MPAA Calls for Ban on Screeners

neoThoth writes "The MPAA is calling for a ban on all screeners for awards ceremonies. They state piracy as the rationale for killing of this tradition of the industry. It's interesting how this is never mentioned in their cries for tougher piracy laws. It's own members are the main source of piracy. 'The Directors, Writers and Screen Actors Guild all get screeners, as does the Golden Globe-selecting Hollywood Foreign Press Association and various critics' groups.'" Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

As much as I hate the MPAA,

[Frederique Coq-Bloqu]

they should have the right to influence something like this at a private function like the Oscars. This doesn't strike me as provocative or unscrupulous in and of itself.

Not only actors?

[caranha]

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

Whithout entering the merit of piracy itself, isn't this argument a fallacy? Aren't only high-profile actors/diretors/etc rewarded a percentage of the movie income, while all the others receive the same no matter what?

Don't want to enter the issue "but piracing will make movies spend less money" (which I doubt, based on current trend), but I got curious by this part.

--
No sig yet. Bear with it.

Not in a million years...

[JayBlalock]

Being able to stick "200X ACADEMY AWARD WINNER!" on your DVD package moves too many units for any studio to do ANYTHING to handicap themselves in the Awards race. The MPAA might push for this. The studios might even "agree." But they'll get the screeners out anyway. Paranoia will rule the day - no one will actually expect anyone else to abide by the agreement, so they'll all break it.

It's foolish that they're even TALKING about this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that this means the movie industry's own people are the ones bootlegging movies. "If the people who make the movies are putting them out there, then how's it wrong for me to download?" (rhetorical, exampliary question) Bad, bad, BAD move.

not quite . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

not true:

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

The crew is paid by the hour, rates established by union contract. The crew does not share in profits or residuals. Whether a picture is a hit or a dog, it makes no difference; once the picture is in the can, that is the end of the crew's involvement.

This is not to condone piracy, but how dare the moguls drag in the very folks whom they the moguls abuse the most. Claiming that piracy hurts the crew is a cynical lie.

Remember, piracy hurts X

[Chromal]

I never really got how piracy hurt X. There's a large segment of pirating acts that occur largely because the pirates aren't going to purchase something. If they aren't going to buy it, or they aren't going to buy it but still pirate it-- either way, the net income is exactly the same. If consumers can afford something, won't they typically go out of their way to own it? A DVD or CD album is always nicer to have on your shelf than a DVD-R or CD-R copy, after all.

So now they have to fork over $10

[indros13]

So screeners will have to actually go to the theater to watch a movie instead of having a copy at home? [sarcasm] *sniff* [/sarcasm]

It might give them some appreciation for jumping movie ticket prices. And don't even get me started on the $5 bucket beverage...

Re:As much as I hate the MPAA,

[jmccay]

If the executives & stars didn't make so much, they wouldn't need to charge so much--which would lead to less piracy. Piracy increases as with cost of the product increases while the quality of the product stays the same or declines.

Re:As much as I hate the MPAA,

[startled]

But why bother? The studio mailing out the tapes is the studio whose movie gets illegally distributed. There's no need for an MPAA recommendation; if a studio thinks its movies are being distributed by screeners, they can stop mailing them out, or take whatever other measures they deem appropriate.

other screeners

[sdibb]

The other screeners are the ones that work at the local movie theater.

Before every movie is played in the theater, the projectionist has to build it and *someone* has to watch every single movie before it's played to make sure the reels aren't put on backwards or in the wrong order or something like that. Anyone who's worked at the movie theater knows what late Thursday nights are like.

Do we still purchase the DVD?!

[fervent_raptus]

I think the MPAA is totally overacting. How many geeks out there are actually going to substitute a DivX for the cinimatic experience of going to a movie theater?

Personally, I know people who had access to the LOTR DVD screener rip, and downloaded it, but waited to watch it until after the movie came out.

They then proceeded to watch the movie in theaters 3 or 4 times before ever playing the DivX file.

It wasn't until the period between the movie leaving theaters and coming out on DVD that the DivX file came in handy.

These friends not only purchased the regular version DVD when it came out, but also the extended version DVD.

IMO, if the MPAA want's to stop the popularity of DVD Screener rips, they should release the movie in DVD the same week it comes to theaters.

Remember...

[wozster]

The auto industry doesn't just hurt the "Horse and Buggy" industry, it also hurts the wooden wheel maker.

Type of disposable dvd

[Loconut1389]

I wonder if theyll ever create a kind of disc that the media breaks down as the laser passes over it. Aka, one time read or maybe two or three times read.

