Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sued Over DVD Screener Ban
bigjnsa500 writes "Fourteen small movie houses are suing the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) trying to stop the ban on DVD 'screeners'. 'It will chill the financing of independent films by limiting the awards they can receive', say the plaintiffs, who include Talking Wall Pictures, Sandcastle 5 Productions and Salty Features. They feel they are being treated differently because several 'specialty' indy film shops are still allowed to send out 'numbered, encoded videocassettes' to Oscar voters. This ban was issued by MPAA President Jack Valenti initially to stop the illegal distribution of DVD screeners on the Internet."
What's that? Chef's movie studio?
...call this a hint and a half that they shouldn't be members of the MPAA?
"Mirror, Father, Mirror"
That someone sue over the 10 minutes of commercials I'm forced to watch after putting a DVD in.
From the context I'm assuming these are pre-release copies, but the article shouldn't have assumed that all /. readers would instantly recognize this term.
They should be able to send out whatever they want or not send it out. I'm so tired of things being settled in court when the answer is simple common sense, if they want to combat some imagined slight through no screeners then fine if the Oscars want to refuse to award any film without screeners then fine. This is ignorant. This country is too fucking sue happy.
What's the issue here? If anything, I'd expect a big studio to be upset.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
And if this ban sticks, it will simply result in people duping the retail DVD version of said movie. I can only wonder what kind of encryption they'll put in dvd audio discs, assuming they even put them on the market. From what I gather, the RIAA is afraid to put dvd audio discs out, after watching what happened to their twins at the MPAA.
The MPAA restricting practices that benifit small businesses
The Geek in Black
I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
Rich Taylor, an MPAA spokesman, said the lawsuit is misguided because the reason for the ban was "to reduce piracy and to preserve the motion picture industry for filmmakers, both large and small."
What a numbscull. He never stopped to think that the ban was misguided. We can only expect such responses I guess.
It's good to see the independant companies standing up to the MPAA, although they are also members so there is no reason they shouldn't get their way.
And unfortunately they don't have much of an alternative by leaving the MPAA since that takes away over 80% of their distribution
RTFA
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I don't understand why they are bothering to encode each VHS copy, and why they are bothing to release the screeners on vhs at all. I mean, come on, who the fuck still uses their VCR for anything except for watching old home movies?! Also, what happens if Jack Nicholson throws away his copy of "Brown Bunny" and someone goes through his trash and steals it and then uploads it to the internet and starts selling bootlegs on ebay? Is the MPAA going to go after Jack Nicholson for aiding piracy? This screener ban will eventually be recalled, but hopefully NOT till next year. Why? All of the lame-o indie movies won't have a chance to knock Lord of the Rings from getting it's well deserved Oscars. Face it, this year has been pretty slim in the "Oscar Worthy" movie department. Sure, lots of good performances, but nothing really great. LOTR has to win for Best Director, Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor (Ian Mckellan). Jack Valenti needs to retire. He has made nothing but bad calls over the entire tenure of his dictatorship (remember he said that the vcr would ruin the movie industry and actually tried to outlaw it!).
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
trying to stop movies from reaching the internet is like trying to put a baby back into a woman..
Why not just leave the MPAA wouldn't that really be the meaning of independent? Or, does anyone know if you must be a member of the MPAA to qualify for the awards? Another option would be for them to send them out anyways and disregard teh MPAA altogether on this. I am no longer part of the movie scene ( though was once a member of NATO) might such an action cause repercusions from SAG et al?
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Can I sue due to my movie experiance being limited. If the indies cant send out screeners, They won't get the nominations, then I wont get to see some Really good movies. All ill be able to watch is Matrix 3 rehashes, or halloween 289, or freddie VS Godzilla
Hmmmm.....this is just a theory, but perhaps this is the MPAA punishing certain production houses for leaking their copies to the black market? Total speculation, but it seems plausible....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
It used to be that in order to compete for an Academy Award, the film had to be released via a huge 80 pound cannister of film (or TWO!). Then, when smaller films were getting included (in an attempt to be inclusive), the AMPAS decided to allow some of these smaller films to bypass the rules. I'm sure they see this as a mechanism to expand on a "loophole".
MEANWHILE... they risk losing relevance in the minds of the public by ignoring those films that are garnering significant support throughy internet-first releases, or through DVD releases. The trick is defining the line between "film" and "tv" or "internet". Good luck with that one folks!
Just quit the MPAA and be done with it!
sulli
RTFJ.
So I had a thought. The MPAA (at least pre-screener-ban) was trying hard to encode something into screeners to find out who was releasing them. All kinds of silly tricks like putting dots on the screen. The problem was that copiers noticed anything they tried because they were trying to put too much information in there.
