Would be a terrible argument, for sure.

What would be a terrible argument? Nothing I wrote above was intended to be an affirmative argument justifying the legality of VidAngel.

You’re the one who pointed to the relevant TOS and stated affirmatively that VidAngel and/or its subscribers are acting dishonestly. All I was saying is that VidAngel IMO could very easily make an argument that it is not violating the TOS you pointed out.

And that’s just one tiny portion of the TOS.

Ya, of course it is, but it’s the one TOS that you pointed out, which is why I was responding to that one. If you’re aware of any other TOS that might apply, let us know and we will look at those too.

Obviously the fact that they have not endorsed or approved the tech does not mean they are on the verge of legal action.

Duh.

The fact that they have not taken legal action (or other efforts to cut them off) does not mean that 1) it won’t come eventually, or 2) that it is an implicit approval of their violations.

Again, duh. We can agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BUT, that doesn’t mean evidence of absence is wholly meaningless.

Im glad VidAngel is doing what its doing. VidAngel spotted a demand in the market that wasn’t being met, and VidAngel is being disruptive.

In technology and market economies, disruption is good and necessary. Assuming you’re being earnest in this thread, it’s a little surprising you see this as a black and white issue. You must be an accountant or something.