Re:Easier solution

[EvanED]

What if studios didn't tell people what they were doing until they had a few people snagged? Any particular technique wouldn't last long, but there would usually be something they could do. Maybe change the scene the names at the beginning appear with. There are enough things that could be done that many people could be ferrited out.

Re:Remember, piracy hurts X

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

There's a large segment of pirating acts that occur largely because the pirates aren't going to purchase something.

Neither you nor the MPAA has proven that either way, last time I checked. The MPAA (and RIAA and BSA) likes to say that they lose revenue, whereas copyright infringers justify their behaviour by saying they wouldn't pay for the crappy movie/game/software/music anyhow.

I call BS on both those statements. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle...

Re:Do we still purchase the DVD?!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You're right, of course. But it is an article of faith among the entertainment cartel that 1 copied file == 1 lost sale. Just as the RIAA is unwilling to consider the idea that file-sharing might actually help sales of good music (people do go out and buy albums after hearing a couple of good MP3's off those albums; but the albums they buy are more likely to be from obscure bands rather than whatever insipid Top 40 pap is currently getting all the advertising bucks) the MPAA is unwilling to consider the idea that a movie made to be seen in the the theater (as the LOTR films definitely are) might, if first seen on a pirated DVD, actually help draw people into the theater to see it. This is not a rational cost-benefit analysis on their part; it's a matter of paranoid ideology. The long, sad history of how paranoid ideologues react when confronted by sweet reason does nothing to convince me that they'll change their minds any time soon.

Actually, it's not just the entertainment industry that think this way. How many times do we hear M$ et al. claiming "Software piracy cost us $XX billion in lost sales last year," as though everyone who burned a copy of an Office CD would otherwise have gone out and bought the damn thing for full price? At least in the software industry it's a little wink-wink nudge-nudge, though; e.g., Adobe knows full well that all the Photoshop copies out there are training the next generation of Adobe customers. But the entertainment folks are dead serious in their wacko worldview.

Re:Not only actors?

[kfg]

"Perhaps the current trends (to spend more money on better effects etc) are actually reflective of a need to get audiences to come to theatres (to get a better experience than they'd get with their home 5.1 surround and 17" monitor)."

Or perhaps they could simply start making better movies that rely on story, acting, direction and other such old fashioned notions?

Just a thought.

I think I'll spend the afternoon rewatching Harvey, To Have and Have Not and Dr. Strangelove.

KFG

It doesn't hurt these people

[scifience]

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

I'm not sure that it hurts anyone but the movie companies. The movies that are pirated are being made, and therefore, the people who help to make them are still getting paid for their work.

The MPAA isn't going to say "we aren't going to make movies anymore because a few people pirate them." The majority of people are still going to go to the theater or buy the DVD if they want to see a movie. Nobody loses but the companies that make the movies. And even if, say, 50,000 people download a pirated movie instead of going to the theater, at $7 a ticket only $35,000 is lost, some of which goes to the theater. Movie pirating is not mainstream enough to be a major concern at the moment.

Re:As much as I hate the MPAA,

[EvilAlien]

Piracy may very well increase as you describe, but piracy also happens regardless of cost escalation. Piracy happens become the product/work/whatever isn't free in the first place, and some people would rather thieve it than buy it.

Re:Not only actors?

[SWPadnos]

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

...

Don't want to enter the issue "but piracing will make movies spend less money" (which I doubt, based on current trend), but I got curious by this part.

This is the only argument that can possibly support the original statement. Only the people at the top level get any residuals - everyone else works for a daily wage and that's it. In fact, most people are working as subcontractors hired for the duration of the project (or their part in it). The grips, production assistants, special effects people, camera assistants, caterers, craft services, drivers, extras ... are all essentially self-employed. The unions help by providing health insurance and pension plans, and collective bargaining.

So, the only way that the "bottom of the pack" people get affected is if the industry as a whole goes into a slump because of piracy.

pithy commentary

[portscan]

It's own members are the main source of piracy.

So many things wrong with this. First of all, just becasue screeners are a source of piracy, does not mean they are the main source of piracy. Nowhere in the article does it say this, and having seen many "pirated" movies, I can say that very few of them have been screeners. Most seem to be ripped from DVDs or, to a lesser extent, VHS tapes.

Second, the people who receive screeners are not really members of the MPAA. The MPAA is an industry group of major movie studios. The people who get screeners are members of the Academy and Writers, Directors, and Screen Actors Guilds. Yes, the people who leak screeners are technically part of the industry, but they are not members of the MPAA.

