Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#31

Post by moey »

morganvachon wrote: post #30
jasode wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do AMD, Intel, Nvidia, HP, Lenovo, Ford, Honda, and so on send a cease and desist letter to every publication ... I suppose they don't and I'm not disagreeing with you on that. The IMAX situation may be different in that their trademark is very catchy sounding (2 syllables "eye"-"macks") and is getting pulled (by innocent human tendencies) into a lot of conversations unrelated to IMAX(tm) theaters. When people use wo…

I think that's a bit of a stretch. When I hear "Honda", I think of cars. When I hear "Ford", I also think of cars. When I hear "IMAX", I think of theaters. When I hear "SteamVR", I think of computer games and virtual reality. If anything, IMAX has even less footing than the other companies I mentioned. Now, that's just me, but I can imagine it being similar for most people.

I think you're missing the point.

When most people think of fascial tissue, they think of Kleenex. They call any brand of fascial tissue Kleenex.

IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX. So they over-reach anytime someone mentions the word I assume.

Not justifying the actions, just trying to clear things up. Personally, I think it's ridiculous.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#32

Post by nogridbag »

noja wrote: post #3
waterlesscloud wrote: post #2

I 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.

> it means really big movie screen It used to mean that, not any more. IMAX screens are allowed to be much, much smaller than before.

Yes this is frustrating. They just closed one of the only large IMAX screens in lower NY at the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, NY which is where most people from northern jersey and lower NY went. The IMAX is moving to the multiplex in the same mall - thus it will be the smaller screen variety.

We're left with Lincoln square in NYC and possibly New Rochelle, NY as the only remaining large format IMAX in the area.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#34

Post by Someone1234 »

murbard2 wrote: post #15

IMAX 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 th…

> With VR, you can effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away.

In theory.

But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset needs to be to support it. And considering that VR screens are already an inch from your face (and thus require a high-ish resolution to just basically "work") we're talking about better-than-exist resolution screens for that form-factor.

I don't legitimately consider IMAX's business threatened by VR headsets in the next ten or so years, and even then we'll have to see how well people like wearing a VR headset on their face (which might hurt necks, feel uncomfortable, suck for glasses wearers, etc).

VR is better now than at any point in history. But people are pretending like it will definitely succeed. But Google already cancelled Google Glass (and, no, Google Cardboard isn't the same thing). This might be another "3D" flop all over again.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#35

Post by mediocrejoker »

insipid wrote: post #23
jasode wrote: post #12

I 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…

Even presuming we accept "trademark erosion" as a thing, it's still irrelevant here: the author wasn't using a trademark to describe a generic good (i.e., they didn't mean "a 'large-format' movie theatre with surround sound"), they were literally referring to the product (or, rather, one of the confusingly different products) traded under the "IMAX" mark (i.e., they meant, literally, AN IMAX THEATRE).

I think the quotee (not the article author, mind you) was, albeit indirectly, comparing the VR product to IMAX.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#36

Post by zyxley »

shiggerino wrote: post #22

I went to an IMAX™®℠℗(U.S. Patent 3,494,524) theatre once. Having to recline and look up at the screen was annoying, and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision. That's definitely not something I'd want in my living room.

> and the size was gratuitous with most of it wasted to peripheral vision

From what I understand, movies shot specifically for IMAX are meant to be framed something like a stage play, with your eyes wandering around the screen rather than staying fixed near the center.

Of course, that presumes the movie was made for it (or had a cut framed specifically for it), rather than just being "normal theatrical cut but bigger".

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#38

Post by morganvachon »

moey wrote: post #31
morganvachon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. When I hear "Honda", I think of cars. When I hear "Ford", I also think of cars. When I hear "IMAX", I think of theaters. When I hear "SteamVR", I think of computer games and virtual reality. If anything, IMAX has even less footing than the other companies I mentioned. Now, that's just me, but I can imagine it being similar for most people.

I think you're missing the point. When most people think of fascial tissue, they think of Kleenex. They call any brand of fascial tissue Kleenex. IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX. So they over-reach anytime someone mentions the word I assume. Not justifying the actions, just trying to clear things up. Personally, I think it's ridiculous.

But who is calling just any theater "IMAX"? If I say to my wife, "hey let's go to the IMAX", she's going to ask me why we would pay that much when we can just go to the theater instead. If there's any dilution of the IMAX brand going on, it's by IMAX themselves by constantly lowering their standards.

Something else you have to consider is intent. It doesn't seem that Ars intended to dilute IMAX's brand by publishing a quote, and it doesn't seem to be the intent of the person quoted either. It was simply a frame of reference.

> IMAX doesn't want people calling any large format theater IMAX

Here's the thing: Nobody did that in the Ars article. A piece of VR tech was casually compared to the IMAX experience by someone being interviewed by Ars.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#40

Post by acdha »

pervycreeper wrote: post #11

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.

Do you have a citation for any of those claims?
Post reply on HN