Why not simply try to encode one simple bit in the whole movie? Then randomly give out the screeners but keep track of who you give the two different copies to. After say, 5 releases, you've narrowed down the field pretty well. At least they would have an idea of what types of people are releasing the screeners. Oscar judges? Reviewers? Soccer moms?
Anyway, that would certainly help the problem.
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
Glad you don't live here too!
;-)
Freedom does not mean "pretty" buddy. If we have not already bombed your country already then we will probably be there to save it from someone that is. Like we have done to 100's of others all over the world. If it was not for the US you would be speaking German or Japanese.
Dumb ass! You can thank us now
This is reminiscent of the Microsoft Monopoly Lawsuits. The small corporations/movie studios are pissed because the large corporation is making sure they never get off the ground. I know there are glaring differences, but then again, who the hell cares?
And why did you staple the trout to the RAM?
I thought it was rediculous that the MPAA was able to impose that ban to begin with. I'm not upset...sure, I've recieved my share of screeners, but typically only kept those I liked anyway, and only until the better commercial dvd version came out anyway. I say if a movie house wants to put their film out there, let them do it! It's rediculous to lose any kind of elegibilities for doing what you want with your product.
Hollywood is dangerously close to being an exclusive, communistic institution and state unto itself.
Close? Who am I kidding??
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
We should all rise up and sue the MPAA for cutting off our distrubution of movies on BitTorrent. :P
Pessimistic outcome:
MPAA Wins, small movie houses crushed by debt, MPAA Declares screener ban a 'non-issue' cuz no one left cares. Piracy rates remain unchanged.
Optimistic but still Pessimistic ouctome:
The small movie houses win by throwing the 'discrimination' tag around, thus hiding the real issues under a miasma of political correctness (a very thick and murky miasma at that). Piracy rates still remain unchanged.
Really optimisitic outcome:
Small movie houses win, screener ban repealed, MPAA gets 'a clue', Valenti discovers the way out of his own ass after years of deep internal struggle (ha). Piracy rates remain unchanged, slashdot loses issue to complain about (soon to be replaced, heh)
Seriously though, I think this is a very good thing to be happening, the lawsuit that is. I hadn't even thought of these small movies losing financing because of lack of award potential, but now that they mention it, it seems blindingly obvious. This is certainly not a frivolous lawsuit, and very refreshingly so.
I say, best of luck, small movie houses!
ìì!
I'm not advocating a vigilante killing, I'm just saying Valenti will be problematic for the world until the day he dies, which I hope is soon.
So, would those be the Hollywood "indys" that co-opted the TRUE indy filmakers after it caught on in the past few years? Kind of like the "indy" RIAA labels.
--
Power to the Peaceful
Has the MPAA been granted binding authority over all movie production studios by some law or contract I am not aware of?
If you run a small studio and don't like the ban, ignore it. If the big bosses get upset and boot you out, maybe you don't really want to be 'in' in the first place. If there is a contract problem, re-negoiate. Quit. Do anything but waste money and time by suing.
I'm pretty sure that if someone analyzed the data they would find that a *very* high percentage of the Oscar winners came from the big studios.
The Oscar is not about quality.
It's all about money, ratings, glory and power. Even if they(small studios) win this case they won't win any more Oscar's; if any at all.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Let me see if I get this straight. Some people were putting their screeners up for sale or available for P2P. So instead of tracking them down for violating copyright or blacklisting them from future screeners, the MPAA imposes a ban on all screeners. Isn't that like a software company banning all game demos because somebody posted their demo on Kazaa?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Jack Valenti, now appearing in 'Cat on a hot tin roof'" - see him dance (or at least hop from foot to foot), see him sing (out at anyone and everyone), see him fall!
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Uhh not sure whether to agree with you or not, but you should go see 'mystic river'. It's a pretty oscar-worthy film (although I'm a LOTR nut too, so I'd probably cheer for that anyways). Sean Penn could easily walk away with best actor, and likewise clint eastwood for best director. Honestly, it's a good movie.
When I first got my DVD player I found that if you try to "skip" to the next "chapter" it doesn't work; you have to watch the commercials.
:)
But if you hit "stop" and then "play" without powering off, it goes right to the movie.
Tamper protected like this!2 4682,3527597,00.html
http://www.techtv.com/unscrewed/ihateyou/story/0,
Then you can be really sure no one will copy your preview copy!
