|
|
Author
|
Topic: Guess What? Screener Tapes Lead To Piracy!
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-30-2003 12:18 AM
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12574,00.html
quote: MPAA Seeks Oscar Home Movie Ban by Bridget Byrne Sep 25, 2003, 3:00 PM PT
No more home-alone screenings of Oscar contenders?
Screening tapes--and more recently DVDs--for award-eligible films have been a given for Academy voters for several years. It's been a combo perk/privilege to be able to sit home in bed and decide whether Tom did a better job than Jack, or Gwyneth was more effective than Meryl.
But this year, those who skip out on the showings at their neighborhood multiplex in favor of their home theaters may be SOL. That's because the Motion Picture Association of America is trying to get the major studios to stop mailing out DVD and video screeners, claiming the practice leads to piracy.
Tinseltown has been in a tizzy ever since late Tuesday, when, according to Daily Variety, the MPAA sent studio honchos a draft of a proposal recommended a ban on screeners. Now, the suits are reportedly discussing whether such a move would be advisable, or even possible.
Although purists would like the mailings ended, believing it a disservice to any filmmaker to have his or her big-screen project viewed on the boob tube, turning the clock back is considered unlikely -- at least for this season. One studio source suggests to E! Online that stopping screeners is "a perfectly rational" concept, which might be possible to implement next year, but not in the few weeks remaining before campaigning begins in earnest for the upcoming February 29 Oscar ceremony.
It stands to reason that the studios' major releases, which are afforded splashy premieres and wide release -- wouldn't be as harmed by a screener ban as the companies' art-house divisions, whose films are only given limited releases, or those truly independent studios, who have used to mass-mailing of screeners to help level the playing field.
The MPAA proposal is directed not just at major distributors, such as Fox or Disney, but also those giant's subdivisions, i.e., Fox Searchlight and Miramax. Even DreamWorks, a MPAA nonsignatory, is involved. But, according Variety report, it is not yet know whether the watchdog group has also approached real independents like Lions Gate, Newmarket, Magnolia and ThinkFilm, none of which is an MPAA signatories.
Some conspiracy theorists see the maneuver as a way to guarantee Oscar goes to major studios at the expense of the little guy, who really needs the exposure brought by home screenings bring.
Other show-biz types question the parameters of the award season. We know when it ends -- Oscar nomination ballots have to be turned by 5 p.m. on January 17, and the final ballots returned by 5 p.m. February 24 -- but when does it officially begin?
Finally, there is the battle for eyeballs between the freebie screeners -- which are forbidden from having anything other than the movie -- and the consumer DVDs, which can have oodles of viewer-friendly extras. For example, likely Oscar player Seabiscuit will be out on video in time for the holidays. While voters would have to pony up some cash for the horse opera, its availability could give it an edge over other films that won't be out until months later.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which moved up the Oscar ceremony to attempt to regain some of the luster stolen by the numerous other award shows, has declined to comment. The Academy does not supply its membership list to the studios sending out screeners, has always proselytized for films to be seen on the big screen, either in theaters or at arranged studio screenings, and has, in its never-ending effort to halt excessive campaigning , managed to curtail the elaborate packaging and accompanying gift books that at one time accompanied the screeners.
The practice of sending screeners has also ballooned beyond just Oscar voters. The Directors, Writers and Screen Actors Guild all get screeners, as does the Golden Globe-selecting Hollywood Foreign Press Association and various critics' groups, among others. At the same time, theaters owners have taken a stance against the long-held practice of providing free admittance to members of these guilds and associations.
The MPAA, which is desperately trying to keep the movie biz from following the path of the piracy-ravaged recording industry, has already floated several other proposals to curtail copying. But the studios haven't backed such measures as disposable DVDs or discs with on-screen imprinting, designed to make the source of any illegally dubbed or distributed copies more easy to trace.
Calls to the MPAA were not returned, and studios contacted had no official comment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 10-03-2003 06:06 PM
Geez, Miramax admits it's gonna have to play by the rules. The screeners must have been the Weinstein family's way of currying favor with the Oscar voters.
quote: Some conspiracy theorists see the maneuver as a way to guarantee Oscar goes to major studios at the expense of the little guy, who really needs the exposure brought by home screenings bring.
The last 6 Best Picture winners were hardly from the little guy: Chicago (Miramax), A Beautiful Mind (Universal/DreamWorks), Gladiator (DreamWorks/Universal), American Beauty (DreamWorks), Shakespeare in Love (Miramax/Universal), Titanic (Paramount/Fox).
OTOH this is not gonna stop the usual criteria for Oscar noms:
- Play a cripple, win an Oscar
- Play a junkie, win an Oscar
- Play a retard, win an Oscar
- Possible last role, win an Oscar
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 10-21-2003 05:03 PM
October 21, 2003 The New York Times Protesting Ban on Advance DVD's, Los Angeles Critics Cancel Awards By JESSE McKINLEY In a sharp rebuke to a new ban on "screeners" — the DVD and videocassete copies of new films meant for awards voters but often used by video pirates — the Los Angeles Film Critics Association has voted to cancel its 2003 awards.
The association, one of the more influential film groups in the country, votes on its awards each December with the winners being announced at a ceremony in mid-January.
The decision, first reported yesterday in Variety and The Los Angeles Times, comes three weeks after the Motion Picture Association of America, the major studios' trade group, announced that it would no longer provide screeners to Academy Award voters. The move was an effort to curb piracy, an increasingly important issue for an industry that has seen profits hurt by cheaply made, cheaply priced copies of Hollywood blockbusters.
But the ban prompted widespread criticism in the United States movie community, including protests by many independent producers who feel that screeners are the most effective way of getting critics to see their films, which are often released commercially in only a few smaller movie theaters.
Such concerns seemed to be at the heart of the Los Angeles critics' decision to cancel their awards.
"We feel this really hurts the smaller independent films," said Jean Oppenheimer, the president of the group. "And the only way to show how deeply we felt was to cancel the awards."
While Ms. Oppenheimer said that her group acted alone, other film groups around the country are said to be considering canceling their awards in protest. Donna Daniels, a spokeswoman for the New York Film Critics Circle, said yesterday that her group was aware of the Los Angeles cancellation and would probably make a statement this week.
The Los Angeles group's three-paragraph resolution, meanwhile, voted on by its 50 members in a meeting on Saturday, left the door open for the awards to be reinstated if the ban is lifted. But while there was been speculation in the last week that the motion picture association may be trying to broker a compromise, as of yesterday the ban was still in place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/movies/21CRIT.html?pagewanted=print&position=
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Lasher
Master Film Handler
Posts: 493
From: Newark, DE
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 10-21-2003 06:17 PM
This is the way I think it might work (probably will be flamed for this). Anyone who is eligible to vote in a particular category should be sent a VHS screener tape (upon request), and here's the thing that would deter piracy, each tape would have a serial number, when a tape was requested, the Name of the person making the request would be cataloged with the serial number of the tape sent to them. On the tape, every 20-30 seconds have the serial # burned into 1 frame of the video. It would be barely noticeable to the viewer, and this way, when pirated copies turn up on the internet and elsewhere, the serial #s will reveal the culprits.
(I'm probably being dumb, but this seems like it would work to me.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|