MPAA Calls for Ban on Screeners 442
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.
Easier solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't see David Letterman actually going and PAYING to see all the crap movies that his guests make!
Re:Easier solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Something like that might work, but not quite as obvious as what you're describing -- the hypothetical pirate would merely have to edit the movie by blacking out the code, and poof, it's untraceable again.
However, I could see something subtler -- some sort of complex steganography, fractional-second differences in the length of certain scenes (credit roll time?) etc. etc. Could be done...
Or maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
crappy leaked watermarked screeners add hype to a film making the desire and street buzz even greater with hundreds of kids promoting it and spreading good words making the film a "must see"
or
of course they might oppose it if the movie sucks as they need to rip off
How about banning awards instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the industry celebrating itself in a annual act of masturbation on national TV.
If you disagree, please explain why Kevin Costner has a "Best Director" award but not Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock or Akira Kurosawa?
Re:Easier solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Easier solution (Score:1, Interesting)
Or, just cut the credits?
Really now, any solution has to be so complex that it either renders the movie unwatchable, is defeated easily digitally, or doesn't work.
Selling DVDs and videos... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not only actors? (Score:3, Interesting)
people pirating movies makes it harder for the producers to earn money (less revenue because people aren't paying to watch the movies). So in order to retain their profits, they must cut costs. One of the ways they can do this is to pay their employees (actors and non-actors) less. If piracy is affecting the industry as a whole, then since there are no higher paying jobs to go to (within the industry), these employees are going to have to accept lower wages.
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).
Re:Slashdot really POs me sometimes.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Easier solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Always get more than one source. Compare. More than two would be good too. This goes double if it's an analog source, because you could work between them and get a better quality.
Any per-source steganography will be noticed, and any steganography that wouldn't be noticed by multiple sources wouldn't narrow down the source hunt.
Additionally, you need to be aware that some sources are BEFORE any such steganography would be added. Ever considered the possibility that the guys who'd put the steganography in are, in fact, the guys who work as group and pro sources, getting paid more for that than their day job?
Besides, this will merely lead to a shift from DVD screeners to the even more incredible phenomenon of the telecine. Done correctly, this can be better than retail DVD quality in some cases. Once a film is out there are thousand of copies of it. Two or three digitally sampled masters from actual analog film reels, and you could remove film grain as well as steganography, leading to better compression. All you need is unrestricted access to a couple of movie theaters. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of groups whose members not only work in movie theaters as projectionists, but actually fucking own them.
The movie industry doesn't have much to fear from piracy compared to the music industry. They aren't quite as jaded, they aren't quite as crap, they don't have quite as much control as they think they have, and much more importantly they really aren't anywhere near as overpriced. And there is significant value added in seeing a good projection at a cinema vs. even a really good quality telecine/DVD-rip, and they make the serious money from concessions anyway. They'll still be around, and they'll still be busy.
Meanwhile the music industry is caught trying to do the same thing, but frankly, the problem is it just sucks. Concerts ain't so good, and are WAY overpriced, and hard to run, and irregular, and get massive rushes of people, whereas cinema screenings are small and can happen in several places at once. Music industry really doesn't have an easy way out of this. The movie industry, by comparison, has it made.
Note that the first people to get something out will probably fail to do this. The first releasers are at very high risk, as they traditionally rush and race to be first. Most people wait for the ones with a marginally greater eye for quality and detail (Centropy et al), and those are the ones who will survive stego. Weed out the crap groups, that's what I say!
Re:Easier solution (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not in a million years... (Score:4, Interesting)
What the MPAA wants to stop is Oscar screeners. These are DVDs and tapes sent to Academy members of movies that are eligible for Oscars. It's a way to get somebody to see your movie, without making them go to the theater.
(Screeners are a mixed blessing. Smaller movies benefit from them, because they are often shut out of the multiplex too quickly or may just work better on a smaller screen, such as Moulin Rouge or even The Pianist; they also serve to remind Academy members of the movies that aren't still in theaters in December and January, when the voting is done. On the other hand, home viewing dilutes the power of some movies, such as Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan. Screeners are generally blamed for Shakespeare in Love winning out over Saving Private Ryan a few years ago, for the reasons I've listed.)
The problem is this: there are politics involved. It may not be fair, for example, that Seabiscuit will be on DVD at your local Blockbuster by the end of the year, and so Academy viewers will be able to watch that at home, but not anything that was released after summer or so. That's an unfair advantage.
