I find it peculiar that they would call this "censorship", especially when the original article's author, Sam Machkovech, has been one of the article writers who has been beating the drum the loudest in favor of censorship in recent months. I guess it's somehow different when it happens to internet bloggers rather than internet comment authors.
IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
11–20 of 151 posts
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#12I understand that IMAX's demands look silly but if we accept that "trademark erosion"[1] is a real phenomenon, the question is: What forms of human communication are exempt from that?
In other words, no matter how silly and innocent the passing reference to IMAX is, is it possible that IMAX lawyers must pursue those genericized uses even though those lawyers (and the client IMAX itself) knows it generates negative publicity?
A natural human tendency is to speak with similes & metaphors. "Yosemite Valley is like a jacked up IMAX for nature lovers" or "my budding friend the film student with his overuse of lens flares thinks he's the second coming of J.J. Abrahams".
The tension between trademark enforcements and natural human tendencies to color conversations with innocuous references to pop culture creates silly-looking "cease & desist" letters.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_er...
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#13I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
Ars published a quote by someone they interviewed, about a similar technology to IMAX but not directly competing. If IMAX is in the right here, it means an end to any and all journalistic reporting of new technology. You simply can't report on tech without referencing similar tech as a comparison point for the reader. Innovation doesn't happen in a bubble.
For example, if IMAX's point of view is correct here, the entire article linked below[1] wouldn't be legal to write as it compares AMD's new GPUs to Nvidia's GPUs. Simply put, it's a staple of product journalism to compare with other similar technology, and this has always been the case. IMAX is clearly and wholly in the wrong.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#14I'm guessing that this was just the sort of typical letter that every company with an established brand sends to media whenever they use their trademark in a more generalized context.
It's as if Ars had said "we googled up their website" while showing a picture of them using Bing, or if they had said "We enjoyed some Coke after the demo" and had a picture of them holding a can of Pepsi.
I'm not saying that this letter isn't ridiculous, but just realize what the job of the internal lawyer is at IMAX: Her job is to defend all mainstream attempts to use their brand name out of context, she doesn't seriously expect arstechnica to comply- It's just that people in the past have lost rights to trademarks they failed to defend, so she is pretty much obligated to write these silly letters.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#15IMAX demands are ridiculous, but Ars's claim that IMAX is merely used as an example of "something awesome" is dubious when high quality VR happens to provide a substitute for going to an IMAX theater.
This is why IMAX is annoyed: they understand that VR is a huge threat to their business. The reason watching a movie on a very large screen is better than watching it up-close on a small screen is that in the case of the large screen, your eyes can relax by focusing at infinity. With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#16If you don't show that you take affirmative steps to maintain your Mark, you can lose it. IMAX is doing what they have to do.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#17IMAX - Isn't that the name of the inflatable robot/healthcare worker/superhero in that one movie? I love that guy. His curved screen is so large, has great high definition and amazing audio quality. I can't wait to watch a movie on him again!
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#18I dunno. I kind of agree with IMAX here. IMAX doesn't mean "really big movie screen", it means "particular brand of really big movie screen with particular quality controls over image projection". And I do think that's a potential valid source of confusion with consumers, who could potentially think SteamVR lives up to the same image projection standards. It's not as clear cut to me as Ars is making it out to be.
I've read it as another attempt by Ars to stir-up controversy to prop up their dwindling brand name. Ars is nothing more than a fragment of what it used to be.
Very funny. A fragment of what it used to be - like the size of an "IMAX" screen.
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#19I find it peculiar that they would call this "censorship", especially when the original article's author, Sam Machkovech, has been one of the article writers who has been beating the drum the loudest in favor of censorship in recent months. I guess it's somehow different when it happens to internet bloggers rather than internet comment authors.
He is also dishonest in his reviews. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38rgl2/ars_...
Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars
#20I understand that IMAX's demands look silly but if we accept that " trademark erosion "[1] is a real phenomenon, the question is: What forms of human communication are exempt from that? In other words, no matter how silly and innocent the passing reference to IMAX is, is it possible that IMAX lawyers must pursue those genericized uses even though those lawyers (and the client IMAX itself) knows it generates negative…
Do AMD, Intel, Nvidia, HP, Lenovo, Ford, Honda, and so on send a cease and desist letter to every publication that mentions them in passing during a review of a similar product? Product comparisons are inevitable. If I review, say, a Sony Smartwatch, you bet your ass I'm going to compare it to a Pebble and an Apple Watch, otherwise there's no real frame of reference.
IMAX's lawyers are clearly overreaching here.