Slashdot Mirror
Oscar Screener Ban to be Revoked for Academy Members
bigjocker writes "Yahoo is reporting that the ban to distribute screeners copies will be revoked. The bad news is that only members of the Academy will receive them." It's still unclear how this will affect events such as the Golden Globe awards. According to the article, several critics' organisations have yet to decide their reaction. I'm guessing that at the least, Academy members are pleased to know they won't have to find a theatre to screen award nominees.
The bad news is that only members of the Academy will receive them."
Don't feel so bad, I know this academy member who always makes a few copies for his friends...
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
shouldn't that read "academy members will be pleazed to know that they too wont have to get on Kazaa to see the movies?"
Imagine how hard it would be to judge moving dramas with the welfare mother 2 rows behind them, yelling "callete! callete!" at her 11 screaming kids. Not to mention the fat redneck guy in the row in front of you, taking up 2 seats (exposed butt-crack nested on the unmoveable arm rest). How could anyone enjoy a movie like that?
Actually, this experience seems familiar...
Now we all know the real reason was cause they where pissed off indies where winning on a regular basis cause major motion pictures have sucked balls in recent years, but to have the blame put on us cause we where the easiest target and couldn't fight back against the MPAA (the people who decided this) it became us as the bad guys who where the cause of indie movies not being able to be allowed to send out DVD's to the voters
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
What they are going to say when movies are leaked now? It will happen.
The movie industry will have to fess up that some of the most respected people in their industry are in fact IP theives. Just like they want to paint everyone else to be. It'll be fun to watch.
The accademy should (quietly) distribute watermarked copies - with individual watermarks - to the members - and then take action against the responsible member(s) if the material ends up on the black market.
It's the height of hypocracy to swat at unauthorized copiers among the customer base in such a way as to create massive colateral damage among non-violators while simultaneously giving the industry insiders immunity.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
At least the MPAA is taking a more consumer-friendly approach to it's piracy problem. No matter what they do, I applaud them for not caving in to the level of the RIAA by sending supoenas to their consumer base.
Seriously?
Really, how is this bad news for anyone who isn't trying to steal content? I'm a strong advocate of being able to backup and/or copy things that I have a legal right to. I'm also a strong opponent of "tools" like the DMCA that use corporate fear to try to over-legislate or get rid of technology because it *could be* used to break the law.
But restricting screeners to academy members is only "bad news" if you were hoping that someone in the wider distribution list was going to copy the movies and distribute.
Espousing piracy significantly weakens an anti-MPAA stance. In fact, it plays right into the pro-MPAA argument saying "the only reason people want the ability to copy is so they can pirate."
If you're against the MPAA's position on heavy-handed anti-technology legislation, I'm with you. If you're only in it because you want to steal some stuff... coun't me out.
I'll tell you who does : the legions of people who download those screeners on P2P. They are the true big losers of this decision.
No. The big losers are the ones who don't grok the post. The decision repeals the ban of home copies. This means the P2P folk once again have access to these films.
So, other than saying that P2P pirates are losers in the first place, you've got it backwards.
Kevin Fox
The reason they banned the DVD's was they said tech geeks where pirating the movies too much when they sent the DVD's out, so likewise to prevent it they wouldnt let anyone (major studios, or indie) release them out to the voters, making the voters go to the local movie theaters to see them.
The truth was they where putting the blame on us cause we where an easy target, the real reason they banned them was the only way most indie movies got screened and voted on WAS caused they released them on DVD to the voters. The majors pissed they have lost so many oscars to the indies decided what would be the best way to tip the scales and saw the fact that most theaters dont play indies or play them for a very limited time that it was a easy way to get more major films screened and voted on than minor ones.
SOOOOO all of the big wigs wispered in the ears of the MPAA to get the ban put in place, and the MPAA not caring about the 100 or so indie companies under their wings put the sweaping ban in place much to the horror to all of the critics/indies/directors/and actors who had both not a clue it was going to happen and no say when it did happen.
Well in protest a huge number of smaller awards shows decided to take the year off, along with the Golden Globes which shocked the MPAA into realizing it made a horrable mistake since not only was the excuse of it was the piraters fault not taken seriously but everyone was now gunning to take the MPAA down including its own members who outnumbered the small majority of major studio members who where in control.
and thus why we should care, cause while no one took them to be serious, we the Tech geeks where to blam with yet another of lifes problems that really isnt a problem.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Roger Ebert wrote a column about this when the decision to ban screeners was announced. I tend to agree with most of his points, and can't wait to see what he says about this latest turn of events. We should all be happy, and not because this likely means more pirated pre-release copies of movies. No, it means there'll be some degree of fairness and equal exposure in oscar selection.
