Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Calls for Ban on Screeners
neoThoth writes "The MPAA is calling for a ban on all screeners for awards ceremonies. They state piracy as the rationale for killing of this tradition of the industry. It's interesting how this is never mentioned in their cries for tougher piracy laws. It's own members are the main source of piracy. 'The Directors, Writers and Screen Actors Guild all get screeners, as does the Golden Globe-selecting Hollywood Foreign Press Association and various critics' groups.'" Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.
I don't see why the MPAA just doesn't make slight, but easily noticeable differences between each screener. Maybe have a numeric code flash quickly onto the screen occasionally. Like what they do if there's a spy but they don't know who, they give out fake information and see which fake info the enemy acts on. If a certain coded screener gets pirated, then the MPAA knows who to send the lawsuit to.
I can't see David Letterman actually going and PAYING to see all the crap movies that his guests make!
crappy leaked watermarked screeners add hype to a film making the desire and street buzz even greater with hundreds of kids promoting it and spreading good words making the film a "must see"
or
of course they might oppose it if the movie sucks as they need to rip off
I mean, does anyone really give a damn about the Oscars?
It's the industry celebrating itself in a annual act of masturbation on national TV.
If you disagree, please explain why Kevin Costner has a "Best Director" award but not Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock or Akira Kurosawa?
Doesn't selling DVDs and videos contribute to piracy as well? I mean, if the pirates couldn't buy the DVDs or videos in the first place, it would be harder to copy them. I think they should ban the sale of DVDs ;) And while their at it, the practice of renting them contributes to a ton of piracy. Therefore, Blockbuster and it's smaller competitors should be banned from renting DVDs or videos to consumers.
----------
perl -e 'print(pack("H*","646176652e7761676e657240676d616
Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers. Actually based on how the movie industry operates...these people were all compensated before the release of the movie. They work in a union and most of them don't do anything on the set anyways....they are just the backup in case the head guy takes an extra coffee break. The only people really getting screwed are the ones that distribute and produce the movies. Distributors make a good percentage of theater profits, having to take care of the end of producing additional prints of the film and then securing contracts with theaters to show them. Producers also make a percentage of ticket sales, but also make a percentage on every DVD/VHS/Any-Future-Media purchase. Theaters make a very small percentage, if at all, and obviously make their money off the concessions. Distributors and Theaters will re-negotiate their deals based on how the movie does during the opening weekend. What is also BS is that typically more than half of the proceeds from movie tickets is made on opening weekend. So in the time it would take a person to video tape it and distribute it, if this person isn't an insider at the movie theater or at the studio/distribution house, it would only affect subsequent weekends which are much less important. Long story short, it doesn't affect any of those people, just the people who are taking a percentage of the profits from DVD sales, i.e. Production Company, Distribution Company, Investors, (sometimes actors).
people pirating movies makes it harder for the producers to earn money (less revenue because people aren't paying to watch the movies). So in order to retain their profits, they must cut costs. One of the ways they can do this is to pay their employees (actors and non-actors) less. If piracy is affecting the industry as a whole, then since there are no higher paying jobs to go to (within the industry), these employees are going to have to accept lower wages.
Perhaps the current trends (to spend more money on better effects etc) are actually reflective of a need to get audiences to come to theatres (to get a better experience than they'd get with their home 5.1 surround and 17" monitor).
You know what bugs me? When people refer to a giant slashdot collective, as if everyone here thought the same things about every issue. Did you ever thing that perhaps it could have been different people posting whose opinion you're remembering, or even that you could simply be remembering the slant you want to remember from discussions with multiple viewpoints?
Everything will be taken away from you.
You're on to something, but I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding in general with a bunch of the posts.
What the MPAA wants to stop is Oscar screeners. These are DVDs and tapes sent to Academy members of movies that are eligible for Oscars. It's a way to get somebody to see your movie, without making them go to the theater.
(Screeners are a mixed blessing. Smaller movies benefit from them, because they are often shut out of the multiplex too quickly or may just work better on a smaller screen, such as Moulin Rouge or even The Pianist; they also serve to remind Academy members of the movies that aren't still in theaters in December and January, when the voting is done. On the other hand, home viewing dilutes the power of some movies, such as Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan. Screeners are generally blamed for Shakespeare in Love winning out over Saving Private Ryan a few years ago, for the reasons I've listed.)
The problem is this: there are politics involved. It may not be fair, for example, that Seabiscuit will be on DVD at your local Blockbuster by the end of the year, and so Academy viewers will be able to watch that at home, but not anything that was released after summer or so. That's an unfair advantage.
And there's the question of whether or not screeners really prevent piracy anyways. A telesync is usually out before the movie's even in theaters, of course, and the selling of individual screener discs can be curtailed by putting a serial number on them and monitoring eBay.
The MPAA is somewhat like OPEC. You've got a coalition with similar interests but conflicts within the organization, and none of the members are hesitant to bend the rules for their own gain, if they can get away with it. And Oscar is more than enough motivation.
For some decent discussion of this, check out David Poland's Hot Button in the last week, particularly this column.
Or perhaps they could simply start making better movies that rely on story, acting, direction and other such old fashioned notions?
Which reduces the need for elaborate staging and effects.
Which reduces the amount of support staff needed for complex shots. Which brings us back to the idea of hurting "camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers".
If the executives & stars didn't make so much, they wouldn't need to charge so much
Yes, it must kill people to have to pay 15 whole dollars for a DVD, especially since the MPAA is sitting next to them with a handgun demanding that they buy as many as possible.
Film fans should be *incredibly* happy with the prices of DVDs. Movies from a decade or two ago can generally be had for about $10. That's less than seeing a full-price show in a lot of theatres now, and yet some people expect to pay even less?
Expecting to get media for free or cheap is (IMO) the geek equivalent of panhandling. If you are someone who gets irritated when a homeless person asks for spare change, how can you not expect the film and music industries to feel the same way when you suggest that they sell DVDs and CDs for $5 (or whatever) or that they shouldn't pursue people who bootleg them?
At least the homeless person *might* be spending the spare change on something that's actually necessary to live, like food.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Significant movies I remember being available from screeners/internal sources are:
sum of all fears: leaked about 3 weeks before theater opening
matrix: leaked two weeks before theater opening, but with some of the soundtrack music not mixed in yet- neo and trinity talk in a quiet club for example with no rob zombie in the background
lotr:tt- perfect DVD rip released the same week as it premiered in the theaters. Had little warnings saying "for academy awards consideration only" that popped up once ever 20 minutes below the letterboxing
spiderman- leaked on dvd same time as it came out
hulk- everyone knows about this one
attack of the clones- perfect dvd rip the same week it showed in theaters
There are like a billion others I cant even remember right now. Basically 90 percent of the high quality piracy is being supplied by the movie industry itself right now. I dont see how they can justify stiffer controls on us when their left and right hand are ignorant of one another.
I've worked with a media company, so I know their solution:
They are starting to use a faint watermark, across the entire picture. The watermark is individual to the tape itself (a number, letter, symbol or combo).
This way, if the tape is pirated... it's easy to trace back.
Each tape is signed out to a particular person. That person previously signed NDA's. Now they have to sign NDA's... and there is something to ensure they don't forget about it.
If the tape is leaked.... they know exactly who to go after. The tape's watermark will lead to the person responsible.