
IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars - twsted
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/from-quote-to-retraction-request-imaxs-absurd-attempt-to-censor-ars/
======
murbard2
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 the large
screen, your eyes can relax by focusing at infinity. With VR, you can
effectively simulate an infinitely large screen infinitely far away.

~~~
waterlesscloud
This just makes IMAX's case that consumer confusion is possible.

~~~
skelsey
It's ironic that in an article documenting attempted censorship, I have to
squint to read this legitimate comment because people think that disagreeing
with someone gives them the right to censor them.

~~~
Nadya
I take personal issue with the fading of downvoted comments.

1) The mechanic silences an opinion by making it harder to read/requiring
highlighting to read

2) Swaying public opinion of a comment without even reading it. "Oh, it's
already almost faded out entirely. It's probably a terrible post that I should
just downvote without actually reading." (E: I understand HN requires you to
"spend" a karma to downvote something. This doesn't prevent people from using
their karma in this manner when they have 1,000's)

3) Allows self-validation of "others agree with me, because this comment has
been downvoted and I disagree with this comment", which is fallacious
reasoning. Popular/majority opinion _can_ be wrong and patting yourself on the
back for having other people agree with you can be detrimental. Self-
validation without critically thinking about your opponents arguments is an
injustice to them.

I have a rule in Stylish to set "font" to #333 so that all comments appear the
same for me. Unless someone mentions "why is this downvoted", I'm completely
unaware of any comments being downvoted. I find this leads to a better
experience on HN.

Note: For #3 I use "you/yourself" in a "third party not necessarily you 'you'"
way.

------
ak39
I can only imagine the precious 5 seconds of thought given to the decision to
respond to Ars by the IMAX Chief Admin Officer:

"Hmm, we know we have nothing to stand on here, but if we politely ask Ars to
remove references to IMAX and they do, matter ends there. If Ars doesn't
comply, we just lost 5 minutes of drafting this pointless letter. Nothing
really to lose."

Hits send.

The irony? IMAX is now paying the real cost of that poor decision. Bad
publicity and worse - the revelation that they are insecure about and feel
threatened by emergent technologies. Talk about pissing on your own product.

~~~
rbcgerard
I completely agree - but i think there is another dynamic at work here:

Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic, and one way
to defend against that in court is to show a history of defending the mark
(I'm not lawyer but that's my simplistic explanation) this is a great article
explaining the phenomena around derby pie

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/wha...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/whats-
inside-a-derby-pie-maybe-a-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen)

My bet is that they are weighing the lesser of two evils (to them) loose their
trademark or look like a fool in the press for a few days...

~~~
aroch
If IMAX's attorneys actually think nominative use in an article risks them
losing the trademark, they need to fire their attorney. In no way is Ars using
the IMAX mark to refer to a generic large screen (its an attributed quote, not
an editorial comment) and there's no risk of confusion.

All the lawyers are doing is chasing a pay check

------
shiggerino
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.

~~~
hydrogen18
Likewise. It was more like if I wanted to watch the whole movie, I had to pan
my head constantly through an arc.

It's a horrible experience. You can buy a horribly cheap TV, a 5.1 sound
system and plop it in your living room and get a better experience. Getting
the sound right takes a long time, but my end conclusion was that suspending
bunch of cardboard everywhere seemed to negate the poor acoustics of the room.

~~~
ytdht
Could you hang paintings on the walls instead of cardboard everywhere?

~~~
Cantremeber
I personally used those cheap canvas tarps you get to put down while painting.
You can paint them, they're huge for the money, and they prevent weird echos
in my cavern of a living room.

------
Anechoic
FWIW, IMAX has apologized:
[https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816](https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816)

~~~
slayed0
I think that's worth a lot. You don't often see such a sincere apology in
situations like this. Very cool on IMAX's part.

------
Animats
IMAX has bigger problems. They're diluting their brand by building "IMAX-lite"
theaters with smaller screens.[1] Reviews are negative: "Underwhelming,
overpriced: IMAX screens get smaller, prices stay the same"[2] Early IMAX
digital projection was only "2K" (1080p, or regular HDTV), and now they have
4K projectors. This is still lower than their old 70mm film system, and not
much better than what you can buy at Costco.

[1]
[http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm](http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm)
[2] [http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-
punie...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punier-days-
just/)

------
belgianguy
Paraphrasing from one of the comments there:

IMAX's legal counsel failed to see the big picture.

~~~
Sanddancer
I see what you did there. However, I think they do see the big picture. VR is
a huge threat to their marketshare; if relatively small screens and a couple
nice lenses can give an experience people find comparable, it's going to be a
lot harder to sell their gear at their current price points. The fact that
VR's getting to the point where some people are finding it comparable to the
"IMAX Experience" is showing that in a generation or two, it will be there for
the majority of people.

