Techdirt. Stories filed under "oscars" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "oscars"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:44:00 PST Film Distributor Convinced Oscar Nominees To Take Down Their Own Short Films, Because No Real Film Would Be Online Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml they needed to take their films down from any online site. Why? Because, apparently, online stuff is too lowbrow, and no serious filmmaker would ever promote their films online. From the letter:
The fact that all the films were put online is perplexing as Academy voters have other and better means of viewing the films, including through the Academy-provided DVDs of all the Live Action and Animated short film nominees sent to all voting members. Making the films available online creates no competitive advantage.

Unlike Webbies or Ani's, the Academy Award is designed to award excellence in the making of motion pictures that receive a cinematic release, not an online release. Since 2006, we have built theater audiences significantly and created widespread interest in the films themselves and their place in the movie theater. This release of the films on the Internet threatens to destroy 8 years of audience growth and the notion that these film gems are indeed movies--no feature length film would consider a free online release as a marketing tool!
First off, that last statement is pure hogwash. A large and growing number of feature length films have been released online for free as a marketing tool. There's a whole company called Vodo.net that has helped filmmakers do that. All the way back in 2008, we wrote about director Wayne Wang (who has directed movies like The Joy Luck Club, Smoke and Maid in Manhattan) releasing his latest feature length film... free and online. Another success story involved a relatively unknown indie filmmaker who got his film on Hulu (for free), where it became the most watched thing on Hulu for a while. And, of course, Nina Paley famously released Sita Sings the Blues for free online. The idea that no maker of a feature length film would ever use the internet to release it for free is simply untrue.

And, in many ways, it seems even dumber to remove these short animated films from the internet. As many people have noted, obscurity is a much bigger threat to most content creators than anything else, and one way to guarantee further obscurity is to make sure your work cannot be found or seen easily. Somehow, I doubt that any of these animated short filmmakers are seeing that much money from whatever limited theatrical release Pilcher is able to give them. And yet, by taking their works offline, they may be missing out on building a much bigger and more loyal fanbase, which can help support future projects (Kickstarter, anyone?). The idea that no real filmmaker would promote their films online is something that comes from the viewpoint of an obsolete industry, not someone who is looking out for today's filmmakers' best interests.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> wtf http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130225/02341122096 Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:40:19 PST Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110227/22453813297/hollywood-gone-mad-complaining-that-oscar-nominated-films-downloaded-more.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110227/22453813297/hollywood-gone-mad-complaining-that-oscar-nominated-films-downloaded-more.shtml that it also increases the frequency of unauthorized downloads:
Oscar nominees typically enjoy a box office bounce. But Hollywood increasingly has to reckon with another award-season ritual, one that could best be described as the piracy plunder.

The attention that an Oscar nomination for best picture bestows on a title also triggers a spike in illegal downloading.
But why is that a problem? The only reason those films received this additional attention was because of the Oscar nods, so complaining about the similar bump in unauthorized downloading seems bizarre. Seriously, if you are getting a bunch more people paying for the movie, are you really that concerned that another group is viewing it in an unauthorized manner? It's as if some people actually believe that every unauthorized download is a lost sale.

It's pretty simple: if you're getting downloaded more, it means there's more interest in your film, and it's your job as a film producer to figure out how to make money from that interest. It's not something to complain about.

The article also highlights, as we've discussed at great lengths, how the producer, Nicolas Chartier of Voltage Films, of last year's Oscar winner for best picture, Hurt Locker chose to sue 5,000 fans of his film for unauthorized downloading. Of course, it leaves out the part where he also called someone a "moron" and a "thief" for explaining to him, quite politely, why such a strategy might backfire. The reporter asks Chartier about the backlash, and he suggests that nobody knows who produces what films, so he doesn't care if he gets a bad reputation: "I don't think anyone is waking up saying, 'Let's boycott movies made by Voltage.'" Apparently Chartier doesn't use the internet much. There are, in fact, efforts by people to get everyone to boycott Voltage films because of his actions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> think-this-through,-people http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110227/22453813297 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:02:20 PDT The Oscars vs. GoDaddy Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0056259883.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0056259883.shtml sued a blog that was helping to promote the event. Apparently, just suing one website wasn't enough, so back in May it sued domain registrar GoDaddy for allowing a bunch of domains to be registered.

