MGM sued over widescreen DVD images

I just posted the article MGM sued over widescreen DVD images.

A movie buff is suing MGM for falsely claiming some movies released on DVD are widescreen editions, when in actual fact they are cropped versions of the standard releases, and show even less of the…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5073-MGM-sued-over-widescreen-DVD-images.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/5073-MGM-sued-over-widescreen-DVD-images.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

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

Some jerks will never end the fun of suing big companies for stupid reasons.

So it is ok for the movie studios suing individuals and companies for making technology that allow you to make personal backups but its not ok for individuals to sue the movie companies for false advertizing - which is illegal. If I am paying for a widescreen dvd to play on my wide screen tv, it better be the right stuff and not a cropped version.

Stupid or not. Money is money. Doesn’t matter how you get it.

LOL. False advertising? Wasn’t the DVD widescreen? I think it was, did they actually state it was the same as the theater version, or just that it was widescreen? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact most people don’t use it for only personal backups.

It was technically widescreen, but we’d be pissed if we bought a CD that says it’s 44.1KHz, but was mastered from a dirty cassette tape. Maybe most people don’t use it(DVD backup utilities) for personal backup, but we’re supposed to be able to make backup copies. What they’re used for is a different issue. Games that came on floppy disk used to always say to backup the disks and stick the original in a “safe place.” Now people are saying “don’t EVER copy this.”

I’m with you chsbiking and even better if you get it off rats…:7

Actually the guy is wrong. Batman 1 and 2 were the same way. What it is, is the full screen version is actually showing more of the screen then it should. Directors when shooting a film shoot a larger shot then what you see in the theatere. The camera has “letter box markers” so the director can use to target what will be on screen, but if for some reason a shot exceeds the markers, the view can be adjusted in post production and you dont lose the shot. The full screen versions on the dvd are showing the wide screen version but with the top and bottem unlocked. (The original is still widescreen, but in the ful lscreen version the sides are not unlocked, so you get a proper aspect ratio if you just remove the bars)

Just because the movie may or may not have had bars on it does NOT make it technically a widescreen version. You cant arbitrarily crop more of the picture and make it 16:9 and call it so. One of the reasons most movies on tv and on vhs/ dvd have the disclaimer now “this movie has been altered to fit your television screen”, is to avoid incidents such as this. Now if it had that disclaimer then this is a nonstarter. I have to disagree with most of what jeffmd said however. Yes while shooting the camera does has the lbmarkers, but no matter how you shoot, unless your trying to shoot for 4:3 you are going to lose some information in the transition from wide to full. A 4:3 is not going to show you 16:9 information, whether you remove the bars or not, and there are no bars to remove on a widescreen tv. But again, what the individuals lawyer is saying is that there is even less information in the widescreen than the fullscreen, that not only makes him right (if thats the case), but he will also win, because the definition (i may be wrong on that, it may just be our assumptions of what WS means) of a wide screen is more than just 16:9 aspect ratio. So i guess i actually disagree with everything you said, but in an agreeable manner.