As if the major studios don't control hollywood enough, a ban on DVD distribution would have killed most independant studios chances of even being considered for an oscar.
Movies with limited distribution, and fewer available numbers of prints would've been shut out in favor of those which can afford advertising, and set up screenings at enough locations that a significant portion of the academy could view them.
This move at least allows some degree of fairness. All movies have the chance of being viewed by all screeners, regardless of who distributes or produces them. It's still not perfect, but it's much better this way.
seeing those dots every FUCKING TWO MINUTES ON THE SCREEN WHEN I JUST SPENT 20 FUCKING DOLLARS OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY FROM FIXING COMPUTERS THAT SOME SHITHEAD PRE -K'ER FUCKING STUCK GUM IN WHEN I COULD HAVE WAITED 6 MONTHS AND BOUGHT A MUCH NICER UNMOLESTED DVD.
k done ranting
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
There was a teacher at my college that was a member of the academy, and every Oscar season he would show all the nominees back to back in the school's screening room. He'd start showing them at 7 or so and we would not be done until like, 4 or later.
Man, I miss college.
It's still unclear how this will affect events such as the Golden Globe awards.
:)
It's also still unclear how this will affect events such as downloading your favorite movie.
Michael Moore made a huge deal about it last year when he thought he wouldn't win Best Documentary. "Bowling for Columbine" was for a mainstream audience, and not enough "mainstream" voters had seen the others in his category.
As for enforcement on the policy... no idea.
When I first read about those on /. I thought "this will be another subtle little thing that I will never notice" I'm just not one of those people who picks up on all the little nuances of media quality - be it audio or visual.
I was so wrong.
At kill bill - there were times, like when they popped up on the blue background of a fight scene that was all about visuals, that I nearly screamed. I was so annoyed and distracted I could not stay on track with the movie. And we are talking about a basic martial arts/action film. Not something real cerebral. If this is how films will be from now on - I am not going to the theater any more.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I was listening to a morning show in LA when Quentin Tarantino was on, and I thought he made an interesting point. He basically said that it hasn't been all that long that people have been receiving dvd screeners. When they asked for a copy of Pulp Fiction he was greatly insulted. He said something to the effect of "Are you kidding me? IT'S STILL IN THE F-ING THEATRES. I don't want him sitting at home doing laundry and having his kids asking him to drive them to their friends house while John Trovolta's blowing some guys head off."
Please note that's a very rough translation from memory.
Take Care
A1miras
In order to win an academy award, your movie must be seen by the people who vote on such things. It was customary to send these people a "screener", in other words, a copy of the movie (usually on DVD) that they can watch at their leisure. The MPAA, in an effort to reduce theft on the high seas and kidnapping, (yes, in addition to "piracy", they are now referring to "illegally abducted films"), had put a ban on screeners. This ban meant that the only way a movie could be seen by the voting membership was in the theatres. This would make the voting unfair, since foreign films, and indie films, and "art" films rarely make it into the local movie theatres. That ban has, in part, been lifted, freeing the way for quality movies to win the awards that would otherwise have been restricted to the mind numbing blockbuster.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Why is this bad news? Who should receive them? Why do you care about the movie industry's ritual pat-on-the-back?
I though the only interesting aspect of this ongoing story was that the proliferation of fast internet access was forcing the industry to restrict screeners. Nothing really good or bad in that. And no, I don't care if some less mainstream film wins an Emmy or Grammy or whatever. The only outcome I'd find "good" is if the industry stops being profitable, so cultural energy flows into less centralized channels.
I, personally, think it is bad for independent films. ;)) and improve their return on investment.
When this ban was just announced, independents started to moan because their films are not widely available in local cinemas. Now keep in mind, that in most cases it is the big studios that distribute those indie movies. Studio affiliations allow them to share some glory (they're the one, who found "diamond in a rough" which receives an Oscar for... ), earn big bucks (indie film costs pennies compared to supermegablockbuster from W. Brothers
What would be the easiest way for them to keep the Oscars coming and money flowing? Push those movies into more cinemas in more cities. Yes, the latest alternative movie would probably still not be available on every screen in every cinema in your city, but it might be available in one or two arthouse cinemas (which generally is enough for limited audience films), and, potentially, growing to dozens of cinemas if it happens to be a hit.
Now we're back to "release in 5 cinemas in the US, send 5,700 tapes/dvds to Academy members" scenario (with winner getting a bit more attention, and loosers never seeing the eye of the public in not-so-cosmopolitan cities).
Hyperom.com