142 Directors Appeal MPAA to Repeal Screener Ban

Londovir writes "Nearly 150 directors, including heavy hitters such as Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Redford, and others have sent a letter to Jack Valenti & the MPAA. In the letter, published in the Friday issue of Variety, they call for an end to the ban on screeners, suggesting that the lack of screeners will harm the potential of movies that take risks and rely on critical acclaim. Despite the star power behind those signing on the letter, and after a conference call with 3 studio executives, what was the MPAA's response? "...the screener policy remains as it was originally announced." Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"

Comments

Re: Story {Score; -6, Dupe)

[Anonymous Coward]

dupe. can be found on just about any other news service days before slashdot.

The same story on

[Sir Haxalot]

www.eonline.com

Re: Story {Score; -6, Dupe)

[Tarq666]

Be that as it may, but I rely on Slashdot as my main news source so I have no problem with items being duped.

Re: Story {Score; -6, Dupe)

[Ianoo]

When does slashdot ever post stories that haven't appeared on other sources first? It's a news aggregation portal, not CNN, damnit.

MPAA accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the MPAA isn't directly accountable to the directors I don't think this will have much of an effect. What it would require is for the studios themselves which are members of the MPAA to take stands against these actions.

Re:MPAA accountability

[Overly Critical Guy]

I don't get it. What do you guys expect them to do? Both of the last two Lord of the Rings movies had crystal clear DVD-rips leaked online thanks to those screeners. I saw Fellowship of the Ring on my PC while it was still in theaters. It's become common practice to leak them now. People into that sort of thing expect it.

Should they sit back and let it all be pirated or take a stand? You should be glad they're not going after file-traders individually with litigation and instead doing exactly what you always bitch at the RIAA to do--police its own members. In this case, they're preventing said members from leaking in the first place.

What do you expect them to do?

Re:MPAA accountability

[Trurl's Machine]

I don't get it. What do you guys expect them to do? Both of the last two Lord of the Rings movies had crystal clear DVD-rips leaked online thanks to those screeners

That's not possible. Screeners usually are far from being crystal clear - the film is often interrupted by a message like "if you rented or purchased this movie, call 800-SOMETHING". I don't understand what exactly are they trying to achieve by banning _screeners_. It cannot be proliferation of pirated crystal clear copies - that's clear like crystal.

Re:MPAA accountability

[ZorinLynx]

Perhaps they should instead try to make movies that are good enough that people will want to see them in the theaters, even after watching the rips in tiny windows on their PC's.

No, instead they market crap, hoping people will go see it in the theater, coughing up the nine bucks before they find out it sucks.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for them. If a movie is good, people WILL go to the theater to see it. I mean, I doubt anyone who watched and liked leaked copies of the original Matrix didn't go see it in the theater afterwards...

Re:MPAA accountability

[stry_cat]

Perhaps they should instead try to make movies that are good enough that people will want to see them in the theaters, even after watching the rips in tiny windows on their PC's.

Good point. After seeing LotR on my PC I went that weekend to the theater to watch it. Now if only I had seen Episode I before going to the theater.

Re:MPAA accountability

[Ryosen]

Perhaps they should instead try to make movies that are good enough that people will want to see them in the theaters...

That was always my complaint about Honda and Toyota. Perhaps they should instead try to make cars that are good enough that people will want to buy them, rather than steal them.

Justify it anyway that you want. Stealing is still stealing.

Re: Story {Score; -6, Dupe)

[kgarcia]

True, but last I checked, slashdot was a compilation of news, where the most interesting news were posted, so that we didn't have to go scouring the net for our own news. Yeah sometimes the turnaround is slow, but this was new to me... and that's what counts. Go read the FAQ or something

The ban won't last long because...

[Anonymous Coward]

...there's big money in getting those screeners out. MANY industry people rely on them, not simply members of the academy who are voting for an awards show. There's too much money at stake to NOT send out sceeners when someone else easily could.

Follow the money...

Hmm..Spineless?

[op00to]

Don't these directors have buttloads of money? Are they stupid enough to sign a contract that prevents them from starting their own studios, associations, and whatnot?

Seems to me if the MPAA totally ignored me, I'd get pretty pissed and tell them to fuck off. Maybe if they really had balls, they'd strike.

Re:Hmm..Spineless?

[Scalli0n]

Heh, if you had Bill Gates-style money, you might be able to start your own studio. But I'm sorry, no director is gonna cough out hot dollars from his own pocket to produce one or two movies.

Re:Hmm..Spineless?

[Eric Ass Raymond]

cough out hot dollars from his own pocket to produce one or two movies.

I think Mel Gibson is getting close. Not only did his company fund the Passion but they're also going to distribute it because the mainstream distributors won't do it in Europe.

Re:Hmm..Spineless?

[brunes69]

Yeah, no director could ever have enough money or backing to form his own studio.

*Goes back to watching Minotiry Report and Gladiator DVDs produced by Dreamworks, started and owned majorly by Steven Spielberg

Re:Hmm..Spineless?

[qtp]

Don't these directors have buttloads of money? Are they stupid enough to sign a contract that prevents them from starting their own studios, associations, and whatnot?

These guys are not being geniuine about thier motives, screeners give them an opportunity to get thier films shown to Acadamy members who otherwise have not attended thier showing. It also gives them a chance to promote the work of thier hand puicked students who they are sure will be future fellow MPAA members like themselves, and it prevents those film makers who are truly outsiders from having an equal chance of being viewed, as the Acadamy members are sure to be more likely to pop that dvd into the player if it is accompanied by a note from Martin or Robert than if it is submitted by some person they never heard of.

Truly independant film makers have a very hard time getting thier work shown, no matter how good it is, largely in part to the advent of an "independant" film market that consist of films by artists that have already been selected by established Hollywood producers and directors.

The question that these artists face is who do I dare accept help from, while these directors are seeking new artists that will help them further thier own careers.

Re:Hmm..Spineless?

[Trurl's Machine]

*Goes back to watching Minotiry Report and Gladiator DVDs produced by Dreamworks, started and owned majorly by Steven Spielberg

Yeah, and the other one is George Lucas. But even for Coppola, it was not that easy and his company eventually had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. While I enjoy Spielberg and Lucas blockbusters, I don't think cinema should be limited only to this kind of filmmaking and I want guys like Robert Altman to have their chance to get the goddamned Oscar. And yes, for the kind of money Altman gets you can afford a Porsche or 17-inch Apple Powerbook, but you're still too short to be financially independent as a filmmaker. You have to be Lucas, Spielberg or Cameron to have that luxury.

best way to get this changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

would be for the academy award voters to say, "Fine. You don't want to send us the movies, we're not going to vote. No awards this year."

It's not like the Awards were actually based on merit, anyways.

Re:best way to get this changed...

[Jameth]

Except that the academy members already vote inconsistently. I recall hearing, after the last oscars, that only about half the members voted. Of course, I could be recalling wrong.

Who needs the MPAA?

[t0rnt0pieces]

Will this mean an end to Academy Awards going to movies that open in only 100 theaters nationwide, or will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?"

I doubt it will mean the end of Oscars going to art films, but it could mean the end of the MPAA. Who needs them anyway? The Academy Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Why does the MPAA even have any say in who sends AMPAS screeners movies?

Re:Who needs the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA is a watch dog just like RIAA in the record industry. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe MPAA's board members are current or ex studio execs. There is absolutely no way studios like Universal would ever "knock some sense into Valenti's mind," as both share common interests.

But really, while artists' (directors') interest is to have their films widely distributed and acknowledged, MPAA and studios have completely different interests, economical only. Studios push their films for Oscar nominations, but their motivation is only to make bigger gross in pre- and post oscar periods. Of course they will stop sending DVDs if that discs are the main source of piracy.

Thanks MPAA for keeping illegal DVD copies off the street. I feel so safe now that I no longer feel that I need to find DeCSS for my laptop.

Re:Who needs the MPAA?

[fermion]

My understanding is that the ban does not affect the truly independent production companies, just the pseudo independent ones owned by the major studios. These studios produce a few quality films to get their name mentioned at the Oscars. In the past they did not want to spend the money releasing these films to a wide audience, or advertising the film. Such activities can double the cost of a film. Apparently they have now decided the screeners are more trouble than they are worth. Therefore the majors will just have to subsidize the releasing and advertising of the films or give up on the boutique names. If they subsidize release this will benefit everyone because it will allow the public to see films they might not otherwise have an opportunity to, and may review demand in the art film theaters, many of which have small screening rooms rooms (about 100 or 200 seats) and could screen a few films a day. In the unlikely case they give up, it might be good news for the independents.

Yay

[Anonymous Coward]

I get good quality warez again

MPAA finds way to stop movie piracy 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA President Jack Valenti is scheduled on Monday to announce his "final solution to the pirate question" this Monday.

Leaked documentation speculates that Mr. Valenti's solution entails a complete ban on any film that cannot fit under one of the following 5 catagories: 'mindless action', 'dick and fart joke comedy', 'romantic comedy', 'stereotypical plot twist thriller' and 'overplayed franchise horror'.

Valenti is quoted as saying "We will NOT allow the fascism of individuality to put destroy our democratic system of a dozen people who control the fate of an entire industry."

Duh

[dolo666]

Screeners comprise only about 49.847723% of the actual pirated software on the net. It's like this because it's convenient for pirates to snag a copy of the film and use it, before the film is released.

Banning screeners would mean that the industry is starting to cave in from the piracy movement. Is that what you want? Do you want Hollywood to crumble? But wait a minute.

Ten dollars for a bag of popcorn and a pop?

Five dollars for a box of candy?

Maybe there is more here than meets the eye! Maybe it's not that pirates want to ruin Hollywood. Maybe the public is saying somthing to the movie industry about other possible reforms that should be considered.

Like going to the theater when there are a couple of goofs talking through the whole movie. Or when some smelly guys wears flip-flops that are five years old, and sits near you while he adjusts his seat every five seconds.

The whole experience of the movies has declined since the eighties, while a lot of other industries have improved (like the video game industry).

Banning screeners is the way to go, if you want to hurt the little indy film maker, but maybe some smart person will release their films ONLY to the internet, and become the next Bill Gates.

Re:Duh

[Multics]

WAIT, STOP, Hold your horses.

In reality, most screeners are needed because the movie company has not put a movie in general release and thus if you're a voting member in say Lake Tahoe, there is no way to see most of the movies that you're supposed to be voting on (Smelly kid or not).

No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified (not just on the markable/scratchable skin of the DVD). That way, when one is 'discovered' in the used market, the person who released it can be fined or removed from getting any others.

