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

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: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: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.