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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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
"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 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?
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.
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.
Except that then they can't distribute to 80% of theaters. Which is what the lawsuit is really about. The MPAA is an illegal trust forcing these studios to play by their rules or die.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
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..
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.
it's not like people who download screeners have money to go to the theater . . .
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
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
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!
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.