A stupid screener ban question

[Joseph Piglet]

Ever since the "screener ban" I've been confused about a very basic issue that I haven't seen anyone address: how can the MPAA, a non-government agency, ban anything?

Why would the MPAA's declaration that filmmakers can no longer send screeners mean anything more then my own declaration that movie theatres can no longer play commercials before movies? Are they enforcing it with the withholding of some MPAA privilege for people who violate it?

[Furious D]

Although I don't have any access to the inner working of Jack Valenti's mind, I think (and I could be wrong) that sending out unauthorised screener tapes will get you disqualified from the Oscars. And since Academy members seeing screener tapes is the only way an indie can possibly score a nomination it effectively gets them in a catch-22.

:rolleyes:I smell a conspiracy to guarantee an Oscar sweep for Bennifer and GIGLI.

And even though the MPAA isn't a government agency, Valenti practically acts like it is anyways. His Washington connections are strong and he's hardwired into both parties.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that a real investigation would probably show that screener tapes have a negligible effect on illicit piracy. Who needs them when the more sophisticated gangs simply steal a print directly from the photo lab and have a factory pumping out bootleg DVDs by the next morning.

Of course to stop them would involve facing Organized Crime. That's difficult, dangerous and involves some pretty high level international corruption. Also fighting them won't screw the indies out of the Oscars, which you as Grand Poobah of the MPAA have as your sworn duty. So what do you do? You make a pointless gesture by banning screener tapes. At least that's my opinion.

[Joseph Piglet]

Maybe someone ought to send several anonymous (pirated) screeners of big budget movies to the academy members, and see if those movies then get disqualified.
If not, then independent films could just send their screeners anonymously.

[serano9]

Will somebody explain from the beggining exactly what the deal is with this ban? Pro's (if any) and Cons. I've heard about it but am not completly sure what's up.

www.thecrossroadsoffate.com

[FilmDallas]

Any organization can make rules that affect their members and can even dole out punishments for those who fail to comply.

An analogy would be like the National Basketball Association. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban makes all sorts of comments about referees from time to time. When he does, the NBA issues a fine.

Now, Mark has a first amendment right to express his opinion. BUT the rules of the organization he joined (the NBA) have rules that say the NBA has the right to fine him for such behavior. Those fines do not have the force of law, but they have the force of the organization in which Cuban and the Mavs are a member.

So the MPAA is an organization the film studios belong to. As part of that, the member studios agree to abide by the rules the MPAA puts forth. If they fail to live up to these rules, I'm sure there are punishments that would come. But the MPAA's rules do not extend to companies that are not members of the MPAA. True independents would not be affected by the ban. They could continue to send out screeners because only MPAA members are required to live by MPAA rules.

It's basically a contractual relationship.

If I join the Screen Actors Guild, I have to live by their rules or they can fine me or kick me out. The MPAA is essentially the same except that the members are companies rather than individuals.

Personally, I was suprised a TRO was issued to temporarily stop the ban. I would've thought the MPAA member agreement would've covered these sorts of things pretty solidly.