Speak for yourself, dumbass. I use mine all the time, the tapes are cheap and plentiful, providing exactly what I need (time shifting programs, archiving occasionally) with an existing piece of equipment. It's going on 8 years old and works perfectly. There's also no other way I know of to watch the 2nd season of "Twin Peaks." :P
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
>This country is too fucking sue happy.
litigious
I dunno man, I just watched the screener for "Leprechaun: Back 2 Tha Hood" aka "Leprechaun 6" and it seems like a pretty stout competitor all the way across the board. Leprechaun 6 will prevail in 2004!
And then there was E
Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd love to pay for what amounts to advance movie ticket(s) to get a movie made that I want want to go see (or download), and sell short the shit I don't. Making a little change off of good taste doesn't hurt either.
--
Power to the Peaceful
I'm sorry I missed the part where the MPAA has direct law making authority... at least most of the time they have to buy congress.
What gives the MPAA any authority to issue this decree? Seems a bit out of scope.
What's the punishment for mailing them out anyway? Jail time? Some sort of fine? Is it worth paying the fine to get the Oscar?
Is the MPAAs ban legally enforceable?
If it is, why not just mail out copies to members of the academy along with a bill for US$0.01. Then you are not giving them to the members, you're selling them copies. No ban against that, is there?
-gandalf23@work
I went to an advance screening last night for the first time in 5 years or so.
Printed on the back of the ticket was a 10 line disclaimer/EULA/warning about bringing in any "electronic recording equipment", claiming that my attending means I agree to have it confiscated if they find it (yeah, unsigned contracts always hold up in court!).
When we got to the theatre, we had our bags thoroughly searched (this is a leather attache case btw, and I was dressed in a suit and tie). They also ran a metal detector over us, and our bags. It was quite honestly as invasive as an airport screening area.
Then, when we sat down, the promotors did their shpiel, gave away some prizes, and went on a several minute tirade about how we shouldn't steal movies, we're hurting artists, etc. Anyone caught with a camera will be ejected and possible criminal charges brought against them. And (get this) if you see anyone else with a camera, please notify us immediately.
Finally, the movie starts, and I get to listen to another idiot telling me that downloading a movie is no different than stealing a chocolate bar.
I've never, ever felt more like a suspect in my life. After last night, I can understand why Blacks in the US complain about supposed random stops on the freeway. In fact, I almost expected a few police to be on hand.
Of course, for fun I poked around on Kazaa last night, and lo and behold, the movie was there. All it takes is one person, you morons, and inconveniencing and/or pissing off the MILLIONS of people who pay to see your movies is NOT a good way of doing business.
This is the final straw. It was bad enough last week seeing Master & Commander, and those damn brown spots were all over this one scene with mostly light-coloured backgrounds in it, so all I could do was sit there and think "Ok, enough with the dots!" and then lose track of what was going on with the movie.
I can't honesly see myself paying for another movie again, if this is how I'm going to be treated.
Oh, and in case anyone's curious, this happened in Canada. I guess we have our own MPAA equivalent here, or their reach is just that long.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Where can I sue the MPAA bastards over the decision to only sell Bond DVDs as boxed sets and not offer the films individually.
They want to stop piracy, yet don't offer a fair alternative.
I agree.. its ok to piss and moan after all if nobody complained nothing would ever change.. however its like saying you dont like baseball because they serve hotdogs there. There is a lot more to America than the petty cons that are mentioned. Fortunately unlike other countries.. we have the right to complain about them.
Most screener rips aren't distributed as straight copies; usually they're DivX or XviD, heavily compressed. So any straight-data change will most likely be lost in the conversion process.
At any rate, there's an easy way around this; do a diff between screeners from two different sources. If there's any identifying information, scramble it in the copy that's distributed, so that there's no way of telling where it came from.
Hamster
The LA Times (no, I'm not posting a link because you get 1/2 column inch of text in a full screen of ads, and they have REALLY intrusive registration) reported this and said the indies were suing under antitrust law.
If this is true, it would be awesome to see the MPAA declared a monopoly, and forced to act under the more stringent rules applied to monopolies.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
"It predicted that continued enforcement of the ban would result in fewer movies, higher prices and decreased quality."
/. sarcastic comment here).
Shouldn't that read, "Fewer movies, higher prices, and decreased quality^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGigli?"
Seriously though, maybe fewer movies are a good thing. It seems like the more saturated the movie market gets, the more and more crap we have to weed through looking for something decent. Things like that are why I pick a movie or two that I just have to see, then after that I don't care what I wind up seeing with friends or family on the side. LotR is one of those movies, and they've done a good job.