They'll use technology against us customer scum, but they won't use it to clean up their own house.

Jack 'Boom Boom' Valenti's time has long past. He is second only to the RIAA in creepyness both by policy and in person. Thankfully at age 82, he'll be done soon anyway.

-- Multics

Re:Duh

[neonstz]

No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified

This is already being done. However, most release-groups remove the serials (by blurring or just placing a black box) on the movies they release.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Those high prices for snacks are a part of the theater industry, which is obviosly directly related to the movie industry, but movie studios don't have a say in those prices. Theaters make most of their money off of those snacks.

...unless some studios own chains of movie theaters. I know Sony either owns or has a joint venture with Loews.

Anyway, if a movie is too expensive to see in the theater, just wait to buy or rent the DVD. Some movies seem to have very fast video releases these days.

Re:Duh

[evilviper]

No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified

Every time this comes up, someone mentions that same thing, and there is also someone like myself who replies to say that they have already been doing this for a good long time.

Release groups already know how to detect and remove this information. There isn't all that much you can do to mark a copy in a way that will remain when it is re-encoded, but won't turn the quality of the movie to complete crap.

Re:Duh

[kenthorvath]

I am an avid movie-goer and I find the cost is well worth the experience of the movie theater. I admit that Friday and Saturday nights I usually don't plan on seeing a movie because of the tendency of immature teanie boppers to flock together and act boisterously, however this is not something that is easy to deal with - nor would the theaters want to, because they are a LARGE part of the audience. Instead, I find myself going on evenings and midday after work. Sometimes I take an extended lunch break. I almost always get in on a matinee, but when I can do that, my university ID gets me in to AMC for only $6. As for popcorn and soda, I will pay $3 for a large diet coke, but I'm no big fan of popcorn anyway, and the money that I spend on concessions helps keep the theater and not the studios in business. I'm happy to pay that, I might even make a donation of a few dollars every time I go, if I felt it were warrented. The big screen experience is an indispensible part of my repetoire of entertainment.

Re:Duh

[Awptimus Prime]

Good preaching, man. I HATE the movie theatre experience. Ever since I moved to Atlanta, it's been a nightmare every time.

If it's not the droves of gangsta wannabe teenagers, it's the middle-aged overweight women who can't stop talking. The $6 soda. The drive. How about the 6.1 audio system with a blown rear-channel speaker?

The smell of most theaters alone is enough to get me to not go. A combination of a society who's more talk than action on it's hygene and lazy immigrants who don't care about their jobs enough to actually clean the theaters properly on occasion. Then there's the whole SARS season rolling in on us soon.

And my friends think I am messed up for buying a 56" DLP HDTV for my movie watching.. I get similar visual quality as I would in the theater, but I get to pause the action for a potty break, pop some popcorn for $0.30, drink a soda for $0.25, wear my Pj's and do whatever lewd cuddling I want with my woman without having to be discreet.

Here's the funny thing. The same people who think I am a bit nutty for spending some bread on this stuff are the ones who eat out at staple food resturants 3-5 times a week, go to the movies 2-3 times a week, then go have desert at specialty shops, etc. That adds up to hundreds upon hundreds a month, especially if you are dragging along a member of the opposite sex.

If they would only get into the pattern of learning to cook and do these things for themselves, work on making life at home better instead of funding mega-corporations every chance they get, they'd learn that when doing these things in your own home results in better foods, better coffee, better deserts, better movie watching experiences, and a more relaxed life (having not dealt with crowds or rude people).

I say all this, having stopped at Starbucks a few minutes ago because I was late leaving the house and did not have time to brew my own coffee.

I think the RIAA had planned on directors complaining. They are, of course, the people who have expensive theaters in their homes specifically to impress guests with DVD screeners. Don't just think of the awards, the directors aren't, either.. :)

What gets me, Hollywood actually thinks people are satisfied enough with watching a Divx of a screener instead of renting/buying the DVD. I guess they've never watched a Divx on anything bigger than 36" display. There's no comparison. Now, if people were posting the raw, unencrypted DVD on Kazaa, that'd be a different story. Most movie pirate types I have encountered seem to deal with quantity instead of quality, so I doubt that'll happen anytime soon, not on a large scale. Though, you occasionally see an uncompressed screener go through usenet on occasion..

Rent a DVD, skip the theater, drive them out of business through natural selection.

Re:Duh

[Eric Ass Raymond]

If they would only get into the pattern of learning to cook and do these things for themselves, work on making life at home better instead of funding mega-corporations every chance they get

I prefer to eat out because I'm too damn tired to cook after work - I do cook during the weekends though.

I also have my house cleaned by someone else because cleaning - a bit like exercise and peeling potatoes - is just so goddamn dull. Why? Because all these activities share the same common element: they're utterily futile. It's useless to clean, because the place will be a sty after a few days anyway. It's useless to exercise because you'll only hurt yourself/get ill in the process and will end up dead anyway. Peeling potatoes - well, that's just dumb. Why peel potatoes when you can buy them prepared?

This has nothing to do with wanting to support "mega-corporations" (do I smell rebellious teen-spirit here?) and everything to do with convenience.

Re:Duh

[psxndc]

I just found my new sig.

psxndc

Re:Duh

[Multics]

(Yes it is poor form to reply to your own posting)

No... consider the effort already complete for the DIVX technology that Circuit City did. Push players out to the MPAA voters and make the media tied to the player.

As Jack is fond of pointing out, THIS MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY should be able to push a little technology out to keep the group clean. Then in the stream coming from the the player, still blow (randomly?) the serial number of the item into various parts of the interblanking. I am sure you could build a sufficiently complicated system that there wasn't a way (in any kind of reasonable time) to pirate the thing. I'd change it with a firmware download every year just to keep things interesting.

Instead, it is just easier for the big guys to use this as a good way to screw the little guys. Situation normal, all fouled up!

Thanks Boom Boom!

-- Multics

Re:Duh

[the unbeliever]

Good preaching, man. I HATE the movie theatre experience. Ever since I moved to Atlanta, it's been a nightmare every time.

That'll happen to you if go to the theaters in the city.

Head out to one of the suburbs. The AMC in Kennesaw is good, relatively new, not so crowded except on Friday/Saturday nights, clean, etc.

Re:Duh

[Londovir]

What about getting a little more sophisticated and taking certain scenes and adding a handful of extra frames to it? Make some screeners have maybe an extra second in one scene, some others have a second less in a different scene, and so forth.

I'm not sure if that would work, but I would think that most MPG compressors would likely keep those frames, and release groups wouldn't know which scene should have frames removed (or added). That would be different than putting a serial on the print that could be erased out, and it wouldn't ruin the print by putting the brown dots we were talking about earlier.

Re:Duh

[cfish]

---"... lazy immigrants who don't care about their jobs enough to actually clean the theaters properly on occasion."

1. Getting an asshole stamp before you make a point is a bad idea.

---"Starbucks"

2. Getting an idiot stamp before you make a point is also a bad idea.

-- "The smell" , "Hygene" , etc.

3. Talking like a gay man before you make a point is still another bad idea.

4. Bragging about your phat equipment don't make you an expert.

5. Learn before you talk. Full DVD images have been traded for a long time. DVD image traffic surpass DivX traffic. But you are too ignorant to know that.

Re:Duh

[Zarquon]

Trouble with that is it can easily screw up the soundtrack.. not just vocals, but music. That's one of the reasons that 'extended releases' don't generally do a seamless branch of the original theatrical release. Changing frames is easy.. adding more than a couple is hard. Esp. when you are talking about several hundred copies.

Re:Duh

[ThaenRT]

It's important to realize that concession prices and ticket price and DVD prices are TOTALLY unrelated in most situations. Most movie theatres, even the huge multiplexes at malls and the like, receive little to no cash from ticket sales -- that money goes to finance the parent corporation's CEO's new hot tub. Almost all the money that individual theatre's make is from the sale of concessions. Now you understand why popcorn is $5/tub when you go see a movie at your local mall. Smaller theatres yield cheaper tickets, cheaper concessions (well, typically. Exceptions to every rule and all that.). thaen

Re:Duh

[antin]

I think the parent was probably thinking of something a little more subtle than overlaying the serial on the image...

Re:Duh

[Awptimus Prime]

No need to be Mr. Inflammatory-Point-by-point-Man, I'm not bragging or have much of an attitude about this stuff. I'm just honest with my words and don't have a PR department to filter what I've got to say.

So, let's see.. I'm an asshole for mentioning that immigrant labor in my area is the pits. I'm an idiot for stopping at Starbucks because I was thirsty for coffee made with filtered water. But apparently, my sexuality is in question because I don't stink. I'm not sure how derogatory gay comments and stereotypes make one less an asshole than not caring for dealing with non-english speaking immigrants. I'd hate to think of the quality of female that would share bed with a man who attacks people who support good hygene, anyway.

Phat stuff? Nah, the new Pioneer systems have LCoS, which is superior to DLP systems, IMO. They don't use a color wheel, so they'll last a lot longer (if designed properly, no moving parts), they also support 1920x1080(progressive!) native. The DLP only supports 1280x720p. I wish I could afford one, but I was trying to make a point that you missed: If you don't piss your money away feeding social habits, then the financial opportunity to make life at home a bit more entertaining and fulfilling becomes available. That's the only wisdom I was trying to extend to the masses. Anything outside of that and you are blowing hot air up my anus for little cause..

I'm well aware that raw DVD is traded online. I just have serious doubts about it happening more than Divx. In terms of 'traffic' I can see it passing more bits, but not in number of movies since a Divx is about 1/10th the size of a raw DVD. That's like comparing WAV file traffic to MP3 traffic. Sadly, I am no expert here. I didn't claim to be. I'm also not a pirate, so I am slightly ignorant about the quantities of traffic outside of what I have seen on Usenet and Kazaa.

I really don't see much of a point in all that 'trading'.. Just wait until it comes out on NetFlix, rent it, then if you want to be a theif, just copy the DVD then. I guess some people live for the 'cool' factor of being a leet haxx0r pirate.

Sorry, I'm an adult and don't care about that stuff. You'll understand this some day when people depend on you, too. Until then, please don't consider showering a gay activity. I know standing there nekkid might make you feel uncomfy, but acceptance of your appearance is one of the wonders of the human experience.

Here's some suggestions for ya, mr. stinky:

1) Avoid anti-bacterial soaps, they leave behind only the most ruthless of bacteria. This will cause your BO to come back with knockout power once they start breeding.

2) Get a shower head with a 6' hose. This allows you to really get the funk out of the cracks. It also makes getting the feet clean much easier.

