although we only have statements from VidAngel that Roku hasn't responded. We don't know the accuracy of those statements. Simply look back when Roku and Google were arguing about certifying YouTube TV. Google made many statements that in the end weren't accurate, and Roku stood their ground until Google accepted their terms. 

As to Roku transparency, they really don't owe us users any explanation. They do owe that to VidAngel, so perhaps all this ruckus will make them at least let VidAngel know the reason for their position.