But higher prices, I'm sorry, are simply not justifiable. Where is all the money from those "Pre-Show Countdowns" going? How many Coke commercials am I going to have to sit through before they'll stop saying things like "it could mean higher prices?" You people are advertising your asses off, how about demanding some money for that instead of hiking prices.
On top of that, exactly what prices will be higher? Production costs? Ticket prices? I assume one would translate into the other, since all things in this business are relative (insert obligatory
I, for one, am upset that independent studios are being treated like that, though. The vast majority of films I really enjoy are independent ones, and it seems that they favor substance over style (a rarity in this day and age).
If the big boys are listening-guys, we're not going anywhere. Try taking your time and making good movies that are worth watching. Less saturation=better quality=more satisfied customers who are in turn willing to pay for the quality you provide. Or at least, in theory.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
It said small, independent film producers were forced to either accept the terms set by the major movie studios or be excluded from well over 80 percent of the distribution market.
Simple blackmail...send out a screener, and lose 80% of your market instantly.
Yeah, that will sure break up the big studio domination of the industry!
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
The three companies mentioned in the article aren't even MPAA members, thus the screener ban doesn't apply to them. Maybe some of the other 11 (unnamed) companies involved in the lawsuit are MPAA members, but what standing do these three have to sue?
Who does the mpaa think they are protecting with this restriction? If the makers of the movie lose money on piracy, etc, they shouldn't send out the screeners. Why does the mpaa think they should get involved?
The MPAA is not in charge of the Academy Awards in any way. So if a studio wants to send out screeners, why should they listen to the MPAA? The MPAA does not give any benefit to a studio, other than a lobbying force, and its hard to make your lobbying help one studio while hurting another...
And what business does the MPAA have telling the studios how to run their business anyhow? If the studio feels they will lose money by sending out screeners, then don't send out screeners. If they feel they will make money by getting more Oscars, then send out screeners. That is their call. It is their money. It is their movie.
What's actually stopping them?
It's like the whole class getting detention because one person stuck gum on the teacher's seat.
Or the increasingly obtrusive trend towards checking airline passengers (next step, full-cavity searches for everyone).
I've seen a screen rip where at certain points during the movie the colour goes off and you get black+white. Movie is still viewable, but that section indicates it is a screener. Now if they did this to different sections for different screeners... whomever sells theirs off would have to collect the part from another ripped screener to fill their b&w space. Makes it a lot more inconvenient for those handing off screeners if they don't want to get caught.
i liked the idea of this also, but the first thing that came to mind was the current royalty practices. typically, a movie is only "profitable" after all expenses (read parties, massages, and alcohol binges) have been deducted. few movies are profitable! so, i wonder what the accounting standards will be, and what the incentive for investors will be. "i gave my hard earned money to bob so he could party and make some movies." i would rather see 1 million people prepurchase "tickets."
All of the lame-o indie movies won't have a chance to knock Lord of the Rings from getting it's well deserved Oscars.
Clearly screeners aren't necessary. You can judge how good a movie is just based on the trailers...oh wait, maybe you're a traveler from the future?
Kind thoughts do not change the world
It seems to me the easiest, least costly, least annoying solution to this 'problem' is that the Oscar people only include for voting on in the current 'Oscar Year' films that have made their full public viewing runs buy a date certain. If you want to be a 'screener' go to the theater like everybody else. This would COMPLETELY negate the need to send out those special DVD's.
Problem solved.
OTOH, I guess it's just more fun to have chaos and controversy running rampant, eh?
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
If we have not already bombed your country already then we will probably be there to save it from someone that is.
While I like the "if we have not already bombed your country" part... I'd particularly love the mentality that America saved the world from the Germans or Japanese, and that no other countries in the world had a significant role to play in this - or that without American involvement the world is surely doomed.
Yes, I'm glad I don't live there too...
Rather than ban DVD screeners, the MPAA should really be focusing on the real problem, the leak. It must be an internal matter.
The independent film makers shouldn't have to be punished for someone else's problem, but I guess that's the price of freedom.
The lawsuit suggested that the prospects for successful independent films including "In the Bedroom," "Gosford Park," "Lost in Translation," "Thirteen" and "Far from Heaven" would be harmed by a continued ban on screeners.
...I had a lot more here, but didn't want to get offtopic with my endless gushing over the above films.
I'm not saying these movies aren't any good and don't deserve some credit, but couldn't they have used more recent movies ("Lost in Translation" and "Thirteen" notwithstanding) as an example of movies that could be passed by? "In the Bedroom," "Gosford Park" and "Far from Heaven" already had their shot at awards (and still got beat out by lesser movies!).
fs
p.s. If you've not seen ANY of the above movies, I highly recommend each one. All are equally superb.
