When Will The Motion Picture Academy Take Responsibility For All That Piracy The Oscars Create?

from the questions dept

For the past few years, Hollywood and its friends have been very, very focused on trying to blame Google for their own failure to adapt to a changing business environment. This usually takes the form of ridiculous assertions about how Google can magically stop unauthorized access to copyrighted materials, combined with totally specious studies that try (and totally fail) to link Google to an increase in infringement. The RIAA and MPAA then insist that "something must be done" with that "something" usually being Google magically changing its search results and/or special laws that would make Google and other intermediaries somehow legally liable for such infringement. The key question that we see over and over again from the RIAA and MPAA is something along the lines of "when will Google 'take responsibility'?" for all that infringement.

However, with the not so surprising news that movies winning Oscar awards this past weekend saw a massive uptick in unauthorized access, a simple question needs to be asked: Why won't the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, the organization behind the Oscars, step up and take responsibility for its award show is clearly contributing to a massive uptick in infringement?

Perhaps it's not much of a surprise, but the day after the Oscar award ceremony the winning films are in high demand among pirates. The number of people sharing "12 Years A Slave" via BitTorrent tripled, and the number of "Gravity" downloads more than doubled.

With 7 Oscars Gravity was the big winner at the Academy Awards ceremony on Sunday evening. However, the Oscar for the best motion picture went to 12 years a Slave.

Obviously, I'm joking about my question above, but if the MPAAs of the world are going to run around blaming Google when the link to infringement there is tenuous at best, then shouldn't they be much more concerned with something like the Oscars, where the link between the event and infringement is so much more pronounced?

Of course, the proper response to both issues is that none of this matters if the movie studios put in place better business models that allowed them to capture revenue from the interest in those films, in a manner that viewers would most like, rather than leaving it open to alternative paths. But, apparently that's too difficult.

Filed Under: film, hollywood, motion picture academy, oscars, piracy

Motion Picture Academy Member Unhappy About Being Treated Like A Criminal

from the be-careful-with-those-screeners dept

We've covered the rather ridiculous lengths that the MPAA has gone through over the past few years to try to "protect" screener copies of the movies it sends out to Motion Picture Academy members as they vote for the Academy Awards. First, they tried banning DVDs altogether, since they were too easy to copy and upload online. After complaints, and even a lawsuit, the MPAA relented, but started sending special DVDs that could only be played in special DVD players. That was also a cumbersome and annoying process, that was finally dropped this year. However, the industry is still using digital watermarking, to mark exactly who each copy went to so it can track down who leaked it. Apparently, the movies also come with all sorts of forms that require signatures demanding you won't share the film, as well as reminders as the film starts that you are not to share it with anyone.

It would appear that Academy members are pushing back a little on being treated like criminals just to vote for the Oscars. TorrentFreak points us to a rather amusing tongue-in-cheek analysis of one Academy member about his fears should any one of the DVD screeners get into the wrong hands. He discusses (jokingly) just how much it would cost to properly secure the screeners to guarantee that they wouldn't accidentally be watched by someone else and concludes it's just not worth being a member of the Academy anymore, as the cost of protecting the screeners is much higher than the benefit of being a member.

"So that's the cost of a surveillance camera, guard dog, German lessons, a safe, plus ADT, making a total of $8730.00 as an initial, screener-security investment plus my Academy dues of $250 per year. And who knows how much yearly maintenance of all that would cost. Dog food, vet bills.... $9000.00 for starters plus yearly maintenance. I just couldn't figure out how to do it. Even if we moved to a smaller apartment. Even if took a job managing an apartment building again; I just couldn’t figure how to do it.

"And I have reluctantly come to a decision. So that I won't contribute to film piracy by inadvertently allowing one of my screeners to fall into the wrong hands, pirating hands, thereby costing the film industry millions of dollars (not to mention putting me in prison), I will not renew my membership in the Academy.

"It makes me sad, but I'm also happy in a way. Because without those screeners being delivered to my vulnerable little home, with its multiple and human inefficiencies, I know that it will no longer be possible for me to harm the studios, my industry colleagues and the Academy. Yes, so by resigning from the Academy I will contribute to saving the film industry, and I have to be happy about that."

Filed Under: academy awards, motion picture academy, oscars, screeners