3) Scrub the genitals. I know this part may make you feel abnormally homosexual feelings, but the hair and folds of skin in these areas are breeding grounds for funk. If you don't do an appropriate job cleaning these areas, you might end up with infections in the hair roots. Rinse well too!

4) Use whitening toothpaste and listerene. I suggest a short pre-rinse with listerene (medical data shows no effect on cavities when it comes to pre-rinsing, but it sure makes the gums feel nice). Brush well, using a soft bristle brush to prevent damage to your teeth and gums. Make certain to really get in there and brush the hell out of those molars. Then give yourself a good flossing and rinse with antiseptic mouthwash for no less than 30 seconds.

5) Wash your clothes after each use. Make sure to follow the instructions on the tags to the T, otherwise you'll end up with faded or shrunk trunks. Recently, Febreeze released a product to help eliminate the permafunk clothing can get if left in a damp pile after too many wears. If you've had hygene problems in the past, I'd suggest getting a bottle of this to start a fresh slate.

6) Avoid colognes and perfumes. These are out-dated leftovers from a

Re:Duh

[macemoneta]

Anyone remember when you could go to the movies without the police having to have a car at the theater? It seems to be the norm here, and I stopped going to the theater a couple of months ago. Nothing but noisy gangs of kids, drugs, cops. Maybe that adds to the experience for a Quentin Tarantino flick, but not much else. My wife and I spent about $75 a week on that, until it became too much of a hassle.

Get youself a big screen TV, great sound system and join Netflix. Your break even point will only be a couple of years, and the food's better (and healthier).

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole experience of the movies has declined since the eighties, while a lot of other industries have improved (like the video game industry).

Ah, the wisdom of years...

Re:Duh

[Mr Smidge]

However, most release-groups remove the serials (by blurring or just placing a black box) on the movies they release.

There are quite a few steganographic techniques that would not be defeated by blurring and black box techniques in development at the moment, unfortunately I can't reference any because I have only briefly heard the outlines of them in some lectures I attended at university last term.

That said, I don't think I've ever seen blurring being used on screeners.. A powerful steganographic technique would prove quite useful if properly employed, and would be a whole lot better than messages periodically scrolling across the bottom of the film with the text "For Your Consideration", or so on.

Re:Duh

[sdibb]

Ten dollars for a bag of popcorn and a pop? Five dollars for a box of candy?

While it is the movie theaters that set and charge those prices, it's not unreasonable, because the studios actually get most of the ticket price anyway. I think its something like 90% for the first two weeks of a release, then it goes down to 70%, etc.

Anyway, the theaters have to set those prices because they're scraping the bottom of the barrel anyway. It's their main revenue.

Re:Duh

[radixvir]

actually they are putting dots in the middle of the screen which arent covered up by most pirate releases.

and about the comment regarding high prices. I think its mostly the ticket price holding people back. Most movies that come out suck, who wants to pay $7 for each one? most pirates arent evil people, they just live in the real world where people dont have endless disposable income. too bad i have a feeling the MPAA wont be going away anytime soon

Re:Duh

[Galvatron]

who wants to pay $7 for each one?

$7? Here in San Francisco, movies have shot up to the absurd price of $9.50!

Regarding the subject at hand though, I often see those movies with "Property of Warner Bros." appearing at the bottom every so often. Is that what we're talking about? If so, why not simply vary exactly when that message appears? No one would even know, at least at first, and the only way to keep from being caught would be to put a black box over that area for the entire movie, which would make the copy much lower quality.

Re:Duh

[mpe]

In reality, most screeners are needed because the movie company has not put a movie in general release and thus if you're a voting member in say Lake Tahoe, there is no way to see most of the movies that you're supposed to be voting on

In which case maybe the movie should simply receive no reviews from reviewers anywhere it hasn't been made available.

Re:Duh

[Galvatron]

1) Avoid anti-bacterial soaps, they leave behind only the most ruthless of bacteria. This will cause your BO to come back with knockout power once they start breeding.

You know, deoderant contains the same bacteria killing ingredients as deoderant soap. Deoderant also contains aluminum salts that essentially plug up the pores to keep you from sweating. As far as bacteria killing goes though, deoderant and deoderant soap do the same thing, so if you think that using ether, alchohol, and/or triclosan to kill bacteria in the armpits is bad, you should stop using deoderant as well.

4) Use whitening toothpaste and listerene.

Whitening toothpastes use acid to whiten. So long as your teeth are not visibly yellowish, I don't think they need to be gleaming white. Frankly, that's just unnatural. Also, depending on how many times per day you engage in this routine, you may be overusing your listerine. If you use it more than about twice per day, you can actually end up destroying the enzymes in your saliva, and overdrying your mouth (because of the alchohol), which allows thrush, a whitish fungus, to grow on your tongue.

6) Avoid colognes and perfumes. These are out-dated leftovers from a time before we had the resources to effectively bathe daily.

Not really, some of them just smell nice, in fact my girlfriend picked two colognes out for me. I agree with your point on using sparingly. One to two sprays on my torso is usually about right, with a shirt over that the scent is fairly mild, but lasts more or less the whole day because the shirt holds it in. The way girls apply perfume, to the wrists and neck, is generally wrong, because it rubs off and doesn't last long.

Re:Duh

[drinkypoo]

People are trading/posting to USENET plenty of DVD images. Anyone with a decent connection and access to a NNTP server with good retention can get several full DVDs a week. Most movies over 4.7 GB have been transcoded, so that they will fit on a DVDR, but that only seems to be about half of the DVDs out there anyway, maybe two thirds.

Most people can't afford to watch a DivX on a larger than thirty-six inch display.

Re:Duh

[Awptimus Prime]

Nice points. That stuff about the tooth fungus gave me the chills.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just want to point out that few movies are released in divx now. If they're going for size, it's Xvid. If they're going for convience, it's VCD or SVCD. If they're going for quality, it's SVCD or DVDR.

Re:Duh

[iantri]

Good preaching, man. I HATE the movie theatre experience. Ever since I moved to Atlanta, it's been a nightmare every time. If it's not the droves of gangsta wannabe teenagers, it's the middle-aged overweight women who can't stop talking. The $6 soda. The drive. How about the 6.1 audio system with a blown rear-channel speaker?

I hate the movie theatre experience too. I just went to my local Cineplex Odeon to see Out Of Time (don't bother, it's not very good). There were a reasonable number of trailers, but I wasn't impressed by much else. The projector was out of focus, there were holes in the screen (very noticable when something white goes past in the film) and the print they were showing was badly damaged. For the first 1/4 or so, there were constant speckles and scratches, and for about 20 minutes, later in the film, there was a nasty jiggling line running down the screen.

I say save your money and rent a DVD.

Re:Duh

[Tower]

>Deoderant also contains aluminum salts that essentially plug up the pores to keep you from sweating.

Actually, most deodorants don't, but many anti-perspirants do (yes, deodorant and deodorant/anti-perspirant are two separate products, check the aisle at the drugstore). The aluminum compounds in the a-ps cause problems for a fair amount of people (redness, itching, rashes).

The tongue fungus item is disturbing...

Re:Duh

[Charlton Heston]

And, as Pee Wee Herman showed, you can't wank in a public theater, but you can wank at home.

Re:Duh

[cmacb]

"The smell of most theaters alone is enough to get me to not go. A combination of a society who's more talk than action on it's hygene and lazy immigrants who don't care about their jobs enough to actually clean the theaters properly on occasion. Then there's the whole SARS season rolling in on us soon."

You have obviously missed the whole guts of the theater going experience with your bad attitude.

Just try and make popcorn at home that is like what you get in the theater. It's impossible. They use some special oil, not quite like margarine, not quite like butter, not quite like paint thinner, but with the best qualities of all three.

At home a Coke is a Coke, but at the theater, sometimes its a "Petsi" and sometimes its just sugar and brown syrup with no carbonation. It's like a different experience every time!

I like how the floor inside the theater is even stickier than that chewing gum you stepped on outside. A couple of steps (and then some backtracking to retrieve your shoe) and the gum is back on the floor where it belongs.

As for people shifting around in their seats... what are you SUPPOSED to do when one of those big cockroaches runs up your leg? Those thing tickle! And don't tell me you raise your own theater sized cockroaches at home, I ain't buying it. Some experiences just have to be had first hand.

Re:Duh

[Trurl's Machine]

"The smell" , "Hygene" , etc.
3. Talking like a gay man before you make a point is still another bad idea.

Isn't it about time someone starts to fight against heterophobia? I hate this degrading stereotype that heteros don't care about the smell. Someone please organize a parade or leaflet campaign for Non-Gay Men Who Actually Wash Their Armpits And Change Socks.

Re:Duh

[oldperson]

Unfortunately, the movie experience is what *makes* some movies. The Star Wars movies, the LOTR movies, Out of Africa, etc. give a different impression seen on the big screen than they do when seen on a small one.

I'm happy to see screeners banned because they put big screen movies at a disadvantage.

The other problem with screeners was that they allowed academy members to vote on films without actually having seen them. Cheating that way was getting more widespread and had to be cracked down on. (Under the old rules, they had little cards they had to have stamped by the theater to show that they'd actually attended the film. When the voters started receiving the whole collection on DVD, they went to the honor system. Using an honor system in Hollywood will not work.)

There's still the problem with the vast bulk of the academy voters being geezers in their 60's and 70's, (this gives any drama about alzheimer's instant academy award potential. I am not joking.) but I don't think there's a technical fix to that problem.

Re:Duh

[Galvatron]

yes, deodorant and deodorant/anti-perspirant are two separate products, check the aisle at the drugstore

Of course, you are correct. However, most deoderants are also anti-perspirants. Plain deoderant is a pretty small niche product, especially given that it's exactly the same as deoderant soap, except with a talc base rather than a soap base.

Re:Duh

[Awptimus Prime]

But are all deodorant soaps really anti-bacterial and not just doped up on rosey smelling chemicals?

Ever try that Dr. Bronners Magic Soap? It's all hemp oil and spice/herb extracts. It'll get you good and clean. I think the way it works is, the hemp oil extract in harmony with Eucalyptus, it kills bacteria by stripping your skin of any trace of moisture. Use it too often and you'll be ripping tufts of fur out in frustration from the endless itching, but occasional use is nice and refreshing. Kind of a de-oiling ritual.

Don't dare try using it as a toothpaste or mouthrinse, as suggested on the bottle. It tastes terrible.

