Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > MGM lawsuit

Reply
Thread Tools

MGM lawsuit

 
 
scott
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/

Is this something new?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
TB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
"scott" wrote:
>
> Is this something new?


Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
pop.

T.B.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
TB wrote:
> "scott" wrote:
>>
>> Is this something new?

>
> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
> bucks a pop.


It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on the label
and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because
MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the
same image width as MGM's standard screen format DVDs." MGM denies this,
but apparently decided on a settlement to avoid protracted court costs.

That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
exactly?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
Mike Kohary wrote:
> TB wrote:
>> "scott" wrote:
>>>
>>> Is this something new?

>>
>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
>> bucks a pop.

>
> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
> exactly?


Just as I thought. Here's some more information, and IMO it's bad news.
From the web site of the law firm that filed the class action:

"The complaint alleges that MGM's advertisements that "widescreen" DVDs
provide up to 50% more image than MGM's standard screen DVDs is false and/or
misleading. Plaintiffs allege that the "widescreen" DVDs show the same
width of the film as the "standard screen" DVD of the same film."

To illustrate the full idiocy being committed here, this is from CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in533322.shtml

Basically, he sued over letterboxing. What a putz. Is this guy's psuedonym
Bernie Farber by any chance?

Want to do the right thing? Go to http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/ and
request to exclude yourself from the class action. This is just the sort of
thing that makes me want to see the entire system reformed.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:31:41 -0800, Mike Kohary wrote:
>> "scott" wrote:
>>>


>
> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on the label
> and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and misleading because
> MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio have the
> same image width as MGM's standard screen format DVDs." MGM denies this,
> but apparently decided on a settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
>
> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
> exactly?


For films shot soft-matted, the theatrical 1.85:1 image is shot within a
1.37:1 film frame. The frame is then matted for theatrical showing,
typically within the projector. For reformatting to 4:3 TV, the studio
will often "open-matte" the image, or open the mattes up and show the full,
original film frame. In these cases, the 4:3 version shows the full width
of the 1.85:1 image, as well as additional image on the top and bottom.
However, just because it shows more info doesn't mean it's desirable. Look
to the following link for more info:

http://www.digieffects.com/frames/tr...VideoSoftMatte

In the case with MGM, MGM consistently stated that the widescreen version
on the DVD showed more information than the 4:3 version, even in the case
of soft-matted 1.85:1 films where this wasn't actually true. They even
sometimes had visual examples that misrepresented what the 4:3 frame
actually showed.

So the plaintiff is technically correct in this case, although he is wrong
aesthetically.

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Janssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
TB wrote:

>>Is this something new?

>
> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
> pop.


No, it means you can sell them FOR 7 bucks a pop--
Or just get one free, seeing as they're pretty much the same unload
titles you usually *do* get with "Buy 3, Get One Free" offers.

Also, as the settlement describes, they're not claiming guilt and are
basically offering it to *shut up* the widescreen-pest's
publicity/harrassment suit.

Derek Janssen (which's pretty much the one embarrassing part about
filling out the form and joining it)
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
In article <KtZHd.357$(E-Mail Removed)>, Derek Janssen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>TB wrote:
>
>>>Is this something new?

>>
>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
>> pop.

>
>No, it means you can sell them FOR 7 bucks a pop--
>Or just get one free, seeing as they're pretty much the same unload
>titles you usually *do* get with "Buy 3, Get One Free" offers.
>
>Also, as the settlement describes, they're not claiming guilt and are
>basically offering it to *shut up* the widescreen-pest's
>publicity/harrassment suit.
>
>Derek Janssen (which's pretty much the one embarrassing part about
>filling out the form and joining it)
>(E-Mail Removed)

Half the movies on that list i'd be ashamed to have in my collection.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
GMAN wrote:
> In article <KtZHd.357$(E-Mail Removed)>, Derek Janssen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>TB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Is this something new?
>>>
>>>Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7 bucks a
>>>pop.

>>
>>No, it means you can sell them FOR 7 bucks a pop--
>>Or just get one free, seeing as they're pretty much the same unload
>>titles you usually *do* get with "Buy 3, Get One Free" offers.
>>
>>Also, as the settlement describes, they're not claiming guilt and are
>>basically offering it to *shut up* the widescreen-pest's
>>publicity/harrassment suit.
>>
>>Derek Janssen (which's pretty much the one embarrassing part about
>>filling out the form and joining it)
>>(E-Mail Removed)

>
> Half the movies on that list i'd be ashamed to have in my collection.



Thanks for sharing.

Really.



Joe
 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005

>>>> Is this something new?
>>>
>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
>>> bucks a pop.

>>
>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
>> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
>> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
>> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
>> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
>> exactly?


I've run into this more than once. The movie is shot in academy ratio and
framed for showing in theaters at 1.85:1. I noticed it because the tops of
heads were cut off in the "Widescreen" presentation, but not in the
"Fullscreen". Further, the width of the image was exactly the same in both
versions. IOW one doesn't see any more of the movie in the letterboxed
version. I've been under the delusion that the tradeoff for the smaller
letterboxed image was that it could deliver parts of the picture that would
otherwise be missing. Apparently not.

Norm Strong


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
X-No-archive: yes

"Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cspjkf$4vg$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mike Kohary wrote:
>> TB wrote:
>>> "scott" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is this something new?
>>>
>>> Looks like a good way to unload a bunch of old MGM dvds for over 7
>>> bucks a pop.

>>
>> It says the plaintiffs complained that "certain representations on
>> the label and package insert of MGM's widescreen DVDs are false and
>> misleading because MGM's widescreen DVDs for films shot in the 1.85
>> to 1 aspect ratio have the same image width as MGM's standard screen
>> format DVDs." MGM denies this, but apparently decided on a
>> settlement to avoid protracted court costs.
>> That's all the detail there is on the complaint. What does that mean
>> exactly?

>
> Just as I thought. Here's some more information, and IMO it's bad news.
> From the web site of the law firm that filed the class action:
>
> "The complaint alleges that MGM's advertisements that "widescreen" DVDs
> provide up to 50% more image than MGM's standard screen DVDs is false
> and/or misleading. Plaintiffs allege that the "widescreen" DVDs show the
> same width of the film as the "standard screen" DVD of the same film."
>
> To illustrate the full idiocy being committed here, this is from CBS News:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in533322.shtml
>
> Basically, he sued over letterboxing. What a putz. Is this guy's
> psuedonym Bernie Farber by any chance?
>
> Want to do the right thing? Go to http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/ and
> request to exclude yourself from the class action. This is just the sort
> of thing that makes me want to see the entire system reformed.
>

=======================================
I have done just that.
I will be sending in my exclusion.

NOW.............if they really wanted to do a worthwhile suit,
MGM is guilty of releasing many new titles in NON-anamorphic widescreen.
THAT is something they need to be called on.
=============================================


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MGM Class Action lawsuit in the USA Reader DVD Video 20 02-18-2005 05:56 PM
Microsoft Settles Consumer Lawsuit In New Mexico Tech Computer Support 0 08-06-2004 11:22 PM
Microsoft fails to have monopoly lawsuit dismissed TechNews Computer Support 13 06-16-2004 10:33 PM
Re: Lawsuit Against G.W. Bush: Affidavit Of Charles Schlund ChuckLysaght@yahoo.com Digital Photography 0 02-21-2004 07:24 AM
Olympus class action lawsuit olympussuit Digital Photography 5 08-30-2003 09:08 PM



Advertisments