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."
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.
Agreed. Our local cinema chain was just bought out by Regal Cinema Corp. They used to show trivia and word games/puzzles before the movie started. Now all you get are commercials the whole god damned time.
Weee! I'm going to get to the movie early, pay way to much for everything, and watch the brainwash reels.
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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.
The MPAA is basicalling saying, play by our rules, or no one will ever even know your movie exists
In the initial weeks of a release, theatres make very little money, and the studio rakes it all in. I don't know what the breakdown it is, but it's something like 80% first week, and then drops off slowly, and after about a month or so, the 80% is on the theatre side.
Yes, the theatres don't make much money compared to the studios, but then perhaps they should work out a deal that benefits me and you, the consumers, not their own money making pockets. I suppose what an investor wants, an investor gets.
Though it would be so bitersweet to see all consumers protest the 5 biggest movies of the year by not going to watch it in the theatres at all.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
"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
The MPAA controls the unions. Without the unions, you won't be making any films. Without the MPAA, you won't be considered for any of these awards anyway, so who cares?
Isn't that anticompetitive behavior?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
theatre only makes around, you won't believe this...10 cents per ticket sold. The rest go to the movie studios.
You are right, I don't believe it. The grandparent's "up to 80% first week and decreasing every week after that" is more accurate. So assuming the worst of 80%, the theater will make $2.60 on the $13 ticket, not 10 cents. A week after opening, the theater might make $4.50 per ticket. A week after that will earn them $7.25 per ticket and so forth.
Also, those trailers that you see for 15 minutes before the movie? The studios are PAYING the theaters to show those. The theaters are getting paid to advertise films that will bring customers back to them. That's not a bad deal really.
The popcorn and sodas you buy? Almost pure profit for the theater. That's where the REAL money is made.
The
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
You can also use a program called DVD Region Free to remove the UOPs and allow you to skip whatever you want. It isn't free though, and why should we have to pay for an extra program to allow us to do what we want with a DVD that has already been paid for!
Aren't there enough restrictions on DVDs as it is, with region coding (aka price fixing), Macrovision and whatever annoying technology prevents legally purchased DVDs being played on any PC which has a TV-Out on the graphics card. If I pay for a DVD I should be able to play it how I want, and on the device of my choosing without spending more money on programs to work around all of this crap.
The problem is, the MPAA runs most of the movie theaters in the country. It was founded by then Texas governor Lyndon B. Johnson, who passed it on to Jack Valenti.
So essentially, the MPAA was a state run agency (originally created as a replacement for the Hayes office). The only practical way to go elsewhere to avoid its draconian rules and regulations, is to go to another country, endure worse censorship, etc.
Therein lies the irony. The MPAA was created as an alternative to government sponsored censorship. As a result of its actions in congress, it has become more of a force for censorship than the US gov't could have ever gotten away with.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Something else I've noticed on a Sony DVD player I had, was that I could skip the commercials on ALL the DVDs except the ones by Columbia/Tristar (Sony Pictures). Odd, eh?
I have to assume reviewers stop getting free passes if they EVER badmouth industry
If the reviewers put up with this, they're stupid. If I write an honest review and get blackballed from screenings, you had better believe I'm going to pan everything else that producer does.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.