All that from one little button! Who knew that Congress passed a special 16:9 = piracy bill?
Guestblogger Arthur Goldwag is the author of "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, The Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, The New World Order, and many, many more" and other books. (CC-licensed photo on Flickr by 911conspiracy) Forty-five years ... More.
John Allan Muhammad, best known for killing 10 people in the 2002 DC-area sniper shootings, will be executed at 9PM today in Virginia. ... More.
A woman who appears to have been inebriated fell onto the tracks in a Boston subway as a train was rushing towards her. People on the platform frantically waved at the train, which stopped in the nick of time.... More.
This is surely one of the most adorable animal YouTubes in the history of all internets. (via @maggiekb1 via this blog).... More.
Yves Béhar (who is in an epic struggle with Marc Newson to claim the title of "sexiest industrial designer alive") designed this vibrator. It looks like a Miyazaki cartoon creature. The Form 2 takes a two-pronged approach to the vibrator, giving its user what they're calling "Sensation in Stereo.... More.
RSS Feed
If it's a comedy and you don't laugh, that's also considered infringement.
I'm curious how exactly one would use the projector NOT in the presence of an audience. I mean, if you're watching it, then aren't you technically an audience of one? Is this one of those tree-falls-in-the-woods zen things?
Put yourself in the position of the author of the manual... Do you say that the projector can be used to violate copyright? Or do you say that the button can be used to violate copyright?
If I were making video projectors, I'd rather the button took the liability hit.
i think it's not about "piracy", but about modifying (stretching/squashing) the image so that it doesn't look like it's suppossed to be - if not, they could have just left out the 16:9 notice and said: "public viewing, even if the image is distorted = piracy".
What about old school TVs?
"This film has been modified..."
"And we violated so-and-so's copyright... just letting you know."
@jramboz: It's actually a "cryptic reference to aspect of copyright law" thing. Things are different if a movie is being shown as a "public performance" vs. private viewing.
Presumably, though I've never heard of this being tested, using the 16:9 button on 4:3 material could be construed as creating and displaying an unauthorized derivative work for which you have no performance licence. I'd suspect that, if any studios are using the 4:3/16:9 distinction as a price discrimination mechanism(ie. rights for 4:3 would be cheaper, because that is the usual nonprofessional format, while 16:9 would get hit with "theatrical" prices), they might be inclined to send in the attack lawyers against somebody whose projector was providing 16:9 from a 4:3.
I hope the manual also makes sure to give information on how far away from the screen the projector can sit. If it is too far, the screen size may hit the 55" mark and be considered a public performance. Also, be sure not use a 7.1 system as any sound system with more than 6 loudspeakers is copyright infringement.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html
Yeah, I'm no big-city lawyer, but I'd'a thought aspect ratio didn't have a lot to do with whether a public screening breeched copyright or not.
Maybe they've heard of people who thought changing the aspect ratio was making a substantially new derivative work.
If you spy on your neighbor while they're watching a movie, can you report them for infringement?
*facepalm* What projector manufacturer felt so pressured by the MPAA that they felt compelled to include such nonsense? Actually. I think I can guess. It rhymes with Pony.
As an audience member, I do sometimes wish that I could threaten bar and restaurant owners with legal action for putting up fancy new flat screen TVs and displaying movies, news, sports, etc. in the WRONG ASPECT RATIO. It drives me completely crazy, mostly because people just accept it, like there's nothing wrong, but also because its usually completely fixable with a single button.
As a filmmaker, if I heard that someone was holding a public screening of something I had worked on in the wrong aspect ratio, I might die of embarrassment before I could file the lawsuit.
Perhaps this is a moral rights thing, rather than copyright per se? The author has a right not to have his work used in a way that destroys its artistic integrity.
But wait, this is great! If this line of reasoning can be defended, then if you project an image at, say, 16:9.001, you're not violating copyright?
Engrish.
Hell, Asus's logo 2 yrs ago said "Rock Solid - Heart Touching". Might still say that, haven't looked.
The real translation is "if you make money displaying this TV you will get a letter from some greedy copyright lawyers".
It's a Panasonic D5500 (I've actually had it for many years, but only just noticed this gem in the manual).
it *may* infringe the rights of the copyright owner of the original picture.
We all know how vicious and silly the lawyers representing the media industries can be, the manufacturers are just trying to shield themselves from unnecessary lawsuits.
If it makes you feel better, press the "infringing button" like it's the fire button in Contra.
Correction: *ALL* your projector buttons infringe copyright.
If I start showing movies in altered aspect ratios, can I say that is an artistic statement and start selling tickets?
Here I was expecting to click through and see a video projector the size of a button :(
Well that's kinda funny...considering that almost every movie they show on TV is "formatted to fit my screen". Im sure it wasnt shot that way...so who's infringing on what? 16:9, I always thought, was the original aspect ratio. Theater screens are rectangular ...not SQUARE.
Eh...whatever...FIGHT THE POWER!!! LOL ...Change that aspect ratio...you rebels!
Great, then can I sue all the HD networks that distort, crop, and butcher movies every day? Showing a movie that way infringes upon the rights of the movie's director.