Slashdot Mirror
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?"
When does slashdot ever post stories that haven't appeared on other sources first? It's a news aggregation portal, not CNN, damnit.
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.
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?
Karma: Excellent (In Soviet Russia, karma pimps YOU)
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.
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.
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.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
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?
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...
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.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
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?
(and that's what downloading and sharing is folks regardless of what you may want to believe)
.. 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.
... 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.
Um
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
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
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).
Read, L