Re:Duh

[newshooze]

"I might even make a donation of a few dollars every time I go"
Since when do theaters accept donations?
You sound like a typical Slashdotter. "Look at me, I do my part"
The only donation you ever made was in a peep-show theater.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I smell an overweight person who has a problem admitting exercise isn't an ultimately futile thing? I think so... Sorry, it was just sticking out like a sore thumb in your otherwise properly constructed rebuttal of his statement.

Re:Duh

[Blue Lozenge]

No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified

This is already being done. However, most release-groups remove the serials (by blurring or just placing a black box) on the movies they release.

We're not talking about obvious visual watermarks like a serial number burned into the corner of the video---that is too easily circumvented. This should instead be implemented with modern steganography techniques that encode uniquely identifying information within the media in a manner that can be detected only by a corresponding decoder.

Re:Duh

[Galvatron]

I think that labeling soap as "deoderant" soap may actually be regulated by the FDA. Suffice it to say that all the ones I've ever seen contain one or more of: alchohol, ether, or triclosan. All three kill bacteria. Triclosan is also used in some anti-acne soaps. The deoderant soap I use has no scent at all.

Never seen, much less used, Dr. Bronners Magic Soap. My skin dries out pretty easily, so probably not my kind of thing.

Re:Duh

[Snaller]

Do you want Hollywood to crumble?

Yep.

Re:Duh

[Snaller]

No, the solution here is to allow screeners, but to digitally mark each one of them such that they can be identified (not just on the markable/scratchable skin of the DVD). That way, when one is 'discovered' in the used market, the person who released it can be fined or removed from getting any others.

Actually the solution is probably to do nothing, and to realise if they make quality people will support them and if the make their commercial junk people wont.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Tee Hee!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the funny thing, they have a life and you don't.

MPAA needs to be stopped

[seriv]

Where is the art in movies any more? Taken away by the profit seeking MPAA. This shows how the MPAA is not concerned how good the movie is and how well people will think about it, they just want to herd people in like cattle! The recent story about how they are ruining thier own films just to reduce piracy is just another example about how this evil orginization cares not about the movie but the profits. It doesn't matter what the viewers think, just as long as they still pay to see the movie. This is taking away everything movies used to be about, sure they have always been about the profits to some extent, but you don't see directors on talk shows talking about the fortune they will make, they are talking about the quality of the movie and the fun they had making it. It is time to stop the MPAA!
-Seriv

Re:MPAA needs to be stopped

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, we live under CAPITALISM.

The MEANING OF LIFE is to INCREASE PROFITS!

Re:MPAA needs to be stopped

[andr0meda]

Uh. Hello. INDIE means independent. The MPAA can say that they own the moon it doens't mean a thing to the indies. They will keep on sending out screeners, and thus are not affected by the 'ban'. Only cheap low budget MPAA releases may be hit by the ban, because their box office sales depend on how well a movie is received in the adds and screeners on tele.

As to the notion of Art in MPAA releases, ouch, that fucking hurts!!

Out of all movies I've seen, usually only the non - US movies actually mean something to me, everything else is just very nice eyecandy, entertainment, and the occasional Michael Moore to actually contribute something valuable.

I mean.. I know I can do without the damn give-away-everything-in-5-seconds screeners.

Re:MPAA needs to be stopped

[seriv]

I agree, for the most part the art is out many movies. But I mean the idea in the mind of the director.
-seriv

Why not start another awards ceremony

[Anonymous Coward]

after all , everyone realises that the Oscars are nothing more than a incestuous marketing tool for the connected and not a celebration of creative genius

Then again who cares about awards at all, they have been diluted to the point where the public is turned off by the shere number of them making, Awards in the 21st century are now irelavent the quicker the MPAA and directors "get it" the better off we might be, perish the thought that we actually get films that succeed on merits and good stories over big budget dross like terminator 7 etc

Re:Why not start another awards ceremony

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you post a blueprint of your brain? We're studying morons in biology class. Thanks!

I don't get it

[JanneM]

What I don't get is how they could possibly enforce such a ban. If I understand correctly, they aren't the organization giving out the Oscars; what's stopping any movie studio from simply ignoring the ban and sending them out anyway?

Re:I don't get it

[qtp]

what's stopping any movie studio from simply ignoring the ban and sending them out anyway?

The MPAA represents these directors and producers as a lobbying group, and uses thier strength (derived, of course, from having these members) to controll the distribution of films. Most of them (the directors etc) do not want a truly free market in which independant films are reviewed by the Acadamy members, as they enjoy the power of being able to select which independants get to be reviewed, nor do they wish to give up thier membership in the MPAA, as this membership affords them the luxury of having thier work distributed even if it is not worthy of being viewed by the public (Gigli?).

I'm sure that there is no chance of a mass exodus of directors and producers from the MPAA member roles, and very little chance of even a few of them exercising that option, no matter how pissed they are about not being able to promote films through the distrobution of screeners. The threat of not having thier work shown in theatres is too great, and that is what is likely to result unless they all chose to walk in solidarity.

Valenti is a Studio guy...

[ScottGant]

He's a studio guy, through and through. While I'm not a guy that looks for people on the grassy noll, it does make sense that the big studios are trying to squeeze out the indies.

This will also be death to the documentary movies...which in my opinion are the more interesting and entertaining of many movies out there now. How can all the academy members expect to drop everything they're doing and try to find some obscure theater that happens to be playing the movies nominated? How is this possible? They can't of course.

They COULD in the past get a bunch of movies together for the evening and watch them back to back in the comfort of their home, then make a judgement on them. But now, the MPAA has killed that off.

I say screw them. Send them out anyway. What's the MPAA going to do? They only have power because they say they have power. Screw them.

I mean, you're not allowed to even send out screeners to the members even IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN RELEASED TO DVD! WTF is that?

Velenti is not the likely decision maker here

[werdna]

will it take an entire studio chain such as Universal or MGM to knock some sense into Valenti's mind?

Make no mistake, MPAA is simply a trade association -- the studio chains call the shots -- and likely called this one.

On the question how to lobby or make speeches, Valenti is king -- probably one of the best legislative advisors in the nation. But when they want Jack's opinion on film business and policy, they will give it to him.

Perhaps only old Dan Greenburg fans. . .

[kfg]

(assuming there are any) will catch my reference, but here goes anyway:

Valenti: Ok, you can vote, but don't let me catch you watching!

KFG

moron the end daze of the corepirate nazis?

[Anonymous Coward]

gas for your humvee is almost 2 bucks? ink is $35.00 an ounce?

yikes. talk about a fairIE's tale, of hoodwinking at its most gangsterious?

it would be easy to make a case for whoreabull phonIE monIE payper liesense FraUDsters, causing A LOT of yOUR problems.

the lights are coming up now... you know who to consult with/trust, & where to look.

Re:moron the end daze of the corepirate nazis?

[Anonymous Coward]

what

Yawn

[Now15]

This is just another nail in the coffin of the more-glamour-less-substance Academy Awards anyway. When deciding which movie I'm going to watch, I look at its score on IMDB, and occasionally read what my local movie critics say.

Award ceremonies have absolutely no bearing on anything, other than to give a dubiously limited selection of celebrities to flout their wealth and pat themselves on the back.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the pigs. I don't even watch movies anymore.

Re:MPAA finds way to stop movie piracy 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

So he's scheduled on monday to announce it this monday? Wow, who would've guessed?

Stars are the enemy

[swb]

Stars and big-name directors are the studios enemies as much as the pirates. They take huge chunks of the profit margin and in many cases the studio doesn't have a choice but to pay what they want.

So "star power" in demanding business decision changes isn't going to go very far. Business managers at studios probably just see this as rich Hollywood employees whining about having to buy DVDs instead of getting them free before anyone else.

Furthermore, since when is the Academy Awards the arbiter elegantiarum of quality filmmaking, and not just a bunch of shills for studio crap?

Re:Stars are the enemy

[Ozric]

How are they going to buy the DVD when its not even out yet ?

Re:Stars are the enemy

[Picass0]

"Furthermore, since when is the Academy Awards the arbiter elegantiarum of quality filmmaking, and not just a bunch of shills for studio crap?"

Hey! Marisa Tomei deserved that oscar for 'My Cousin Vinny'! I don't want to hear you insinuating that she was just the Hot Ass of the Week!

Same goes for 'Gangs of New York'. I don't know anyone who has seen that movie, but I'll probably meet someone someday who has. And I'll bet they liked it.

Re:Stars are the enemy

[nfsilkey]

There are many academics who have analyzed "star power" and its relatioship to the major studios in Hollywood. There seems to be a consensus that commercial endeavors in Hollywood are high-risk due to the difficulty at predicting success of films. Studios are HEAVILY reliant on the use of "star power" as a commercial tool for marketing films. Studios are fine with paying a large sum of money or cutting a percentage of revenue for stars given the studios' fear of flops with no-name stars and the desire to replicate prior successes of films.

Re:Stars are the enemy

[Beatbyte]

I agree.

Look for independent (sometimes local) artists. Not just for music, but also for art, and multimedia (combination of the 2).

Personally, I'm a photographer, pixel artist, and a musician (piano, guitar, bass, sing, blah blah blah). I'm about 5 weeks from the release of my DVD (containing all my previous art and music in the form of a motion picture). This is the first DVD like this for me and I'm not sure if others do the same thing or not, but I'm going to have around 300-500 pressed and give them out to key people.

Instead of following the droves of musicians and artists going the traditional route, I'm making my own route.

Question for the masses here...Would you purchase a DVD from your favorite local artist for $10? (Such as the one I'm working on now)

MPAA is on its way out just like the RIAA and SCO. The last gasps of a company are usually harsh and misguided. Its unfortunate our government is so easily bought, though. If they weren't, these last gasps wouldn't be so easily distributed.

Re:Stars are the enemy

[Saeger]

Question for the masses here...Would you purchase a DVD from your favorite local artist for $10? (Such as the one I'm working on now)

From my favorite artists, yeah, I'd be willing to pay a bit more than $10 for a tangible instance of their old work in order to support their future work; but from an unknown (like you), where there's no emotional connection between us and where there's already an abundance of other art to choose from, the price point would be a bit less.

Another major factor, for me, would be under what license your art released. If you RESERVED ALL RIGHTS(C)(R)(TM)(!!!), then, well, eh, I'm more likely to pass than if you allowed others to conditionally redistribute and incorporate it into their own works.

--

Re:Stars are the enemy

[swb]

Would you purchase a DVD from your favorite local artist for $10? (Such as the one I'm working on now)

Sure, if I had a favorite local artist. When I was 24 and working two part time jobs (the sum of which didn't equal 40 hours), I had a lot of favorite local artists because I had the time, energy and the soft, pink liver required to go to bars 2-3 nights per week.

