Movie Industry Bans Screener DVDs
from the go-see-the-move-in-the-theater dept
This story started floating around last week, but now it's official, that the various movie studios, at the urging of Jack Valenti, have agreed not to send out "screeners" to voters for the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards. These are tapes or DVDs of the movies up for the awards, so that the voters can watch them at home. Evidently, Valenti and his pals believe in what they read in the NY Times a couple of weeks ago: the real cause of movies getting online are insiders, and they seem to have the incredibly misguided notion that by annoying the voters, somehow the movies won't still end up online. Of course, we all know that the movies will still end up online, and yet (amazingly) people will still go see the movies as well. Valenti says that this is part of "a determined commitment to combat digital piracy and to save movie jobs in the future." Except that it won't save any movie jobs at all. It's actually making life tougher on smaller, independent filmmakers who are pissed off that they won't get equal footing with the major studios in Oscar voting - since their releases get much smaller distribution, it may be more difficult for screeners to see them. What confuses me, though, is why the independents need to go along with this backwards MPAA edict? Why not keep sending their screeners, knowing that it makes it even more likely voters will watch their flicks (and, also realizing that if their films do get online and do get good reviews, they're even more likely to make extra money at the box office)?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
There are some, however, that have no ties and will be sending out screeners with impunity. Lions Gate and IFC Films are two that are totally independent, and are not bound by the rules of the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike thinks everything should be free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike thinks everything should be free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike thinks everything should be free
It's actually a way to make more money.
I've also made it very clear that I don't support downloading of copyrighted material. I don't use any file sharing software. I don't think it's ok. I think it's illegal.
My point, though, is that it's in the businesses best interest to get around that and to make these things free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike thinks everything should be free
really? you think the software itself is illegal? are you sure you meant to type this? you often write that it is not the tool, but the way it is used that causes problems. this seem to go against that viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike thinks everything should be free
I don't think it should be illegal, but that doesn't mean that it is currently legal.
In the meantime, because I don't want to break the law, I do not use such programs. I know that there are plenty of legal reasons why I could use them as well - but since there seems to be some "guilt by association" if you use these tools, I find it better to avoid them for the time being.
I should also note, by the way, that I've been buying much less music in the past couple of years. I don't hear anything on the radio that I like. The only time I buy music is when a few friends, whose taste I trust, tell me about certain bands or let me listen to CDs that they own. Based on this, I believe that if I did use file sharing tools, I'd be buying a lot more music.
Oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike thinks everything should be free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no screeners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no screeners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no screeners
PS. I mean no offense to the people of Cornwall in England... Cornwall, England is cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im all for Downloading
You might not agree but, i work my ass off for peanuts, these fu ck er s act, thats right act and get $50 mill get real!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]