And there's the question of whether or not screeners really prevent piracy anyways. A telesync is usually out before the movie's even in theaters, of course, and the selling of individual screener discs can be curtailed by putting a serial number on them and monitoring eBay.
The MPAA is somewhat like OPEC. You've got a coalition with similar interests but conflicts within the organization, and none of the members are hesitant to bend the rules for their own gain, if they can get away with it. And Oscar is more than enough motivation.
For some decent discussion of this, check out David Poland's Hot Button [thehotbutton.com] in the last week, particularly this column. [thehotbutton.com]
Re:Easier solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about banning awards instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
Likewise Kubrick lost out to Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest); William Friedkin (French Connection); Carol Reed (Oliver); and George Cukor (My Fair Lady).
Kurosawa lost out primarily because he was Japanese, but also because his solitary directorial nomination was up against Sydney Pollack's Out of Africa.
Costner may have been up against supremely qualified directors (Scorsese and Coppola) but it was IMHO hardly their best work (Goodfellas and Godfather III respectively).
To summarise, Costner had a weaker field than either Kubrick or Hitchcock. As far as Kurosawa is concerned IIRC there's only ever been one non-english language winner of Best Director/Best Film (Vita e bella, La). It sucks but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
skribe
Re:Easier solution (Score:4, Interesting)
while I agree with the rest of your post, you should NOT be trying to remove film grain. Grain is an intentional part of the image. Different film stocks are chosen for different films and scenes specifically for their grain structure. On film where this is obvous to even a casual viewer is Minority Report. Speilberg gave this film an intetionally overexposed and extremely grainy look. You should NEVER try to remove grain from a film image.
Re:Not only actors? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which reduces the need for elaborate staging and effects.
Which reduces the amount of support staff needed for complex shots. Which brings us back to the idea of hurting "camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers".
Re:As much as I hate the MPAA, (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it must kill people to have to pay 15 whole dollars for a DVD, especially since the MPAA is sitting next to them with a handgun demanding that they buy as many as possible.
Film fans should be *incredibly* happy with the prices of DVDs. Movies from a decade or two ago can generally be had for about $10. That's less than seeing a full-price show in a lot of theatres now, and yet some people expect to pay even less?
Expecting to get media for free or cheap is (IMO) the geek equivalent of panhandling. If you are someone who gets irritated when a homeless person asks for spare change, how can you not expect the film and music industries to feel the same way when you suggest that they sell DVDs and CDs for $5 (or whatever) or that they shouldn't pursue people who bootleg them?
At least the homeless person *might* be spending the spare change on something that's actually necessary to live, like food.
Re:Wait?? WAIT???!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
sum of all fears: leaked about 3 weeks before theater opening
matrix: leaked two weeks before theater opening, but with some of the soundtrack music not mixed in yet- neo and trinity talk in a quiet club for example with no rob zombie in the background
lotr:tt- perfect DVD rip released the same week as it premiered in the theaters. Had little warnings saying "for academy awards consideration only" that popped up once ever 20 minutes below the letterboxing
spiderman- leaked on dvd same time as it came out
hulk- everyone knows about this one
attack of the clones- perfect dvd rip the same week it showed in theaters
There are like a billion others I cant even remember right now. Basically 90 percent of the high quality piracy is being supplied by the movie industry itself right now. I dont see how they can justify stiffer controls on us when their left and right hand are ignorant of one another.
What many studio's are doing... (Score:3, Interesting)
They are starting to use a faint watermark, across the entire picture. The watermark is individual to the tape itself (a number, letter, symbol or combo).
This way, if the tape is pirated... it's easy to trace back.
Each tape is signed out to a particular person. That person previously signed NDA's. Now they have to sign NDA's... and there is something to ensure they don't forget about it.
If the tape is leaked.... they know exactly who to go after. The tape's watermark will lead to the person responsible.
Re:Easier solution (Score:1, Interesting)
unless they pass some other laws in the process there won't be any proscuting for it. (some staters might have these laws but not mine.)
Re:Easier solution (Score:1, Interesting)
No more blockbuster, no more Best Buy movie section ect...
So yes, piracy will not destroy the film industry, much as it won't destroy the recording industry, but it will deprive some as*hole of billions of dollars and thus "MUST BE STOPPED!"