Now that I'm old, tired, working 50 hours a week, married, and have a hard, inflamed liver, it's hard to keep track of or be aware of local musicians. Local TV, including the aren't-we-progressive public station, does such a horrible job of presenting even *NEWS* about anything that doesn't have a major beer and pharmaceutical sponsor that it's hard to know what's good.

Local radio might be better, but the local stations that play local music (which excludes all but 2-3 owned by Clear Channel, sigh) are either impossible to pick up (AM, shut down at sundown), take the "community" angle too seriously and seem to be in a foreign language when I tune them in. I think they have something on late on Friday, but see old, tired and married above. My biggest gripe with local music has always been they're just too fucking caught up in being local musicians caught up with being local musicians. The how-cool-am-I, did-you-get-my-reference-to-that-Partridge-Family- song, we're-just-like-the-White-Stripes-but-different attitude just kind of makes me annoyed enough to throw in a VU album and wish it was Max's Kansas City, circa 1969....

Re:Stars are the enemy

[Beatbyte]

From my favorite artists, yeah, I'd be willing to pay a bit more than $10 for a tangible instance of their old work in order to support their future work; but from an unknown (like you), where there's no emotional connection between us and where there's already an abundance of other art to choose from, the price point would be a bit less.

For the first DVD, I would give it out to key people. Free as in beer. They don't have the right to modify and resell it. They do have the right to put it on their computer, put on an Ogg CD, etc. etc. But not to freely distribute the ENTIRE work. I will have samples of all my stuff online (around 1/2 my work).

Another major factor, for me, would be under what license your art released. If you RESERVED ALL RIGHTS(C)(R)(TM)(!!!), then, well, eh, I'm more likely to pass than if you allowed others to conditionally redistribute and incorporate it into their own works.

I have no problem people conditionally giving it out to others. But not in its entirity in an exact copy. As far as incorporating it into their own works I'm a lot more against that. I'd rather people be inspired by it than use it to copy + paste.

Re:Stars are the enemy

[Saeger]

I have no problem people conditionally giving it out to others.

So this license would be acceptable then? But not in its entirity in an exact copy. Hmm. I don't know how you would apply those conditions to ONLY individual works and not the whole collection (as in a DVDrip floating around p2p rather than your mp3s/etc.).

--

Re:Stars are the enemy

[Beatbyte]

Basically what I meant was I don't mind them giving away the same content that I give away myself (like I said, around 1/2 of my work).

why is anyone surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is anyone surprised at this? No matter how much the directors sell out they still consider themselves "artists" whether or not the title actually applies. The economics machine of the MPAA offends their sensibilities but until now they haven't been willing to stand on principle because A they don't have many and B the MPAA has done things that they see as good up until now.

The MPAA is freaking evil just like the RIAA and it's not because of their misguided attempts to fight piracy and theft (and that's what downloading and sharing is folks regardless of what you may want to believe) it's because they have a union mentality and a monopolistic stranglehold on their respective industries. If you want to work in their industry they'll tell you how to think, act, and work otherwise no dice. This is just an example of that.

Now add to that the nuclear strike scorched earth tactics against piracy where they decide that in order to fight theft their going to set asside all common sense and opperate fraudulently and secretively using technologies that break products without informing the public, not let americans view european movies and vice versa even if they pay for them, and suing anyone that so much sticks their head up out of the ground.

These guys are evil.

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[ScrewMaster]

(and that's what downloading and sharing is folks regardless of what you may want to believe)

Um .. no, it isn't automatically considered theft, although it is probably illegal. Keep in mind that your opinion, my opinion, and every else's opinion is irrelevant in this matter. It's how the law is actually written, and has previously been enforced, that counts. People seem to lose sight of that at times.

The RIAA's legal approach recognizes the way the law is written, and thus they are avoiding any actual court time. They would love to win a couple of nice, high-profile, court cases against file-sharers but they don't dare try. The best they can do is scare people into settling out-of-court (and the effectiveness of that tactic is questionable.)

You, personally, may not consider the distinction between "copyright infringement" and "theft" important, but believe me, if you were currently under threat of copyright litigation you would. You should read the applicable section of U.S. Copyright laws: I did and it was very informative. Your own personal sense of ethics may consider limited copyright infringement to automatically be punishable as theft, but U.S. law apparently does not.

The law is very specific about what types of infringement are considered theft, and which are not, and intent to profit financially is a very big factor in all of that. As the average file-sharer doesn't earn anything by his efforts (in fact it costs him money) it's very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a charge of "theft" in court. And forget about making a claim of true piracy: that wouldn't stick either unless the individual was, say, burning CDs from his MP3 collection and selling them.

A lot of noise gets made over that "$150,000 per infringement" number, but remember when that law was made ... it predates the advent of the Internet by a long time. It was intended to deter actual pirate organizations: those that took a copyrighted work, mass-produced it, and sold it for a profit (i.e., those that the law does consider to be thieves.) Furthermore, that number was set in the light of a single work being pirated in a large way for profit. That's another key distinction. It was never, ever, intended to be used against individuals in the context that the RIAA has been using it, and is just one more example of the way that group has been abusing both the letter and intent of the law. Their treatment of the law is even more disrespectful than that of file-sharers. Now ... should the law be changed? Perhaps. But I would like to see a little more popular influence in Congress the next go 'round, rather than having drafts of new bills sent directly from the RIAA and MPAA's legal departments.

Sorry for the rant, but that issue is one that I perceive as central to the entire brouhaha. Other than that I agree with your commentary. Over the years, the RIAA and MPAA have done a very good job of insulating their member companies from the usual costs (and risks) of doing business. Unfortunately, by doing so they've pretty well shafted the consumer. Very little good will come of all this on either side, I suspect.

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of noise gets made over that "$150,000 per infringement" number, but remember when that law was made ... it predates the advent of the Internet by a long time. It was intended to deter actual pirate organizations: those that took a copyrighted work, mass-produced it, and sold it for a profit (i.e., those that the law DOES consider to be thieves.)

Mod This Up!

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was interested to read of the difference between theft and copyright infringement in legal terms. I guess it exists because if I broke into your house and steal your cd, it is gone and you can't hear it; but if i tape from the radio because I can't affford to buy records (as I did as a youth), I have actually had zero impact on the music company or radio, and as a CD buying adult, i find myself buying the cd's of groups like talking heads and so forth, simply because I always wanted them and can now afford them, despite the fact that their music doesn't excite me all that much anymore.

That said, I can see I'd be pretty peeved if I wrote music, and people who could afford to buy it just pirated it. Perhaps there needs to be more emphasis on packaging. I mean, the quality of music on a cd would be better than mp3, but I have never seen the music industry emphasise the quality of their sound. Interestingly, some cd's come with a code that lets you unlock parts of a groups web page, for example.

I think that as ISP's move away from unlimited to pay per meg (alas!!), the music industry can make themselves competitive by adding value to the product released.. making long lasting cd's (not cheap crud), decent info inside, special offers, even make it that one in a million cd's lets you meet the band. something like that.

Whilst people have access to unlimited plans, I
can see it would be a little harder tho.

I'm from Australia, anyone know if Aus copyright law is different? Although I suspect any Australian breaking american laws that offends powerful US companies will find themselves in deep. Our government does everything it can to suck up to US interests.

On a side point, I want to say that I'm pro-american liberal democrats and anti-american fascists, warmongers, election-stealers. I hope your country prospers, and you rediscover your love of freedom and justice and get a better president. And I hope my government grows a backbone and learns how to say no to yours :-)

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to be careful with that, since you seem to have forgotten the NET Act (NET = "No Electronic Theft").

Basically, it changed "shares with lots of people" into "willful infringement" (e.g. the kind with massive, statutory damages [statutory damages aren't "real" damages nor do they have to be proven, in case you're wondering, so they can definately be outrageous])

In other words, be sure to read ALL the laws (and/or consult a lawyer, which is probably the best option...) before you wind up in court, if you're heading there... :/

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[Snaller]

The law is very specific about what types of infringement are considered theft

It doesn't consider any copyright infringement as theft, but it does consider some copyright infringement as illegal. Illegal is not the same as theft.

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, exactly, that was my whole point. But in extreme cases (where a lot of money is involved, usually from the illegal sale of copyrighted material) copyright law does permit infringement to be considered a criminal matter. But so far as I've been able to figure out that doesn't apply to Joe File Sharer, much as some people would like it to.

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, I should have brought that up. That one is so outrageous I'm not sure how long it will stand. In practice it seems those huge numbers are just there to frighten people into submission (which they do) since it isn't possible to extract several million dollars from the average American citizen/P2P user. So those statutory damages are really meaningless in terms of actual penalties, but they have a substantial intimidation factor.

And while the amounts needn't be proven (technically, although a court is sure to ask) whether there was any infringement certainly does. That is really the crux of the matter. The RIAA is having a hard time proving infringement, they are simply assuming it, and as the technology improves even that will become more difficult. All they can show to a court right now is that someone made some files available, which unfortunately doesn't prove who received said files, if anyone. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and they really don't have much of it. Proof, that is. And it is still an open question as to whether the person posting the files to a network, or the person who actually requested them is the real infringer. Obviously, from a technological standpoint it's much easier to go after the person sharing the files so that's what they've been doing. Fortunately, file-sharing applications (at least, none that I've tried) don't keep records of what IP addresses they transferred data to/from, or the RIAA would certainly have a better chance of proving their case in court.

But you're right ... the law is becoming more lopsided all the time, in great leaps and bounds. The good news is that public awareness of this nonsense is at an all-time high, which means that, ultimately, it is beginning to affect actual voters. Perhaps that will convince Congress to start behaving and restore some balance. Perhaps not. Given their track record on copyright law so far, I wouldn't recommend holding one's breath.

Re:why is anyone surprised?

[ScrewMaster]

Here is a link to the actual act:

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html

While pretty draconian, there is one part I find interesting:

"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.

So, here's the question: if the RIAA wants to nail a file-sharer under the No Electronic Theft Act, what exactly must they show to a court in order to win a conviction?

'stuff that matters' vs. ?pr? ?firm? execrable

[Anonymous Coward]

to get REAL answers, you need to ask REAL questions, not phonIE scriptdead ones.

tell 'em robbIE?

art films

[snarkh]

I doubt it will mean the end of Oscars going to art films

Hmm... Right, hard to see how it could be the end of something which had never begun.

what a shock

[zenrandom]

Well its time for the directors and actors to receive the cold slap in the face that is reality received earlier by their brethren in the music world from the RIAA. The MPAA doens't care in the least about *you* the only thing they care about is the money being generated by the product you create. What you think isn't important, what you want isn't important. Go figure... who'd have thought. -zr

Bah!

