MPAA Calls for Ban on Screeners

X-mas for pirates... no more? by mr.henry · 2003-09-27 03:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Man, this is weak. I always look forward Academy screener time. I get to toss out my old, crappy telesync SVCDs and replace them with pristine DVD-Rs.

As much as I hate the MPAA, by Frederique+Coq-Bloqu · 2003-09-27 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

they should have the right to influence something like this at a private function like the Oscars. This doesn't strike me as provocative or unscrupulous in and of itself.

Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by startled · 2003-09-27 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

But why bother? The studio mailing out the tapes is the studio whose movie gets illegally distributed. There's no need for an MPAA recommendation; if a studio thinks its movies are being distributed by screeners, they can stop mailing them out, or take whatever other measures they deem appropriate.
Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by amRadioHed · 2003-09-27 05:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is that a movie that gets sent out as a screener has an advantage over movies that don't when it comes to oscar time. Therefore, a major studio isn't likely to stop sending out screeners if the other studios are still sending them.

Then their is the concern that if somehow screeners are banned entirely that would put the indie films at a major disadvantage due to the difficulty of getting to one of their limited screenings.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, by NanoGator · 2003-09-27 18:56 · Score: 3, Informative

"Piracy happens become the product/work/whatever isn't free in the first place, and some people would rather thieve it than buy it."

Correction: Piracy happens when something is unreasonably priced and there's an audience for it. Piracy isn't a big issue here in the USA. The price is a little on the high side, but still affordable. DVD retailers are making money quite comfortably. Now, go somewhere with a lower cost of living, and piracy is rampant.

Piracy is an extension of supply and demand, though the MPAA or RIAA will never admit to that.

--
"Derp de derp."

Don't forget. by GMontag · 2003-09-27 03:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

Don't forget the Best Boy!

--
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL

The forgotten by l810c · 2003-09-27 04:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

You forgot the fluffers

Re:The forgotten by Brainboy · 2003-09-27 04:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Meh, fluffers suck anyways.

--
Just a guy with an opinion
Re:The forgotten by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 05:26 · Score: 3, Funny

You forgot the fluffers
Yea, those guys are always getting the shaft.

Easier solution by Night+Goat · 2003-09-27 04:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 04:08 · Score: 3, Informative

I've seen tracking numbers on screeners before, but usually the group who releases it smudges a couple numbers out before uploading it -- so the ID can't be traced back to anyone.
Also, I think there are literally thousands of Academy screeners sent. It would be a real bitch to do.
Re:Easier solution by Neph · 2003-09-27 04:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Something like that might work, but not quite as obvious as what you're describing -- the hypothetical pirate would merely have to edit the movie by blacking out the code, and poof, it's untraceable again.
However, I could see something subtler -- some sort of complex steganography, fractional-second differences in the length of certain scenes (credit roll time?) etc. etc. Could be done...
Re:Easier solution by dapuk · 2003-09-27 04:38 · Score: 3, Informative

This has already been done - by using dark dots in a specific pattern on some frames....
See here and here
Though that site seems a bit dead right now - so just have a look at google
Re:Easier solution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 04:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am a pirate. I've seen steganography in action, admittedly in a different field, but I've seen it, and have the desire to obviously protect the privacy of my sources at all costs, as have virtually all groups. I have little experience of movie piracy directly, but I know a few people and I know exactly how they'd handle this.

Always get more than one source. Compare. More than two would be good too. This goes double if it's an analog source, because you could work between them and get a better quality.

Any per-source steganography will be noticed, and any steganography that wouldn't be noticed by multiple sources wouldn't narrow down the source hunt.

Additionally, you need to be aware that some sources are BEFORE any such steganography would be added. Ever considered the possibility that the guys who'd put the steganography in are, in fact, the guys who work as group and pro sources, getting paid more for that than their day job?

Besides, this will merely lead to a shift from DVD screeners to the even more incredible phenomenon of the telecine. Done correctly, this can be better than retail DVD quality in some cases. Once a film is out there are thousand of copies of it. Two or three digitally sampled masters from actual analog film reels, and you could remove film grain as well as steganography, leading to better compression. All you need is unrestricted access to a couple of movie theaters. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of groups whose members not only work in movie theaters as projectionists, but actually fucking own them.

The movie industry doesn't have much to fear from piracy compared to the music industry. They aren't quite as jaded, they aren't quite as crap, they don't have quite as much control as they think they have, and much more importantly they really aren't anywhere near as overpriced. And there is significant value added in seeing a good projection at a cinema vs. even a really good quality telecine/DVD-rip, and they make the serious money from concessions anyway. They'll still be around, and they'll still be busy.