What realy annoys me is that the first two versions of each LOTR I got were screener rips, now they tell me I'm going to have to deal with a shitty VHS rip! Wont someone please think of the children!
But "Lost in Translation" is, in my opinion, the front runner for Picture, Actor and Screenplay (and I would personally love to see Sophia Coppola win Director). The rest aren't as nailed (Cinematography, Score, Costumes etc.), though, so I'm sure LotR will walk away with its share.
fs
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
if the member of the mpaa don't like the fact that screeners aren't sent out, they should consider leaving the mpaa and sending screeners out independantly.
no topic
WHY?! So they can 'beef up' security since YOU obviously made it in? As some sort of protest saying 'I COULD pirate your movie if I wanted to, but didn't because I just had to make ...some point." Exactly what message are you trying to convey?
And why, in Gods name, am I feeding an anonymous troll? It's going home time.
fs
Most likely you get kicked out of the MPAA. This may not seem like a big deal until you realize that the MPAA has exclusive contracts with 80% of the distribution channels.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
I fear LiT will get passed over because of its relative obscurity, which is a shame, because it's a simply BEAUTIFUL story. I would love to see Murry get a nod and make up for his number of great performances that never got recognition; Rushmore being only one of them (His Polonius was the best thing that happened to Hamlet).
...not that I don't like Cruise. I think he's one of the best actors out there and am waiting in anticipation to see this movie. I just really want to see LiT win.
I'm hoping that, this year, the committee will tire a little of LotR and some of these other great movies will step up to fill the void. Though I fear compitition from the 800lb Gorilla known as Tom Cruise as the early reviews of The Last Samurai are through the roof.
fs
Generally, the actors and even the directors don't get a personal cut of the film before the premier. The producers control any screeners or copies going out to reviewers, critics, or VIPs.
As someone who has worked most of his professional career in Hollywood, I can honestly say that Corporate Hollywood is probably running scared.
Profits are running thin on big budget Hollywood films, especially after so-called 'A' List actors, directors and writers get their big cut/fee.
Because Hollywood is beholden to corporate overloards who in turn are beholden to stock holders, there is very little incentive to produce 'riskier' films. This has resulted in a series of dull, uninspiring lackluster productions. Which audiences will not show any interest in. These are usually quite expensive.
A common formula used in creative Hollywood "accounting" is to take the budget of the film and multiply that by three. This means the film has broken even for the 'studio'.
Now alot of low/small/medium budget films are making easily three times their budget and the number of independent film makers making good movies, that audiences want to see is growing!
And it's becoming such a growing segment of filmed entertainment that the big studios are worried.
I would guess that the MPAA which represents the big studios did what it did, as it saw indy films as a threat.
Funny thing is is that each of the big studios also has a 'independent' arm, which acts as a distributor for these films.
Now the MPAA and the studios should realize that the screaners are not the main source of pirated movies. Most high quality pirates are from people working at the post production houses.
But knowing a few studio execs, there not THAT smart, it's easier to blame guys w/ video cameras and screaner distribution..
Good someone needs to sue the racketeers.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Why is it so profitable? Popcorn costs literally pennies per bag, drinks? same deal. Then you pay a high-school student minimum wage to sell them to patrons. Speed of service goals are under 1 minute for a single person order. Min wage here is $6.85/hr. A large popcorn, large drink (which is what they're trained to upsell to) costs $10.75.
Let's do the math, 50 orders per hour (when it's busy, on average), times 10.75/order (on average), results in... 537.50 per hour gross, minus the wage ($6.85, and the food cost, let's be generous and say a whopping $15 for the whole hour), per open cash, and when it's busy, about 10 cashes open, so about $5000 NET per HOUR on a busy night.
Wow, that's not too bad at all.
Some DVD titles do block both the fast-forward button and the skip button during FBI/Interpol warnings, authoring company credits, and the like.
dupes of a retail DVD won't affect box office numbers
BS. A retail DVD often comes out in North America before it comes out in other markets; this was one rationalization for region coding. The other is that an underlying work (such as a novel on which a movie is based) may be public domain in one country but copyrighted in another, and the studio wants to keep the movie out of the areas where distribution would require a license until it has had time to strike a deal with any affected parties.
Good lord, more than one person actually modded this up "insightful"?!
Tokoro de, nihongo no warukunai ore ga doitsugo mo perapera no de, yappari aho no hanashi datta...
"God Bless America, with the highest obesity levels in the developed world"
I've been all over, and I've seen fat, ugly fuckers everywhere.