[Cpt_Kirks]

Not to be crude (well, actually *TO* be crude) about it, but who gives a fuck?

The Oscars are just money driven politics used to shove more bad movies down our throats.

I pay *NO* attention to the damn things.

Look, if you want a copy, rent the damn thing and rip it. You have to wait 6 months, boo hoo! At least then someone is getting a little change out of your cheap ass.

Damn moves take too long to dl, the quality generally sucks and assholes get off on renaming files so you dl the wrong one.

Get all the movies off kazaa so I get have the bandwidth for Sealab 2021 and pr0n, dammit!

Damn hangover...

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, lots of people care about the Oscars. Namely, filmmakers, film watchers, studios, and film distributors. The fact that millions of people watch the Oscars drives the distributors to pick up and distribute smaller pictures.

What will happen is that not only will the smaller riskier films not get the awards or the nominations, they won't even get made! Probably another reason for Valente to try to ban the screeners.

More independent distributors like NewLine or Lions Gate look at the Oscars and other critical acclaim to guage the risk in picking up a film. They choose to distribute the great-but-starless films in hopes that their merit will drive their sales and bring them some profit. If the single-biggest, and most-watched, awards body no longer nominates and awards riskier films because Academy members don't see them, then distributors will no longer choose to pick them up and distribute them. And if there's less chance of distribution, less struggling filmmakers will make them.

Good job stealing my handle

[192939495969798999]

Check that out... you stole my handle!
How long have you been a member?

Re:Good job stealing my handle

[Sir Haxalot]

How long have you been a member?
1 year? something like that

Re:Good job stealing my handle

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the handle is "Sir Haxalot", it would be proper to change it to something like "s1r h4x4l0t"

Here's an obvious question:

[Robber Baron]

If I was an independant film maker, not working out of the US, couldn't I just tell Jackoff V. and the MPAA to shove their no-screener policy up their collective asses and send my own out myself? I know the obvious answer is i'd probably get "blackballed" but what if enough people started doing this...couldn't some sort of collective action render the whole MPAA more or less irrelevent?

Re:Here's an obvious question:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you'll get blackballed in jail.

PIRAMYD TROLL SCHEME!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...

All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Taco is an ass.

Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.

Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at goatse.cx.

So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!

I care?

[GoofyBoy]

Ok, this is news for nerds because its interesting how far they will go to stop piracy.

On the other hand, I don't care about the Oscars or other award show, they've never picked anything I thought deserved it. Yes I know that it looks better and Oscar award movies do make more money with the general public, but to me its just a silly little self-congradulatory event.

Valenti has eaten crow in past & will eat it a

[leoaugust]

"'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.' Jack Valenti said this in 1982 in testimony to the House of Representatives on why the VCR should be illegal. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage". From Older Slashdot discussion http://slashdot.org/articles/02/05/31/1622232.shtm l?tid=97

This was a blunder that he made in 1982. Twenty one years later he is still around, smoking his fat cigar, and calling "Wolf Wolf" (aka "Boston Strangler, Boston Strangeler") again.

He survived then, he will survive again. He ate his words then, and he will eat his words again, of that I am confident. But while he can, he is going to make life hell for everyone, and enjoy the spectacle from a distance.

If these corporate types, aka fat cats, were interested in consistency, they wouldn't be fat - they would be roadkill. But God, how much I would love for Jack "The Boston Ripper" Valenti to be roadkill, just this one time ....

In related news

[Snaller]

In related news Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Redford have urged the members of Academy of Arts and Sciences to download the new movies from Kazaa so that they might be better equipped to pick the nominees for the Award show next year.

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahah

So now we know...

[bigjnsa500]

Who are ripping the screeners ;)

At Least It's Art...

[Fringe]

Maybe not the movies they're producing, nor the records produced by RIAA memebers, but between the MPAA and the RIAA we have some high satire worthy of Jonathan Swift. Valenti and RIAA President Cary Sherman will be remembered long after "House of the Dead" and Brittney Spears have been left in the dustbin of pop history. And isn't that what art's about?

Re:At Least It's Art...

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt anybody knows who they are *now*, let alone remember them.

These people are just disposable mouth pieces for their respective organisations. Nobody will remember them.

Perhaps I am missing something...

[rusty0101]

... but aren't the only studios that will follow the requirement to not send screeners to the Accademy going to be the large studios who can get their movies shown in thousands of theaters nation wide?

While the MPAA talks a good game when it comes down to it, the independent studios are going to be making their own decisions, and realizing that the Academy people are only going to be able to use their recollection of movies in theaters from the begining of the year, or in the now playing catagory, will send screeners in anyway as the potential for loss of revenue for them is less important than the potential for an award for work well done building up the market interest.

It looks to me as if the Independent studios are going to look at this as MPAA studios shooting themselves in the foot.

Then again, I could be wrong.

-Rusty

Re:Perhaps I am missing something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know if the Motion Picture Arts Asssociation have anything to do with the Academy of Motion Arts and Sciences? If they disqualified a independent studio's movies from Oscar contention, then that would be real deterrence. Even if they couldn't bar them from the Oscars, if the independent studios release screeners for Oscar competition, the MPAA might refuse to rate their movies. That would bar the independent studios from releasing a film to a larger audience. Granted most art houses show unrated movies but if they want to make more money they'll need a wider release. There are some anti-trust issues here too; the major studios are acting like a cartel.

Re:Perhaps I am missing something...

[Lehk228]

I think that if the MPAA refused to rate a film over something like that they would be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit so fast their head would come right f---ing off

Logic?

[uplinkpriest]

How is it that a group or entity can dictate what a director or group of directors can do when said director(s) don't gain anything from them. That's like me dictating what japan does. What a minute. I need one of those. Japan, everyone give me a dollar. WOO! I'm rich!

What is "screener"?

[axxackall]

Let's check the dictionary:

1. A movable device, especially a framed construction such as a room divider or a decorative panel, designed to divide, conceal, or protect.
2. One that serves to protect, conceal, or divide: Security guards formed a screen around the President. A screen of evergreens afforded privacy from our neighbors.
3. A coarse sieve used for sifting out fine particles, as of sand, gravel, or coal.
4. A system for preliminary appraisal and selection of personnel as to their suitability for particular jobs.
5. A window or door insertion of framed wire or plastic mesh used to keep out insects and permit air flow.
6. The white or silver surface on which a picture is projected for viewing.
7. The movie industry: a star of stage and screen. Also called silver screen.
8. Electronics. The phosphorescent surface on which an image is displayed, as on a television, computer monitor, or radar receiver.
9. Computer Science. The information or image displayed at a given time on such a computer monitor: printing a hard copy of the screen.
10. Electronics. The electrode placed between the anode and the control grid in a tetrode valve. Also called screen grid.
11. Printing. A glass plate marked off with crossing lines, placed before the lens of a camera when photographing for halftone reproduction.
12. A body of troops or ships sent in advance of or surrounding a larger body to protect or warn of attack.
13. Sports. A block, set with the body, that impedes the vision or movement of an opponent.
14. Football. A screen pass.

So, what was banned? a star of stage and screen (Also called silver screen)?

Re:What is "screener"?

[cei]

Clearly, "A system for preliminary appraisal and selection" fits the bill.

Doesn't stop indie films, it helps them.

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA arent stopping all screeners they cant. What they have done is ask all there members not to send out screeners anymore, which they agreed to.
Indie films have nothing to do with the MPAA, and thus can do whatever they want. They will continue to send out screener's to the judges, as they did before the MPAA ban. The only way in which this affects them is now the judge might not say "Well, I only have time for 1 more movie, but I have two left. I'll watch the blockbuster instead of this indie crap."
Instead he wont have any blockbusters, so he'll watch the indie films instead.
Stop complaining, this really has little to no effect. It only negitivly effect low-budget films released by MPAA members (which there arent many of), they can always find a indie or non-MPAA company to release there films, and this be allowed to send screeners.

Who cares about the awards these days?
The only real affect this will have is to stop piracy from screeners. And to piss off slashdot users.

Lucas and Spielberg?

[dexter riley]

Does anyone know if Lucas and Spielberg were on the petition? Or were they too busy to sign it?

Re:Lucas and Spielberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they would sign. They're both sell-outs.

Misdirection is the rest of the story

[netringer]

To clarify, what Jack Valenti of the MPAA is trying to stop is movie piracy. There was a recent article here (I ain't looking for it) that said that Hollywood discovered that most leaks of pirated movies were coming from "insider" copies, like the video tapes sent to Motion Picture Academy members for their consideration in voting for Oscars.

As movie critic Roger Ebert explains the result is they started searching movie critics for video cameras at the entrance to film screenings and the MPAA ordered the studios to stop sending out tapes. That gives the major studios a huge advantage over small indie films which are hard to find in theaters.

Once again the security action is misdirection. The movies are leaking from insiders so they hassle outsiders.

The misdirection is a typical response. Like how the 9/11 terrorists used their real names, jumbo airliners, and were in the country legally so the feds make all airline passengers present IDs 22 times, come out up with tough new rules on small planes, and hassle foreigners to make sure they enter the country legally.

Re:Misdirection is the rest of the story

[bucky0]

and hassle foreigners to make sure they enter the country legally.

Yeah, damn the fbi and their enforcing the laws we have!

Re:Misdirection is the rest of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up - this is good.

so what you are saying is...

[rootofevil]

...the terrorists^Wpirates have already won?

More fun in Theaters anyway

[SwedishChef]

Valenti is, in my opinion, an idiot. Maybe it's time for all those high-profile directors to create an awards system that is meaningful and not just political payback for favors done.

Anyway, I think movies are much more enjoyable in a theater with a cute girl next to me. Ripping movies is just one more way to keep yourself from getting a girlfriend (or boyfriend). Next time you want to rip the latest flick stifle it and call up a cutie and rub shoulders for a few hours. Hell, even the popcorn is better at the cinema.

Re:More fun in Theaters anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

New security regulations mean they wont let me bring my blow up doll into the movie.

Oh, you mean watching it with a *real* person? wow...