Now, in a reasonable world, where liability is properly applied, GoDaddy would never be liable for actions of its users. But, unfortunately, one of the very few areas that DMCA and Section 230 safeharbors do not cover is trademark law. So, the Academy may actually be able to get away with blaming GoDaddy for not magically blocking anyone from registering any domain that might, possibly, maybe be about the Oscar Awards:
Suing under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Academy disputes more than a 100 domain names, including 2011oscars.com, academyawardz.com, jaylenososcars.com, betacademyawards.com, oscarsunplugged.com, oscarshotels.com, oscarstravel.com, oscarsliveblogging.com ... etc. Damages could total as much as $10 million.
On top of the basics of blaming GoDaddy for allowing such domains to be registered, the Academy seems to directly be taking issue with the fact that GoDaddy has a system for letting domain holders "park" those domains and make money from ads. The Academy tries to spin this as GoDaddy purposely "profiting" off of its intellectual property, but that's ridiculous. GoDaddy is just offering a general domain parking ad system. It's making money off of any parked domains. It has nothing to do with their intellectual property. And, frankly, if these domains were really so valuable to the Academy, why didn't they register them in the first place?

To make the whole thing even more ridiculous, the Academy claims that a GoDaddy patent application shows that it knows that it needs to filter out ads on certain types of domains. But just because you develop a system to do so, it doesn't mean you are legally required to abide by it.

The whole thing is, frankly, absurd. If the Academy has a problem with certain domains, it should go after those who actually registered them. Not the registrar. If this lawsuit actually gets anywhere, it could create a real chill for registrars, who will then feel the need to review and block certain registrations, even if they would be perfectly legal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> ah-loopholes http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100621/0056259883 Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:14:00 PDT Motion Picture Academy Threatens Costume Shop For Offering An Oscar Costume Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100326/2246598747.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100326/2246598747.shtml threatening a small costume shop in New Zealand for daring to offer costumes that look like the Oscar statue. As if they don't have anything better to be focusing on? The Academy and misguided trademark lawyers will of course chime in and insist that they must do this or risk the statue becoming "generic" such that the trademark goes away, but it still seems like a bullying approach. Why not just work with the shop to offer a "licensed" version? It's not like having such costumes around the world causes any actual harm to The Oscars. In fact, it helps to promote them...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> trademark-fun http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100326/2246598747 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:23:22 PDT Craigslist Forced To Cough Up Name Of Oscars Ticket Seller To The Movie Industry Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080725/1451461795.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080725/1451461795.shtml now suing a bunch of folks who tried to sell their tickets online, and even got a judge to force Craigslist to reveal the name of a seller in order to sue him.

So, here's my confusion: if the tickets are non-transferable, why not just check IDs at the door and not let those who were not given tickets?

As for forcing Craigslist to reveal the name of the seller, why is that allowed? The Academy can have whatever rules it wants in terms of letting in or not letting in people, but what law was broken by the seller, and what makes it so that Craigslist should be forced to give up the name of an anonymous seller? All the Academy had to do was not let the person in the door, but apparently it chose not to run things that way. But that's the Academy's choice, not a legal issue the requires revealing the name of an anonymous seller.

Furthermore, the Academy's explanation for this also seems ridiculous: "If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security." Really? Most places that provide security don't know the names of everyone who's there and they seem to do just fine. And, again, if knowing who's in there is such a big deal, then why not identify them as they enter, and verify that they're supposed to be there? None of that would then involve lawsuits. But, then again, this is the movie industry, which has shown a penchant for lawsuits over actually thinking things through and taking the easier path.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> but-why? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080725/1451461795 Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:55:00 PST Motion Picture Academy Member Unhappy About Being Treated Like A Criminal Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080107/030010.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080107/030010.shtml 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."


Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> be-careful-with-those-screeners http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080107/030010 Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:50:27 PST MPAA Finally Realizes That Proprietary DRM'd Screener DVDs Are A Waste Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/022441.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/022441.shtml banned the use of "screener" DVDs for those voting for the Academy Awards. If you're unaware, traditionally, Motion Picture Academy members received "screener" copies of the movies up for awards on DVD or VHS tape so they could watch them at home and decide how to vote. Yet, in Valenti's twisted world, this had to be stopped because screener copies were appearing online. Of course, banning screeners created quite a mess for the folks who actually had to vote on the awards, as there was no longer an easy way to actually see the movies. It also really upset smaller studios, who knew that their movies were less likely to be seen by Academy members if they couldn't send out screeners. Eventually, the MPAA relented, but the following year came up with a new ridiculous solution. Rather than sending DVD screeners that members could watch with their existing home theater setup, it hired a company to make special DRM'd DVDs that would only play on special DVD players. Then it sent these special DVD players with the screeners to the Academy members. Of course, this was both a huge expense and still a tremendous pain in the ass for voters, who had to hook up this special DVD player that could only be used for screeners. It also made it difficult if the Academy member wanted to take the DVD somewhere else (say on vacation) and watch it elsewhere without dragging along this "special" DVD player. Apparently it only took 3 years of complaints before the MPAA realized that perhaps this was a dumb idea (that also didn't stop the movies from getting online anyway). This year, it's apparently phasing out the special DVD players and will provide (gasp!) normal DVDs for voting members.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> it-took-this-long? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071228/022441