This is really retarded. Why not use compression survivng steganography to hide the reviewers name throughout the film. Then you can tell who leaked it, sue the pants off them, confiscate their computer, and prosecute them under the MDMA.
the RIAA is afraid to put dvd audio discs out
Then why did Sony, one of the so-called "big five" record labels, introduce a DVD-based audio format called Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD)?
While I think this lawsuit is absolutely neccessary it's not really an anticompetitive move. The monopoly would become an ancillary benefit to be sure, but they really are just trying to curb pre sales piracy. This move does NOTHING to stop the massive flow of DVD-R images that flow after a movie is released. Why buy it at Best Buy when you can DL it and burn to a $1 disk?
If you don't grok why the indie makers are pissed think about how much it costs to make a movie. If any of the actors carries a SAG card they cost a fortune. It's like hiring out $75/hr union workers to hold a sign for you. Young budding directors don't have that type of money so they have to seek investments. Investors, as a rule, would like to see a return on their investment. ROI just like in the tech world. Awards provide a goal for the movie to reach. If they attain an award then they essentially get free marketing and a chance to actually profit off the film.
A friend of mine worked off a total shoe string budget and it still cost him $15k to make an independant film. 15k was barely enough and he had to do things like buy hard drives and return them after 25 days. Film makers like Robert Rodriguez went to human guniea pig labs like Pharmaco and took non FDA approved drugs to raise a few thousand for their films.
..watched Matrix Revolutions recently (yeah, i know...)
but anyway, the film (scheduled for 9:30pm) did not start until 10:05! *35minutes* of trailers and commercials!
"that aint right"
Pixar is not an MPAA member. However, the screener ban applies to Pixar because years ago, Pixar signed an exclusive distribution deal with an MPAA member. In fact, several people are boycotting Pixar until its contract with Disney runs out.
As others have pointed out, it appears some major American movie theater chains have exclusive contracts with the MPAA, and if a studio gets kicked out of the MPAA, it loses access to theatrical distribution in many markets where all the local theater chains are bound by such contracts.
Well the USSR helped bigtime against the NAZIs
then The USA kept them off your back(unless you lived in Eastern Europe)for 50 years until Reagan beat 'em.
Screeners are not the issue, most of the movies I download are from DVD Rips as opposed to screener versions which often have black and white sections and annoying "Call 1-xxx-YOU-STEAL" banners. I'd actually rather watch most telesync cam versions of pre-DVD movies. (telesync matches cam taping with the audio from hearing assist provided by theatres) Thankfully DVD Rips have none of those issues, with 2 or 3 disk SVCD versions for just about any DVD release I can think of, and for some blockbusters there are actual full 4.5+Gig DVD versions available for download. Hell I've got the 3 disk SVCD version of the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD which has been on BitTorrent and eMule since at least 11/15, and IIRC it's not set for store release until 12/2.
/. crowd to check out, I've been a hardcore eMule user for awhile (and usually a non-AC poster). I download both new and old movies, TV episodes of several sci-fi/adventure shows, and cartoon episodes split pretty evenly between American and Anime. Only use BitTorrent for the odd TV episode that I want to see immediately, leaving everything else to eMule on a dedicated download (older) WinXP machine hooked to a shared cable modem. Finally, enjoy the stats, no I don't sell cds/dvds and I do very little trading with my friends (they have their own high speed connections) and both myself and my wife do buy DVDs and CDs as budget allows. Yes I consider this "theft" in a sense, once again as budget allows. I release this for informational purposes only, and even if your diametrically opposed to what I do please respect that I'm at least providing you with real info and numbers to get pissed about. ;)
Anyways I figured I'd throw up some actual numbers for the
eMule v0.30b Statistics [username_obscured_for_obvious_reasons]
Transfe r
Session UL:DL Ratio: 1.33 : 1
Cumulative UL:DL Ratio: 1 : 3.99
Uploads
Session
Uploaded Data: 8.58 GB
Active Uploads: 5
Waiting Uploads: 3101
Upload Sessions: 3692
Total Overhead (Packets): 361.56 MB (9.08M)
Cumulative
Uploaded Data: 149.32 GB
Upload Sessions: 210297
Total Overhead (Packets): 21.19 GB (370.76M)
Downloads
Session
Downloaded Data: 6.44 GB
Completed Downloads: 24
Active Downloads (chunks): 2
Found Sources: 548
Download Sessions: 4935