Re:More fun in Theaters anyway

[frycarson]

But ripped movies are free, and you can't get head in a theater. Besides, some girls are dumb and don't care about what they watch Exgirlfriend

Re:More fun in Theaters anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

and you can't get head in a theater

Speak for yourself :)!

~~~

a DVD.

[rebelcool]

Each year the academy sends DVDs of movies up for nomination to academy members (ie, actors, directors and so forth) so they can watch the movies and then vote for them.

As you can imagine, nobody can see each movie up for grabs each year, much less the less-distributed arthouse ones where the real 'art' is.

The MPAA is worried these DVDs will make it onto the internet.

This is good!

[zachjb]

I agree. If they get rid of the screeners, then they lose the potential to gain awesome word-of-mouth advertising. I know a lot of films that I have enjoyed were only found through a few people I know from other people who screen movies.

It's a great way to find the needle in the haystack.

idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

what the fuck does screenning movies has to do with political ideology?

Whiners.

[Lonath]

Jack's doing it for the artists. That's what he's been saying all along. Don't these directors care about the artists?

Re:Whiners.

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't.

'Greed is good.'
-- G. Gecko

Re:Whiners.

[Master of Transhuman]

Jodie Foster signed the letter.

She's not an artist? She doesn't support independent film?

Re:Whiners.

[Lonath]

Oh bleh. I was being sarcastic...in the sense of when someone says they're "doing it for the children", then they're usually not. Same here, "doing it for the artists", and yet the artists are not happy with it... :)

On a related note...

[travail_jgd]

... The RIAA has announced that it will stop sending albums and singles to radio stations, to prevent unauthorized copying.

Come to think of it, that would be a good thing!

Why don't they jump ship?

[JayBlalock]

Look at the list of names on the E Online article that was posted higher up.

Scorsese, both Coppolas, Barry Levinson, Redford, Sam Raimi, Darabont, Altman, David Lynch, Spike Jonze, Cronenberg, the Coen Bros... It's virtually a who's-who of all the best filmmakers in Hollywood, and a mix of old greats and up-and-comers.

If those people decided to jump ship and form their own movie collective, they could. Easily. Hell, many of them ALREADY have their own production companies and\or studios. Sure the MPAA technically controls distribution - but do you see any of the huge theatre chains saying 'no' to the latest Redford or Scorsese flick? The Academy - which is a separate entity - refusing them entrance? I don't think so.

The fact that so many truly great directors (and writers) are on that list, I think, proves just HOW misguided Valenti is being. He and the studios see films as nothing more than Product - made as cheap as possible, peddled out to the brain dead masses. But the people who signed that list are the ones who *know* better. And if they ever decided to leave, they could, never look back, and the MPAA system would likely crumble in their wake. (I mean, really, who's the MPAA got left? Speilberg... Uh...)

The question is whether these directors would be willing to take that chance - and whether the studio heads even REALIZE the importance of visionary directors in their schemes anymore.

Re:Why don't they jump ship?

[Anonymous Coward]

who's the MPAA got left? Spielberg... Uh...

Exactly. Spielberg is a wash-out.

Re:Why don't they jump ship?

[Cid Highwind]

The question is whether these directors would be willing to take that chance

They should. George Lucas quit the MPAA after they tried to fine him for not putting opening credits in Star Wars. It didn't seem to hurt his career!

Re:Why don't they jump ship?

[Pseudonym]

While the fiaso with Lucas and the DGA didn't exactly hurt his bank balance, there's a reason he didn't direct any movies between 1977 and 1999.

Re:Why don't they jump ship?

[Superfarstucker]

I for one, would like to see a splintering of the movie industry. Our own little civil war if you will.

How is this hurting the public?

[sielwolf]

I personally think this is a swell move. Why? Because unlike the tactics of say the RIAA, the MPAA is going after a subset of folks who aren't their consumers but collegues. In a way they are changing a way the movie industry runs instead of trying to alter human nature.

Yeah yeah, the poor screeners and indie film makers. Well I guess all those independent films won't be winning Best Picture.

Outside of studio marketing folks, who cares who wins Oscars? People still go to movies, with or without the Academy's approval.

Offtopic: Red Dots in Kill Bill

[cfish]

After seeing a sample of the anti-piracy red dots,

http://www.vcdquality.com/image.php?id=18919

I saw it in Kill Bill 3 times last night. The are very obvious because part of the movie is black and white. It's rather distracting. I forgot to complain to the manager afterwards cuz I was upset about how the movie sucked, but if any of you are going to see the film, remember to complain about it.

The Secret Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly 1,784 directors have sent a letter to Jack Valenti expressing the hope that soon he will just pass away, leaving one less anal retentive power monger in the world.

This Move is Irrelevant...

[BlackBolt]

... and here's why.

This WON'T stop piracy one bit, we all know that. These business dinosaurs deserve extinction, and the sooner the better.

This WON'T kill the Indy movies, because whether or not it wins an Oscar doesn't matter to 90% of the people who rent movies. Word of mouth is king with Indy movies; it's icing on the cake if one wins an award. It MAY affect how wide the distribution of the movie is, which may hurt. But it will still be sought out due to word of mouth.

Which brings us to point three, and the REAL reason this is all irrelevant, which is that APPLE is going to start selling streaming Quicktime Movies over iTunes for $2 - and then screeners, little video stores, and even the Oscars themselves, will be moot. I'll stream a movie based on the fact that my friends have set up an iTunes Awards show online and have given it 5 iPods or something. And with the crazy online selection, I'll go back and watch 1988's "Wall Street" again, or "Shawshank Redemption", or "Evil Dead 2", rather than watching Ashton Kutcher be a complete ass in some moronic lowest-common-denominator romantic comedy swill that Valenti et al thought would hit the spot of the addlepated masses.

Re:This Move is Irrelevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

addlepated

Just consider the logic of the original ban...

[freeBill]

..."We are going to ban movie studios from sending out copies of their own copyrighted material to our members because we believe that some of our own members are breaking the law and selling that copyrighted material."

If the movie studios who send out these copyrighted (copyrights that *they* own, not the MPAA) thought they were losing money because of this practice, they would stop sending them out. Remember these screeners are sent out after the movie has been out for a while (sometimes a *long* while). By the time these screeners are going out, most of the money to be made selling unauthorized copies has already been made (and almost all of the money that cuts into ticket sales). Some of these movies will already have been in distribution through Blockbuster. If an unauthorized duplicator wants a copy, he may be able to rent a DVD.

If ever there was evidence the MPAA is not doing any of this to protect the rights of copyright holders, this is it. Valenti is actually trying to quash one of the fundamental rights which has *always* applied to copyright owner: the right to copy and distribute their own work. Usually the MPAA attacks the long-established rights of the purchaser of copyrighted material, but now they have switched to attacking the most basic rights of the producers themselves.

Once again, Jack Valenti is exposed as a fraud of the highest order.

What the movie industry NEEDS to do is...

[acoustix]

...stop showing trailers that shows the entire plot of the movie. Too many movies like "Sweet Home Alabama" had trailors that showed the entire movie in less than 1 minute.

Surprise ending, huh?

Re:What the movie industry NEEDS to do is...

[geekboy2k]

Of course, for that particular movie it was a GOOD thing.

Ebert has some very useful insights

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt- ebert07.html

The Valenti Decree would cripple the chance of a small independent film getting an Oscar nomination. With dozens of films opening at year end, the academy population lacks the time and energy to attend all those screenings in theaters. The DVDs pile up at home, and when the buzz turns hot on a title, they look at it.

Valenti's ban was greeted with howls of outrage by the heads of the independent distribution companies, even while it was being greeted with joy by the heads of major studios. This is a no-brainer: If voters cannot see the best indie work, they will be forced to vote for major studio work. Such recent Oscar winners as ''The Hours,'' ''The Pianist,'' ''Adaptation'' and ''Far from Heaven'' might not have survived such a practice.

It seems to me that a ban of screeners could then be challenged under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Major film studios are only banning the screeners so that smaller studios can't compete.

Ebert proposes sending out Disposable Video Discs which self destruct after one use. Failing that, he suggests that the MPAA should just allow smaller film makers to send out screener discs. The publicity would be worth the piracy. But of course those venal SOB's wouldn't agree to anything so practical that benefits their competitors.

For the cost of 49% piracy ...

[ziegast]

Taking the 49% figure for granted, there is 49% of hundreds of millions (or [puts pinky by lips] "billions?") of dollars at stake in the way the Academy releases movies to screeners.

Why don't the MPAA and the Oscar people hire private jets to take groups of screeners every weekend to a special [secure] theater in Los Angeles where they sit in leather couches and drink wine and eat caviar while they watch a bunch of noninated movies in a category in glorious and gluttonous comfort, then take them out to a designer restaurant, and then put them up in a $500/night five-star hotel? Total tab per person - $10000. 3000 screeners -> $30,000,000. Wow, look, it's not a watch-movies-with-the-barbarians inconvenience anymore - it's a privilege to be a screener.

Or, how difficult would it be to add some loss during any part of a distributed two-hour movie (i.e. color, bluriness, sound, distortion, watermark) that is unique to each and every distributed disc? When pirate disk hits the market, you look for the loss or signature for the content or areas of the film that were cut out and then prosecute the violating screener(s) for all that they are worth? Let's say that you need a bunch of equipment and some trustworthy expert staff to make it work - total cost $2,000,000 per year. Stopping screener piracy through accountability - priceless.

Lame! I can only assume that they have no interest in solving the problem - just punishing everyone for the acts of a few.

-ez

PS: Sorry about the flip-flops. It's about time I got some new ones. ;^)

Re:For the cost of 49% piracy ...

[Ben Hutchings]

If each screener disc has a unique pattern of loss, then two screener versions of the same film can be compared and combined into a good unmarked one by switching from one source to the other every time there's a lossy frame. (This assumes there isn't overlap between the patterns.) If they can find a way of changing the film so it's unclear which frame is bad and which good then this might be a winner. Still, I think it would be a very sophisticated scheme that couldn't be defeated by comparison of larger numbers of sources.

Valenti is retiring soon

[Animats]

Business 2.0 says that Valenti is preparing to retire. Anyone know who will replace him?

Re:Valenti is retiring soon

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that the Gov. of California was interested.

Re:Valenti is retiring soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Spielberg!

Re:Valenti is retiring soon

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard that Senetor Billy Tauzin was on the short list.

Re:Valenti is retiring soon

[OzPhIsH]

You know, Hillary did lose her position at the RIAA. I wonder if she's in contention. She certainly has the experience, and the huge fan base one woujld need to take this position.

This hurts the independent film studios.

[Anonymous Coward]

Independent films depend a lot more on dvd screeners to get a shot at the Oscars. Without them, the major studios have a distinct advantage. Few of the 5000+ Academy members ever get out to the indy film houses to catch all the smaller films. Once again, this is all about money but not in they way people think.

Uhm.. here's a thought

[Lord Bitman]

if those directors don't like what the MPAA is doing, maybe those directors will stop supporting the MPAA?

The screener ban is good thing...

[qtp]