Meanwhile the music industry is caught trying to do the same thing, but frankly, the problem is it just sucks. Concerts ain't so good, and are WAY overpriced, and hard to run, and irregular, and get massive rushes of people, whereas cinema screenings are small and can happen in several places at once. Music industry really doesn't have an easy way out of this. The movie industry, by comparison, has it made.

Note that the first people to get something out will probably fail to do this. The first releasers are at very high risk, as they traditionally rush and race to be first. Most people wait for the ones with a marginally greater eye for quality and detail (Centropy et al), and those are the ones who will survive stego. Weed out the crap groups, that's what I say!
Re:Easier solution by doormat · 2003-09-27 04:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yea, they do.. its called dots... they use a series of dots in various frames throughout the movie to track where the copies come from. Of course the warez groups are on to this, and photoshop the frames that contain the dots to remove or alter them to protect their suppliers...

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Re:Easier solution by athorshak · 2003-09-27 05:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Two or three digitally sampled masters from actual analog film reels, and you could remove film grain as well as steganography, leading to better compression

while I agree with the rest of your post, you should NOT be trying to remove film grain. Grain is an intentional part of the image. Different film stocks are chosen for different films and scenes specifically for their grain structure. On film where this is obvous to even a casual viewer is Minority Report. Speilberg gave this film an intetionally overexposed and extremely grainy look. You should NEVER try to remove grain from a film image.

You know... by c0dedude · 2003-09-27 04:02 · Score: 3, Funny

And, while they're at it, why don't they just stop making movies all togather! That way, there'd be no piracy! Or not have awards! Or not release DVDs or VHS! Wouldn't that be great? And you can't trust theater bootlegs either, so no theaters!

--
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?

Not only actors? by caranha · 2003-09-27 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

Whithout entering the merit of piracy itself, isn't this argument a fallacy? Aren't only high-profile actors/diretors/etc rewarded a percentage of the movie income, while all the others receive the same no matter what?

Don't want to enter the issue "but piracing will make movies spend less money" (which I doubt, based on current trend), but I got curious by this part.

--
No sig yet. Bear with it.

Re:Not only actors? by p00ya · 2003-09-27 04:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Aren't only high-profile actors/diretors/etc rewarded a percentage of the movie income, while all the others receive the same no matter what?

but piracing will make movies spend less money
Some (overly?)simple economics:

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).
Re:Not only actors? by SWPadnos · 2003-09-27 05:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

...
Don't want to enter the issue "but piracing will make movies spend less money" (which I doubt, based on current trend), but I got curious by this part.

This is the only argument that can possibly support the original statement. Only the people at the top level get any residuals - everyone else works for a daily wage and that's it. In fact, most people are working as subcontractors hired for the duration of the project (or their part in it). The grips, production assistants, special effects people, camera assistants, caterers, craft services, drivers, extras ... are all essentially self-employed. The unions help by providing health insurance and pension plans, and collective bargaining.

So, the only way that the "bottom of the pack" people get affected is if the industry as a whole goes into a slump because of piracy.

--
- The Sigless Wonder

Not in a million years... by JayBlalock · 2003-09-27 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Being able to stick "200X ACADEMY AWARD WINNER!" on your DVD package moves too many units for any studio to do ANYTHING to handicap themselves in the Awards race. The MPAA might push for this. The studios might even "agree." But they'll get the screeners out anyway. Paranoia will rule the day - no one will actually expect anyone else to abide by the agreement, so they'll all break it.

It's foolish that they're even TALKING about this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that this means the movie industry's own people are the ones bootlegging movies. "If the people who make the movies are putting them out there, then how's it wrong for me to download?" (rhetorical, exampliary question) Bad, bad, BAD move.

--
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.

Re:Not in a million years... by Murdock037 · 2003-09-27 04:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 04:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 /decieve the public to try and reclaim the money they pissed away paying the likes of J-lo and other shite actors 15million $ for 20min of crappy dialog that even a TV serial company would laugh at, are some actors worth 1000's of dollars a second while the Grip/soundman/operators get 200$ a DAY if they are lucky

Remember, piracy hurts X by Chromal · 2003-09-27 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I never really got how piracy hurt X. There's a large segment of pirating acts that occur largely because the pirates aren't going to purchase something. If they aren't going to buy it, or they aren't going to buy it but still pirate it-- either way, the net income is exactly the same. If consumers can afford something, won't they typically go out of their way to own it? A DVD or CD album is always nicer to have on your shelf than a DVD-R or CD-R copy, after all.

Re:Remember, piracy hurts X by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2003-09-27 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's a large segment of pirating acts that occur largely because the pirates aren't going to purchase something.