Third, what does it matter if these people are in the movie industry? The MPAA has noticed a source of pirated movies over which it potentially has control and has attempted to close up this hole. Would you rather they went after you?

Re:As much as I hate the MPAA,

[amRadioHed]

The problem is that a movie that gets sent out as a screener has an advantage over movies that don't when it comes to oscar time. Therefore, a major studio isn't likely to stop sending out screeners if the other studios are still sending them.

Then their is the concern that if somehow screeners are banned entirely that would put the indie films at a major disadvantage due to the difficulty of getting to one of their limited screenings.

Re:Don't forget.

[Minna Kirai]

they get paid regardless

If the film is less successful, the chances of that producer making another picture goes down. Widespread infringement of motion pictures (which hasn't happened yet, but is on the near horizon) would reduce the total number of Hollywood films.

Fewer sound/video/light crews will be needed. Some of those people will be completely unemployed, the rest will scramble for lower wages than they got before.

So yes, in the short term of a single movie's profitability, the lowly techs get a fixed wage while big names are on percentage points. But after a few years, the salaries of the "little people" will be cut down to match.

Wait?? WAIT???!!!

[fm6]

If there's anything Hollywood fears more than piracy, it's the possibility that their audience might develop the ability to delay gratification.

Hollywood is its own worst enemy

[Zhe Mappel]

More than piracy ever could, what hurts Hollywood's bottom line is a business and creative model that takes its cues from high-stakes gambling.

In the decades since the collapse of the studio system, moviemaking costs have been driven higher and higher for bad reasons - namely, sky-high star salaries and the desperate emphasis on blockbusters.

What can also be measured is how the majors make fewer movies involving fewer actors, and take fewer risks. Monoculture, thy name is Hollywood.

This would be OK if it worked, but it works less and less: other media like the Net and gaming are overtaking movies, and many megabucks stars (e.g., the unusually bland Costner) can't make a profitable movie to save their lives. The frantic, eggs-in-one-basket hunt for opening weekend success - think of all the screeching hype that has replaced honest movie reviewing - also grows from this narrow-minded approach.

But it's not only the movie industry's fortunes that are affected by this model. One of the great means for transmission of ideas and values in society is film. Unlike films of even 30 or 40 years ago, Hollywood's navel-gazing product today rarely has much to say to anybody older than 13 (and when it does, the message is inevitably, "You should be 13 again!"). Independent film, which can sometimes do much more, isn't distributed because all the screens at the gigaplex are showing the corporate product. The festival circuit is literally teeming with hundreds of cool films you'll never see because they are crowded out of contention by, say, a single Gigli, which is one Gigli too many.

Thus do a few unimaginative men make a less interesting world for all of us. Excuse me if I'm not too worried about them.

It is NOT piracy

[gessel]

It is not possible, legally or physically, to "steal" data. It is not possible to "pirate" data.

It is guerilla antitrust.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It may be illegal, but it isn't theft.

The MPAA is taking a legally defensible and appropriate action to control the dissemination of data.

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Quotes from Thomas Jefferson To Isaac McPherson; Monticello, August 13, 1813.

Re:Easier solution

[ScrewMaster]

I can live with the anti-piracy message (although I agree it is superfluous and irritating): what is really pissing me off is the number of commercials I am subjected to. The last time I went to a theater was about two months ago, I paid NINE DOLLARs and was forced to sit through FORTY MINUTES of COMMERCIALS! I don't mind a few movie trailers: those are okay since I get some value out of knowing what upcoming films to keep an eye out for. For that matter, I miss the cartoons they used to show decades ago. But all the theaters around me now have commercials: local ads (user car dealers, insurance companies, etc.) as well as national brands like Coke or Pepsi, and sometimes they are so cheap it's just a SLIDE SHOW! Absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't defend the movie industry too much ... their "experience" is becoming nearly as diluted and unimpressive as the average CD or concert. All they're doing by this foolishness is convincing me that I might as well just wait for the film to come out on satellite and watch it at home: at least I've already paid for it.

Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!!

[Tony-A]

If there's anything Hollywood fears more than piracy, it's the possibility that their audience might develop the ability to delay gratification.

Dunno if they do, but they should.

If I develop the ability to delay gratification, I also develop the ability to question that gratification and in the cold light of reason decide that it is not worthwhile. Watch the hot new movie on TV when it comes to TV and you will discover that it never was that hot. Just the hype and the excitement of the moment made it seem that way.