Gained Due To Compression: 140.31 MB
Lost Due To Corruption: 191.03 MB
Parts Saved Due To I.C.H: 3
Total Overhead (Packets): 290.63 MB (8.32M)
Cumulative
Downloaded Data: 596.12 GB
Completed Downloads: 1061
Download Sessions: 82883
Gained Due To Compression: 11.27 GB
Lost Due To Corruption: 7.67 GB
Parts Saved Due To I.C.H: 222
Total Overhead (Packets): 11.42 GB (326.89M)
Connection
Time Statistics
Session
Runtime: 8 days 22:52 Hours
Transfer Time: 8 days 21:55 Hours (99.6%)
Current Server Duration: 1 days 7:54 Hours (14.8%)
Total Server Duration: 1 days 7:54 Hours (14.8%)
Cumulative
Runtime: 131 days 7:27 Hours
Transfer Time: 130 days 22:33 Hours (99.7%)
Total Server Duration: 63 days 21:13 Hours (48.7%)
Clients
Known Clients: 4652
Client Software
eMule: 4218 (90.7%)
eD Hybrid: 198 (4.3%)
eDonkey: 2 (0.0%)
xMule: 2 (0.0%)
MLdonkey: 84 (1.8%)
cDonkey: 0 (0.0%)
Shareaza: 144 (3.1%)
Unknown: 4
Port
Default: 3601 (77.4%)
Other: 1051 (22.6%)
Low ID: 0 (0.00%)
Secure Ident (OK : Failed ): 3830 (90.80%) : 27 (0.64%)
Problematic: 0
Banned: 12
Filtered: 4077
Servers
Working Servers: 38
Failed Servers: 305
Deleted Servers: 181
Total: 343
Total Users: 2745337
Total Files: 209282876
Records
Max. Working Servers: 171
Max. Users Online: 3000692
Max. Files Available: 225770573
Shared Files
Number of Shared Files: 494
Average filesize: 227.44 MB
Lar
Why not use compression survivng steganography to hide the reviewers name throughout the film.
The studios have tried watermarking films, but two problems happened: critics became so annoyed by the watermarks that it affected their reviews, and the pirates still managed to detect and remove these "Cap Code" watermarks.
and prosecute them under the MDMA.
You mean "DMCA or NET Act." MDMA is a drug sold under the brand name Ecstasy.
Everytime I read one of these threads and see "Indy Film" I think that Spielberg and Lucas are finally making the next Indiana Jones film. Instead it is about some company that makes films about gay cowboys eating pudding...
Because one can never use enough acronyms. I just watched Lawrence a few days ago and while my heart is with Kubrick and Kurosawa, I do love that movie!
You're correct. Throne of Blood is based upon Macbeth (and the scene where the Cobweb Forrest advances on the castle will take your breath away!) and Toshiro Mifune solidified his place in history with that role. Ran is based upon King Lear and, while still a good story, seems so oddly un-Kurosawa being shot in Color. Not to say the man doesn't know how to use color (as you obviously know having seen Dreams), but, up until that point, I had only seen him use black and white and would have believed the man invented the medium!
If you want to continue the Kurosawa trend, pick up Yojimbo and Sanjuro. Two movies that helped (along side Seven Samurai) to spawn the modern western. They also contain the best Bad-Ass roll I've seen Mifune play. If you want to see where modern "Cool Motherfuckers" get their attitude from, watch those two movies.
As for Jackson and Lord of the Rings, I can definitely see the love and admiration he had for the stories of Tolkien. I, honestly, did not share that love or admiration and had never read the books or seen any of the earlier movies, but Jackson's pashion won me over and made me a devout fan of the trilogy. (And (for the purists out there), yes, I know Jackson didn't do the movies intact. That doesn't change the fact that they are brilliantly told tales and that anyone who would set themselves up to hate them is doing no one but them a huge disservice.
fs
It's such a ridiculous ban. It clearly affects the weakest (companies) and allows the elite of Hollywood not only an unfair advantage, but an artificial prestige they are certainly not worthy of.
Wanna clamp down on illegal DVD copies floating around? Tough shit: talk to Metallica.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
So they run a metal detector over someone. It beeps. The offending person is asked to show that it's not a camera. They bring out a gun and blow the head off the person asking. You don't really want to search people without armed police to back you up.
This is what happens when you reach pseudo monopoly status.. you make the rules and decide if others survive or not.. market forces are tossed out the window.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
IE what stop's Small film companies from simply sending out screener copies to awards voters any way?
It's not as if either small film companies or awards voters are under any obligation to comply with MPAA decisions.
AFAIC MPAA decisions only effect MPAA members, which I assume are the big studios. Anyway if the small makers are members they could simply renounce their memberships
This move does NOTHING to stop the massive flow of DVD-R images that flow after a movie is released. Why buy it at Best Buy when you can DL it and burn to a $1 disk?
