• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Disney v. VidAngel     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. was a 2016 United States District Court for the Central District of California case in which four major Hollywood studios -- Disney, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Bros. -- filed a copyright infringement complaint against VidAngel, a company which allows users to filter out objectionable content from movies and TV shows. The studios alleged that the method VidAngel used to filter and stream films to its users was illegal under copyright law because they broke the encryption on DVDs and Blu-rays. VidAngel contended that their method was legal under an exception provided by the Family Movie Act.