------
waterlesscloud
It's worth noting IMAX does in fact have a trademark in the relevant fields -

": Consumer electronic products, namely, headphones, earphones, cables,
camcorders, DVD players and stereos; home theater systems comprised of a
projector system, a surround sound system, a screen, media servers and control
devices; and gaming equipment, namely, video game machines for use with
televisions and computers; video game controllers; computer software for
playing video games and for accessing and browsing global computer and
communications networks; video game programs downloadable from global computer
networks and global communications networks; and user manuals for all of the
aforementioned software and devices sold as a unit therewith; devices used to
facilitate interactive game play over computer networks; television and video
converters; speakers, loudspeakers systems"

[http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:77u...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:77unwy.2.3)

~~~
waterlesscloud
A little more research turned up this article that mentions IMAX partnering
with Samsung's VR product.

[http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/samsung-unveils-
virtual...](http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/samsung-unveils-virtual-
reality-headset-built-with-facebooks-oculus-1201296736/)

Samsung's VR will offer "a selection of IMAX films in a virtual theater".

Samsung's VR is based on Oculus tech, and actually will be an IMAX theater in
your house.

Heh.

------
sambeau
I count 30 references to IMAX in the rebuttal, including the image.

Well that shut them up!…

------
jasode
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
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark#Trademark_erosion)

~~~
insipid
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).

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

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

Yes, everyone agrees that they were refering to IMAX. It is also legal for
them to do so (and for Ars to publish this opinion) without seeking permission
from IMAX first. Some people on HN are surprisingly disagreeing with this (or
at least condoning IMAX's response)

------
cmurf
Well the reality is, many people are bad at their job. But then there's the
select slice of those who are also embracing their own hubris in the process
and thoroughly expect they won't be called out on it.

------
raverbashing
Funny, there are some movie theaters using a MAXX brand for a large format
screen, but I don't know if there has been legal action against them.

------
chris_wot
Someone refer them to Charles Carreon, pronto!

------
cbhl
I can imagine SteamVR later putting up a marketing site quoting Ars' original
article headline like this:

    
    
        "SteamVR ... feels like an 'IMAX in your house'" --Ars Technica
    

Is it possible that people would start confusing SteamVR and IMAX then?

~~~
opcvx
No, because IMAX can't set up a movie theater in your home.

------
macspoofing
They must be worried.

------
dharma1
the film industry standards are just weird.. Why are there a zillion privately
owned standards? IMAX, THX, DTS (HD, X etc), Dolby (Cinema, Digital Cinema,
Atmos etc)

------
omouse
yet another backwards Canadian company; IMAX shouldn't let their lawyers write
up any letters or emails or anything and should stick to what they do best.

~~~
CleanCoder
What does the origin of the company have to do with this?

------
twothamendment
IMAX - 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!

------
drcode
I'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.

~~~
Dylan16807
>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.

No, it's not that at all. Ars was making a comparison to actual IMAX, not
using it as a generic.

"This new pepsi tastes as good as coke"

------
pervycreeper
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.

~~~
acdha
Do you have a citation for any of those claims?

~~~
rev_bird
First guess was that this was yet another whiny, obtuse reference to something
related to the Gamergate persecution complex that grew out of people for SOME
REASON objecting to violent threats and doxxing, google search didn't
disappoint: [http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-
pos...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-
threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/)
[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/that-life-is-over-
zoe-...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/that-life-is-over-zoe-quinn-
looks-beyond-gamergate/)

~~~
acdha
I assumed it was either that or, given his username, all of the trolls whining
about Reddit declining to give them a completely unrestricted forum for abuse:

[http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/reddit-announces-
sit...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/reddit-announces-sitewide-
effort-to-enforce-new-anti-harassment-rules/)

------
dragonwriter
On the one hand, a factual recitation of a third-party direct quote in a bona-
fide journalistic piece almost certainly isn't a trademark violation.

On the other hand, much of the tech press is coordinated, spoonfed promotional
material for the industry, where such a thing, even in a quoted endorsement,
is arguably trading on the mark in a way which, absent a license, is a
violation, and there are strong legal incentives for trademark holders to
assume the worst of an unauthorized use without concrete evidence to the
contrary.

Ars may have been in the right initially, but I think that the current article
calling IMAX's response an absurd attemp at censorship is, at best, hyperbolic
and wilfully blind to the realities around trademarks.

~~~
chc
It sounds like what you're saying is, because press releases exist, comparing
one company's product to another's by name in a news feature is potentially
infringing. Do you actually think that position has a wooden leg to stand on?
I don't see how you could possibly read a comparison like this — even if made
outside of quotes — as anything but descriptive of IMAX's actual product. I
don't think a normal consumer would likely be confused.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It sounds like what you're saying is, because press releases exist,
> comparing one company's product to another's by name in a news feature is
> potentially infringing.

No, that's not what I'm saying. There's a big difference between press
releases existing and presented-as-journalistic pieces being essentially paid
promotional material for vendors.

> Do you actually think that position has a wooden leg to stand on?

No, which is why I didn't make it.

> I don't see how you could possibly read a comparison like this — even if
> made outside of quotes — as anything but descriptive of IMAX's actual
> product.

I don't see how you _could_ read it as descriptive of IMAX's actual product,
since there is no actual description of IMAX's product being made. Its clearly
a nominative reference; its clearly a statement saying another product is good
because its like IMAX's product.

> I don't think a normal consumer would likely be confused.

Perhaps not, but legal actions for violations of trademark rights don't always
require that ( _infringement_ does, but _dilution_ , which seems the most
applicable trademark concern here, does not.)

------
waterlesscloud
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.

~~~
noja
> 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.

~~~
i80and
Case in point: I went to see Jurassic World the other day, and paid extra for
IMAX, imagining the building-sized screens I associate with their brand.

Nope. It was smaller than the unbranded "Monster Screen" at my local theater
in the middle of nowhere.

IMAX no longer really means anything to me.

~~~
cdcarter
Depending on the cinema you were at, you may have paid extra to see the 70mm
print, instead of the 35mm cut.

