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

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?

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

[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.

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?

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: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.