I can't help but think that the screener ban is a good thing, as long as it applies only to movies produced by or distributed by the members of the MPAA.

The group of producers who are protesting the ban may believe that they are helping independant artists, but the truth is the opposite. How independant can you really be if your work is being sponsored or distribution is dependant on the powers within the MPAA. If MPAA members are not supplying the screeners then there is a greater chance that films not accompanied by a note from a Redford or Scorsese might just be reviewed by the Acadamy members, instead of sitting at the bottom of the pile of submittals that includes all of the MPAA high budget crap, the "independant" work of the children and relatives of Hollywood executives and other MPAA insiders, as well as the truly independant screeners that are submitted by talented artist but will never be watched for lack of time.

If these 142 directors and producers really want to promote somebody's independant work, maybe they should shell out the bucks for a theatre screening instead of attempting to drown out the work of truly independant artists that they don't happen to know (instead of flooding the screener market with films of "independants" that they happen to be sponsoring).

Re:The screener ban is good thing...

[qtp]

In reply to my own post:

It does not seem as though these directors are forbidden to submit screeners of works that are not under contract with thier studios or associated with the MPAA. The ban only applies to the MPAA members works, and I cant see how the MPAA could enforce a ban on screeners for films that are not being paid for or distributed by MPAA members.

This still makes the protest against the screener ban a little less than genuine in motive.

Re:The screener ban is good thing...

[Ben Hutchings]

The nominees actually have to be released in LA, and the MPAA's members have an oligopoly on distribution in the US. Independent film-makers generally still have to resort to MPAA members for distribution.

Studios vs. RIAA

[danila]

Again, I am amazed at how powerful had the RIAA become. It is supposedly an organisation formed by studios and now it dictates them what to do. What next, the Congress telling American citizens how to behave? Oh, sorry, nevermind...

Only sane use for "disposable" DVD's.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this be the only sane use for the otherwise cosmically wastefull (and unlikely to fly at suggested prices) "disposable" DVD's.

Brick and Mortar piracy

[utahjazz]

You can buy screener copies in NYC on Canal street around Broadway. There is always at least 1 table set up selling new movies for around $5. It always amazes me that they aren't arrested. I guess the NYPD has better things to do..

I bought one once, the only difference was every 15 minutes or so a ticker ran across the bottom saying "It's illegal to buy this" or something.

Re:Valenti has eaten crow in past & will eat i

[Anonymous Coward]

VCRs are how Valenti today dances for the peanut gallery. Without the promise of revenues on rentals and sales, Hollywood might have to pay people honestly and 'up front'.

First the musicians, then the directors...

[no_such_user]

...how long until the industry realizes that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. is no longer necessary? In response to the MPAA, this group of RICH, POWERFUL directors shoud take their fortunes and create a wholly independent film scene. Create their own studios, distribution facilities, theaters -- EVERYTHING. Leave out the MPAA. Leave out the $6 sodas and $8 popcorns and $10 tickets and screens-smaller-than-my-tv and anything else which corporate greed has given us to increase their profits and reduce our experience.

These ARTISTS are in a position to reform the industry into supporting the values of the artists and consumers over those of the shareholders and executives. When I'm not contributing to Valenti's gold-plated hot tubs, downloading video/audio warez won't be as fun.

Fire Jack Valenti

[AngryCodeMonkey]

I think they need to fire Valenti and maybe the movie industry may do something right for once.

So just change frames.

[yerricde]

Trouble with that is it can easily screw up the soundtrack

If what you add from the end of one shot you remove from the beginning of the next shot, everything should stay perfectly synchronized. The technique I'm envisioning merely changes the frames around cuts. For one thing, people aren't going to notice one frame more of the previous scene or the next scene (3 choices per shot: -1, 0, +1). For another, the so-called "invisible" watermarks are also more likely to be invisible when they're masked by cuts.

Kill Bill

[Scrameustache]

the movie sucked

You do know that the studios decided it was too long and chopped it in two, figuring that they have found a way to make people pay twice for the same movie?

When you use jargon in headlines...

[ebcdic]

... can you please tell us what it means? Maybe it's common in America or among movie buffs, but I have never heard the word "screener" before nor has anyone I've asked about it.

what's it to slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Why does slashdot (CowboyNeal) suddently purport to know and dicatate the ins and outs of Hollywood?

The Oscars never treated indie films very well anyway. Live with it.

This just seems like a pathetic attempt to ensure the supply of illegal bootleg DiVX videos.

seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have read your comment before I made my own.

slashdot has nothing in this but their nose. Few, if any slashdot members are the legal destinations to screeners, so they only way they'd miss these is if it does staunch the flow of illegal DiVX rips.

And is slashdot really saying that a lack of piracy would be bad for the tech crowd?

This only affects the Oscars. The Oscars suck anyway.

A quick hollywood primer

[Anonymous Coward]

They should. George Lucas quit the MPAA after they tried to fine him for not putting opening credits in Star Wars. It didn't seem to hurt his career!

This is completely wrong. The MPAA is a collective trade and bargaining group of major studios (read a brief history here. It was originally created to deal with protectionist issues overseas. Now it is the collective "face" of the studios who set standards for everything from how loud a trailer is allowed to be (notice, for example that they don't blow your ears out like they used to) to self-policing through the use of a rating system. It is also a lobbying group, which regularly responds to legislative concerns such as violence in movies and works to get favorable legislation such as the DCMA passed. When the MPAA acts or speaks, it is the collective voice of "the Hollywood studios", the "majors", or "the industry".

The MPAA also acts as a "shield" behind which to hide unpopular actions, just as the recording industry hides behind the RIAA when suing people. If Warner Bros. sued a musician for downloading their music, people would boycott WB. But because it's under the auspices of "RIAA", it deflects attention from the member companies.

From what I've heard, George Lucas quit the DGA (Director's Guild of America) after the credits fiasco in Star Wars. The DGA is a union (umm, I mean a "guild") that represents the interests of directors specifically in negociating with the studios. It has a standard agreement with its signatories (the large studios) that includes stuff like minimum wages, credit determination, etc.

Other film industry unions and guilds include the WGA (writer's guild), IATSE (cartoonists, grips, etc.), SAG (Actors guild), etc. Each of the Unions typically have their own awards ceremony each year with members voting for them. The MPAA sends screeners to these voters because they want to win early awards like the WGA award, which creates buzz for the Oscars.

Finally there is AMPAS, the "Academy" that people are always thanking when they win an Oscar. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is like an honorary organization of filmmakers. They are the ones who put on the Oscars every year.

If those people decided to jump ship and form their own movie collective, they could. Easily. Hell, many of them ALREADY have their own production companies and\or studios. Sure the MPAA technically controls distribution - but do you see any of the huge theatre chains saying 'no' to the latest Redford or Scorsese flick

I think this is a misunderstanding of how movies get made. The production companies that you allude to owned by these directors or actors typically have what's called a "development deal" with the MPAA member companies-- ie, the studios. In the studio system, a production company gets development money, which pays for a production company's offices, development executives, etc. in exchange for a "first look" at any scripts being developed by the production company. In fact, when a script is bought in the first place by the production company, it's typically paid for by the studio. It's rare for a production company to have it's own money. Self-financed production companies are out there, but they're rare. A production company with its own money is called a "buyer" -- they compete with studios to buy scripts...

When a production company that has a deal with the studio finally makes a movie, the films are usually 100% funded by the studio that is going to distribute it.

In short-- it usually works something like this. Bob the Celebrity has a first look deal with a studio. The studio gives Bob money to run his company. Bob meets with writer's agents to solicit "spec" (speculative) scripts. They also develop their own ideas in-house. They might also be looking at comic books or video games or listening to pitch

Re:A quick hollywood primer

[Cid Highwind]

My mistake, I thought the DGA was a subset of the MPAA.

Re:A quick hollywood primer

[alecto]

Figures. A post that should be at +5 right after I expended my clip of modpoints on whiny flamebait. Please mod parent up.

Other anti-piracy measures are more to whine about

[X86Daddy]

I saw Kill Bill last night, which was great, but I was annoyed by the skip in my immersion caused by a flashed set of code dots appeearing across Uma Thurmon's face.

The cigarrette burn things are annoying too, but they come from a technical cause which is dissappearing with digital distribution. Intentionally marring frames to stop low-quality cam releases is idiotic. The award show and screener thing is an internal issue the industry should figure out; they're the ones who care about and receive benefit from their own award shows. What affects me is the quality and immersion I receive when I pay to see a film, dammit.

Stubborn Jack

[Matrix2110]

This is an example of corporate greed squashing talent.

Who am I to tell Robert Altman that he cannot give away copies of his work for generating a word of mouth campaign. I guess I am Jack Valenti, Defender of the old school and opposer of any new innovation.

Well, Guess what mister asshole. The people are slowly but most certainly wising up to you and the evil spite that you continue to spew.

The members can and will recall you. Rosen is a very smart woman, she saw the handwriting on the wall and stepped down.

When will you at least show the class Grey Davis showed in his concession speech.

This is happening bigtime all over the face of American culture. IMHO the watershed moment was when Disney dumped its 2-d animation unit. How shallow is that? and yet at the same time California Adventure has a mock "Disney animators" studio in which a few animators are used as robots to interact with an Eddie Murphy voiced cartoon with the express intent of getting you to buy art in the shop that you are dumped in at the end of the ride. Just like the recently PC nerfed Pirates ride.

I tell you that corporate culture needs a reality check like us proud voters gave to the professional politicians in California.

(I admit I am a little worried that Carly Fiona was named to the transition team)

I don't know where I am going with this, I just felt it needed to be said.

Re:Stubborn Jack

[Matrix2110]

Just a quick note, Grove echoing my sentiments today makes me feel validated. The USA is indeed starting to wake up to the problems that we face. And woe to the elected leader that thinks his job is secure. (I love the "woe" thing, straight out of the bible) I have always loved the idea of being a prophet, since I cannot change what I write here and hopefully /. is under a reasonably good stewardship. Hey you people at OSDN, trust cuts both ways. Do not allow /. archives to vanish. (The DVD's should sent to Mars via the next most convenient vehicle. Thank you!) You might just discover that the community has a veto.

A conversation between the directors and the MPAA

[NanoGator]

"Whatcha doin?

I'm appealin!

That's a minority view."

What about video stores?

[Stevyn]

When I was in high school, I worked at a small video rental store. We would always get dvd's of movies that had not yet come out on dvd yet. They did have the legal warnings every 15 minutes or so, but my point is that the distributers also send out a lot of dvd's before they come out.

Shut the fuck up, Sir Haxalot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, Sir Haxalot.

Stop karma whoring.