Neither you nor the MPAA has proven that either way, last time I checked. The MPAA (and RIAA and BSA) likes to say that they lose revenue, whereas copyright infringers justify their behaviour by saying they wouldn't pay for the crappy movie/game/software/music anyhow.

I call BS on both those statements. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle...

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.

How about banning awards instead? by k98sven · 2003-09-27 04:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Re:How about banning awards instead? by skribe · 2003-09-27 05:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hitchcock never won because he was up against other 'greats': Billy Wilder (The Apartment & The Lost Weekend), John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath), Elia Kazan (On the Waterfront) and Leo McCarey (Going My Way).
Likewise Kubrick lost out to Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest); William Friedkin (French Connection); Carol Reed (Oliver); and George Cukor (My Fair Lady).
Kurosawa lost out primarily because he was Japanese, but also because his solitary directorial nomination was up against Sydney Pollack's Out of Africa.
Costner may have been up against supremely qualified directors (Scorsese and Coppola) but it was IMHO hardly their best work (Goodfellas and Godfather III respectively).
To summarise, Costner had a weaker field than either Kubrick or Hitchcock. As far as Kurosawa is concerned IIRC there's only ever been one non-english language winner of Best Director/Best Film (Vita e bella, La). It sucks but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
skribe

--
Blog
Re:How about banning awards instead? by Enonu · 2003-09-27 05:11 · Score: 5, Funny

I fear the day I have to play you Trivial Pursuit.

other screeners by sdibb · 2003-09-27 04:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

The other screeners are the ones that work at the local movie theater.

Before every movie is played in the theater, the projectionist has to build it and *someone* has to watch every single movie before it's played to make sure the reels aren't put on backwards or in the wrong order or something like that. Anyone who's worked at the movie theater knows what late Thursday nights are like.

Do we still purchase the DVD?! by fervent_raptus · 2003-09-27 04:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the MPAA is totally overacting. How many geeks out there are actually going to substitute a DivX for the cinimatic experience of going to a movie theater?

Personally, I know people who had access to the LOTR DVD screener rip, and downloaded it, but waited to watch it until after the movie came out.

They then proceeded to watch the movie in theaters 3 or 4 times before ever playing the DivX file.

It wasn't until the period between the movie leaving theaters and coming out on DVD that the DivX file came in handy.

These friends not only purchased the regular version DVD when it came out, but also the extended version DVD.

IMO, if the MPAA want's to stop the popularity of DVD Screener rips, they should release the movie in DVD the same week it comes to theaters.

Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?! by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2003-09-27 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're right, of course. But it is an article of faith among the entertainment cartel that 1 copied file == 1 lost sale. Just as the RIAA is unwilling to consider the idea that file-sharing might actually help sales of good music (people do go out and buy albums after hearing a couple of good MP3's off those albums; but the albums they buy are more likely to be from obscure bands rather than whatever insipid Top 40 pap is currently getting all the advertising bucks) the MPAA is unwilling to consider the idea that a movie made to be seen in the the theater (as the LOTR films definitely are) might, if first seen on a pirated DVD, actually help draw people into the theater to see it. This is not a rational cost-benefit analysis on their part; it's a matter of paranoid ideology. The long, sad history of how paranoid ideologues react when confronted by sweet reason does nothing to convince me that they'll change their minds any time soon.

Actually, it's not just the entertainment industry that think this way. How many times do we hear M$ et al. claiming "Software piracy cost us $XX billion in lost sales last year," as though everyone who burned a copy of an Office CD would otherwise have gone out and bought the damn thing for full price? At least in the software industry it's a little wink-wink nudge-nudge, though; e.g., Adobe knows full well that all the Photoshop copies out there are training the next generation of Adobe customers. But the entertainment folks are dead serious in their wacko worldview.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Remember... by wozster · 2003-09-27 04:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

The auto industry doesn't just hurt the "Horse and Buggy" industry, it also hurts the wooden wheel maker.

Selling DVDs and videos... by Whomever · 2003-09-27 04:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

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*","646176652e7761676e657240676d6169 6c2e636f6d0a"));'

Not true by 1+(smarterThanYou) · 2003-09-27 04:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

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).

Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... by Joe+Tie. · 2003-09-27 04:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

It is NOT piracy by gessel · 2003-09-27 10:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is not possible, legally or physically, to "steal" data. It is not possible to "pirate" data.

It is guerilla antitrust.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It may be illegal, but it isn't theft.

The MPAA is taking a legally defensible and appropriate action to control the dissemination of data.

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Quotes from Thomas Jefferson To Isaac McPherson; Monticello, August 13, 1813.

Slashdot Mirror

MPAA Calls for Ban on Screeners

36 of 442 comments (clear)