MGM sued over widescreen DVD images

[The Edge]

MGM sued (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/television/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1778416) over widescreen DVD images.

A movie buff is suing Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and several retailers, saying many so-called "widescreen" DVDs, advertised as showing the movie as seen in theaters actually show even less than already cropped "standard" versions.


I bet MGM tries to come up with their own definition of what wide screen is.

Edge

[wmansir]

I wonder if they are actually cropping the pan and scan version, which is really stupid, or if the movie was shot open matte and is presented that way for the fullscreen version?

[jggimi]

The article cited "Hoosiers" and "Rain Man". I don't have either, but I thought I'd check out IMDB,
and see what it said about a film and published DVDs.

First, a film:Technical Specifications for Rain Man (1988)

Camera
Panavision Cameras and Lenses

Laboratory
DeLuxe

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Spherical

Printed film format
35 mm

Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1Then, the R1 DVD:
Rain Man

MGM Home Entertainment 906041
Color - 133 minutes

Released: 29 April 1997
Available
List Price: $24.99
Snap Case/Keep Case

Aspect Ratio Regional Information Disc Details
1.85 : 1

Anamorphic Widescreen
Pan & Scan
1 : USA NTSC
Closed Captioning: CC
Master format: Film
Sides: 2 (DS-SL)
Chapter stops: 40
Macrovision copy protection
Sound: English French Spanish

5.1
2.0 Surround
1.0
Subtitles: English, French, Spanish


SUPPLEMENTS
Soundtrack remastered in Dolby Digital 5.1
8-page booklet featuring trivia, production notes and a revealing
look at the making of the movieAnd finally, the R2 disc:
Rain Man
MGM Home Entertainment 56041
Certificate: 12
Color - 128 minutes

Released: December 1998
Available
List Price: DM49.90
Keep Case



Aspect Ratio Regional Information Disc Details
1.85 : 1

Anamorphic Widescreen
2 : Germany PAL Quality Program:
Closed Captioning: none
Master format: Film
Sides: 1 (SS-RSDL)
Chapter stops: 23



Sound: German English Spanish French Italian

2.0 Surround
5.1
2.0 Surround
2.0 Surround
2.0 Surround
Subtitles: German, English, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish,
Finnish, Polish, French, Dutch, Italian, German (captions), English (captions)

[The Edge]

The never ending story.:rolleyes:
Movie studios sue DVD censors (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/14/1039656261600.html)

Edge

[mpucoder]

I just went to the CleanFlicks website. From what I can see they are doing nothing illegal. Rental stores that use their services, on the other hand, are violating copyright and trademark law.
Why do I say CleanFlicks is legal? Because they edit YOUR tape or disc, and return it to you. As such they are not selling editted films, but the editting service itself.

[The Edge]

There in hot water because they're "physically" changing the contents of the DVD.

The Directors Guild of America fired back in September with a countersuit, claiming that editing the films to make them more "family friendly" violates the creative vision of the director and misrepresents their work.

What do you think, is this legal or not????

Edge

[mpucoder]

Editing your copy for your personal use is absolutely legal. Hiring someone to do the editing is also legal.
Where it gets illegal is renting or selling altered versions of copyrighted material.
CleanFlicks only mistake might be in not "covering their asses" by making an effort to ensure no illegal use of the edited material takes place.
They quite possibly missed this, as the word "ass" got edited out.

[The Edge]

So it would be the rental store who could be sued.?
Can't imagine CleanFlicks get alot of bussiness.

Edge

[markrb]

There is an article on MovieMask in the current Sound and Vision magazine.

A quote from the article.
"Using MovieMask caused me to reflect on how good intentions can go bad."

I don't really care one way or the other about the MovieMask thing. I will never use it and it's not forced on anyone. I can see how directors and writters could get upset that their vision gets chopped. If I was them I would rather have someone not see it then basterdize my vision.

I hope the studios lose the lawsuit over the widescreen deal. I am sure it's nothing more then some idiot who doesn't know better making the desicion on the marketing more then any real attempt to decieve, but this kind of ignorance must be weeded out.

Mark

[mpucoder]

Originally posted by The Edge
Can't imagine CleanFlicks get alot of bussiness.


They're in Utah, near Salt Lake City ;)

[The Edge]

They're in Utah, near Salt Lake City

Enlighten me please! :)

Edge

[mpucoder]

The Church of the Later Day Saints, aka Mormons.

[wmansir]

I've read about Clean Flicks before. There are several companies that use that name (clean flicks, Kleen flicks, Clean flix, ect) all based around salt lake, but the one I read about was also a rental store, in addition to an editing house. In an attempt to get around the copyright issue they didn't actually rent the videos, but sold memberships to the video club which entitled you to borrow the videos. Also, they don't just copy the video, for each DVD they edit the original is destroyed. Often it is affixed to the edited versions cases as proof of the original.

Also, I wonder, with the issues of breaking CSS/altering content aside, can the movie studios keep a title from being rented. I'm sure with the advent of VCRs there were lawsuits to do this (since VCRs were seen as pirating machines at the time, now they rival theaters in revenu production).