Because the DVD-R and DVD+R discs are only 4.3 GiB, and all the special features are in the 8 GiB version perhaps? Or because high-speed Internet access in the United States costs $30/mo more than dial-up?
Roger Simon, a screenwriter, said his screeners have either been delivered by an indifferent Fedex driver who didn't care who signed, or just plain left on his doorstep. Given that, he suggests that just possibly, the MPAA's agenda on this issue isn't piracy.
Last I checked, the MPAA was a voluntary organization. Don't like it's rules, go elsewhere.
If I don't like the way my astronomy club is run, I don't have to stay in it, and I certainly wouldn't sue because I wasn't elected treasurer or my logo was voted down.
Suehappy.
the longest commercrial for the showing of matrix revolutions was the a guilt trip on people who rip movies or download them...best part? up until this week i've lived in command-line only---i couldn't see pictures let alone download movies.
i'm not going to download movies. everything the riaa and mpaa touch smell fuck and use has such a distaste to me after all this that i will hopefully be propelled away from them for a long time to come.
not to mention, when i went to the movie theater for this, although they had a wide open space the size of a standary soccer feild, they wouldn't let me in the theater until the movie started, and told me to stand outside in the -20~C for awhile.
this isn't just a screener issue, all the mpaa customers are being treated as criminals. all of them...criminals, and serfs.
"if you keep treating these kids like criminals, sooner or later they are going to start acting like criminals"
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I still don't understand why the MPAA are getting involved.
If a studio sends out a screener, and it gets copied, then it is that studio that will suffer from the piracy.
So if a studio doesn't want their screener to be pirated, then they have a simple choice to make - either put more controls on the distribution of their screener, or not distribute one at all.
The studios can make their own decisions as to what is important to them - so why does an industry body have to get involved?
IMHO, the only reason an industry body should ban screeners (or other types of promotion) is if (smaller) studios can't afford to promote their films, and so create a level playing field. Otherwise the studios are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
It was bad enough last week seeing Master & Commander, and those damn brown spots were all over this one scene with mostly light-coloured backgrounds in it, so all I could do was sit there and think "Ok, enough with the dots!" and then lose track of what was going on with the movie.
;-)
It looks like I'm going to have to download KaZa so I too can see these famous spots everyone is talking about.
The truth shall set you free!
If the screeners are supposed to be sent out so that academy members, etc. can see it. Why not, I don't know, send the screeners out after the movie is on DVD or at least our of the theater. The awards aren't given out until the next year anyway. If they have to they could even set a date that the movie has to be released by that's earlier than the end of the year. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it that way? Or, maybe the real reason they send out screeners is because if you're an academy/golden/whatever member then you don't have to pay to see the movie, it's part of your membership. Which if that is the case, then that's bullshit anyways. The reality is that anytime a company or organization is losing money they cry like little babies until a law is passed or there is no other legal option and then they do what all of us do when we lose a job. FIND ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE MONEY!!! Don't believe me? Sprint was trying to block the call number portability law. Now that they can't do anything about it, they are agressively trying to sell better plans and services to their customers to make more money. There are millions of examples of this truth. Forget it, I give up.
Any girl who brings along a copy of Dreams is a wonderful chic, in my opinion!
Enjoy the flicks!
fs
Do you know Terrance and Phillip ?
Hmm can't say I have ever seen an American that wasn't fat or ugly or come to think of it a fucker.
the sample rate and range [of DVD Audio], as well as it being PCM are all inferior [to SACD's pulse density modulation technique].
Does SACD necessarily have an advantage over DVD Audio in representing baseband audio? DVD Audio can be sampled at up to 192 kHz, which can reproduce frequencies up to about 87 kHz (allowing for Nyquist rate and a 10 percent margin for rolloff of real low-pass filters), which is four to five times what the average human being can hear. The 24-bit depth is possibly deeper even than the thermal noise of the air around you. Finally, DVD Audio has the "DVD" name attached to it, meaning you'll get multiple Forum licensees producing competing products, instead of SACD, which looks to be another Betamax dominated by Sony.
I don't think there are SACD walkmans, though they would not be completly useless as there is always a seperate two channel version if there is a multichannel version. You can however play most SACD's (if they are hybrid) in a walkman.
Most stereo SACD titles I saw at a local Best Buy store were not in fact hybrid. I've found that a larger percentage of DVD Audio titles have Dolby Digital back-compat sections for DVD Video players than SACD titles have Red Book back-compat layers for CD Digital Audio players.
This page came up.