This is topic Fairly lame "60 Minutes" piece on movie piracy last night in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005955
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-02-2009, 09:18 AM:
 
The focus of the story was camcording in theaters. They even showed what CAP code looks like and explained BitTorrent. No mention of DVD screeners. They got Steven Soderberg (sp?) to go on camera talking about piracy.

Here's a "review" and alternate take on the 60 Minutes piece by someone named "gerry" at rec.arts.movies.current-films (link)

==================================

For proof that the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes is on its last legs,
exhibit one would be the segment on movie piracy that Lesley Stahl
presented this Sunday. Somehow, the 60 Minutes crew and police found
a place in Los Angeles that still makes bootleg copies of DVDs, if
this clip was not file footage recorded a year ago.

Nowhere in this story about the movie piracy problem was there any
mention of the series of big budget bombs Hollywood is releasing these
days, movies like Amelia, Land of the Lost, Surrogates (a good movie
but weak box office) and Confessions of A Shopaholic.

Instead, you had a talking head link the homicidal Mexican drug gang
Zetas to selling bootleg DVDs. And there was one Hispanic shown, a
poor guy caught videotaping a movie in a theater going to criminal
court with his wife and small child. What's the matter, the movie
theater police scared of arresting Zeta gang members because they have
automatic weapons?

Stahl's hero in this story is Sarkozy's French government, which is
threatening to cut the Internet service of repeat down loaders of
bootleg movies. The same French government that previously targeted
Hollywood movies for threatening French culture, and tried to limit
the showing of non-French made movies in France.

Nowhere in this segment did Stahl mention how there has been a sharp
drop in DVD movie sales, in part caused by the economy, in part caused
by the proliferation of Red Box kiosks, pay per view cable movies and
NetFlix rentals. Hollywood studios now make most of their money from
DVD sales and, to a lesser extent, the overseas box office. The
recession hurts US DVD sales and bad movies like Amelia don't travel
well to foreign markets. But that DVD sales decline is why Hollywood
studios are firing many of their top executives to save salary costs
by reducing headcount.

Movie piracy has nothing to do with Hollywood's current troubles. Bad
movies are the real problem, movies no one wants to watch. Taken was
a big box office hit even though this movie was out on DVD overseas
months before its USA release thanks to a delay in Taken finally
getting a PG-13 rating after editing out some violence.

The 60 Minutes story ignored the real change going on, that the most
popular products from Hollywood are US TV series like Smallville,
Supernatural and Lost. Viewers in countries like Australia want to
see the current US TV series episodes now, not wait a year for their
release overseas. And viewers in the USA, who miss a TV series
episode broadcast or who now have bad TV reception on some ATSC
channels and don't have cable, download these TV series' episodes from
the Internet, commercials edited out. That is a big change from just
three years ago. A change 60 Minutes totally ignored.

Along with who knows what else.

=====================================

Speaking of "Amelia", the display ad in the weekend newspaper here says it's "Now Playing!" at the Regal Springfield Quad. That theater has been closed for like 8 years.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-02-2009, 10:00 AM:
 
Jack Valenti lives!

I also like the fact that when 60min did touch on the one place where DVD piracy REALLY counts -- insider piracy with material stolen that is so good ACTUAL DVDs can be produced that are undetectable counterfits that can be rented and sold and even slipped into Red Boxes -- the WOLVERINE debacle, it was barely mentioned and no questions were asked about how is THAT kind of piracy handled by law enforecment agencies. Do they have footage of them storming into post-production facilities with their door batteries and bullet proof vests and bazzokas drawn? What a piece of sensational trash. Just a regurgitation of the MPAA party line that we have been hearing over the last 20 years.

So with this great "new" information about the rising threat of terrorist pirates (which is the way the story opened -- that shot the raid and Stahl voicing over "The LA Police are going after pirates, I thought the piece was going to be about the pirates that are attacking ships on the high seas), if DVD piracy is on a "dramatic" rise (necessitating a 60min news piece on it) so how come the MPAA nerd is sitting there STILL parroting the same loss number they've been using for the last 10 years -- 6 BILLION dollars? How come 60min didn't ask how was that figure calculated? Now THAT would be news worthy. Piracy has gone up so substantially that we need another news story on it, but the loss figure remains the same?

And yes, it's all those theatre's fault for not putting Jose and his family in shackles from the get-go. The shot of the projection booth, although Stahl didn't claim the projectionist was somehow complicit in the piracy, an idea has been strongly suggested in the past, that shot, at least in my mind, reinforced that notion so much so that I immediately thought, "Ah here it comes...she's going to say how theatre projectionists and personnel are sometimes involved with the piracy." They didn't overtly make that claim, but the shot still established it.

Me thinks this kind of sorry ass, halfwitted, regurgitation would have been kicked to the ground if Don Hewitt were still around.

Unfortunately Jack Valenti still lives, but apparantly Don Hewitt does not.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-02-2009, 10:09 AM:
 
Isn't there a rule about redundant thread headings [evil]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2009, 11:19 AM:
 
quote:
For proof that the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes is on its last legs,
As right-on as the reviewer might be, he loses all credibility with this first sentence. 60 Minutes is hardly on its last legs; it consistently finishes in the top 10 in ratings for the week and almost always wins its time slot. It's not going anywhere and I'd bet it will be on the air as long as CBS exists.
 
Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-02-2009, 12:54 PM:
 
Mike: Not that I am criticizing 60 Minutes, haven't seen it in five years, but I hardly think viewership ratings relate to quality, what with "Twilight" and "Couples' Retreat" box-office numbers figuring in. [Smile]

I agree that the program, as described to me here, is rather lacking in terms of actual information on the piracy taking place today, and generates its dramatic elements with racial and terrorist overtones. But again, we are dealing with an uneducated public.

I don't know how many of you here have worked in newsrooms, print, television, or otherwise, but the information is always dumbed down at the editing level. Don't blame the journalists, blame the editor whose policy is that 95% of the program should be intelligible to those who have completed a 9th grade education.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-02-2009, 01:06 PM:
 
And that is a good point -- and knowing what propelled 60 Minutes to the place of stellar promenance in the CBS News glaxcy has been Don Hewitt's instinct to avoid dumbing down the information. Make it concise and understandable, but never cut corners that will emasculate the content. Whoever they got to product/edit this piece must be just cutting his or her journalistic chops because this certainly wasn't worthy of some of the exceptional work 60 Minutes has done in the past. It was like an infomercial for the MPAA line of bs.
 
Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-02-2009, 01:11 PM:
 
Frank, while, again I can't comment one way or the other on Don Hewitt, as I don't know if he was still active in the show the last I watched it, I think you can present a show that is 95% understandable to a viewer without "emasculating" it.

So you are purporting me to have said one thing, when I actually said something completely different. There are still 5% in there to enlighten the educated people too.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2009, 02:30 PM:
 
quote:
I hardly think viewership ratings relate to quality,
Well, of course not....if they did, most network TV shows wouldn't ever see the airwaves!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-02-2009, 03:14 PM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
Jack Valenti lives!
How true! That Asswipe MF SOB Lame Jerk Valenti returns from the grave! And is re-incarnated not as a donkey, but as the current head asses of the MPAA!

That 60 Minutes segment was the BIGGEST POS that I have ever seen on that lame show.

I also found it super-interesting that CBS and Paramount are both subs/owned by the same whore "MOTHER" company!

Talk about biased/slanted/black journalism!!!

Yours in Christ... [uhoh]
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-02-2009, 03:44 PM:
 
60 Minutes still does some good stuff, but that particular story was as if they handed 15 minutes of airtime to the MPAA and said "Go for it!".
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-03-2009, 10:39 PM:
 
MPAA = Motion Picture Asswhipes of America. I have two reasons:

1. Influencing an artist to edit their film to meet their narrow minded ratings systems.

2. Insinuating that a good and paying filmgoer like me is possibly a pirate every time I go to a cinema.

The PG13 has done more harm to society than anything they've done. It opened to the door to younger audiences that are not ready for certain films.

Heck, even the R rating doesn't mean much anymore. If a youngster wants to see an R rated film, it's not that hard to.

I'm totally against any censorship, but don't mind a rating system that is reliable, fair, and easy for parents to understand. I'm also for a system that doesn't influence the art itself, but rather aids in helping a parent choose what films their kids may be ready for.

rant off.

AJG
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-03-2009, 11:55 PM:
 
quote:
I'm also for a system that doesn't influence the art itself,
That won't be possible as long as movies are a for-profit venture. Most people under 15 base their moviegoing decisions on what the rating is.

We could have a movie titled "The Worst Movie of All Time Ever Made, Guaranteed (Part 2)" and if it was rated R, a lot of the teenagers would still want to see it.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-04-2009, 01:23 AM:
 
quote: Karl Borowski
So you are purporting me to have said one thing, when I actually said something completely different.
What?

You: Don't get mad at the journalist; get mad at the editor for dumbing it down.

Frank: Their good reputation is from them not dumbing anything down.

You: You purported me to have said something I didn't say.

Again, what?
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2009, 12:59 PM:
 
quote: Aaron Garman
I'm totally against any censorship, but don't mind a rating system that is reliable, fair, and easy for parents to understand.
The problem with the MPAA is their ratings process is not fair, not consistent, heavily biased to giving far more slack to movies output by major studios (the majors fund the MPAA's operations) and a far more difficult time to movies output by independents (who don't fund the MPAA's operations).

The MPAA and its ratings system is largely irrelevant anymore. So many people are watching movies on cable TV and a growing number are watching via the Internet. Both of those home-based outlets offer content far more daring than what is found in commercial movie theaters. The latest trend of many PG-13 movies being released with "unrated" cuts on home video underscores this irrelevance. Exposed breasts in a feature film? Big deal. Anyone can pull up hardcore pornography with a mouse click or a button push on a TV remote control.

Obviously, the big battle line is between movies that are deemed pornographic and those that are merely movies for adults only. The MPAA is too cowardly to draw the physical distinction that separates pornography from movies with simulated sex and violence. Doing so would give too much of an advantage to independent film producers who are more likely to come up with daring, different material. Big Hollywood studios only know how to play it safe. So they need to have some way of keeping the indy crowd under their thumbs.

The MPAA knows their organization is largely irrelevant as well. I think the group's recent campaigns about movie piracy is little more than a public relations campaign for the MPAA itself. I don't think the MPAA really cares at all about piracy. I don't think the Hollywood studios do either. If they did the first piracy vector they would smash is those freaking DVD screener discs. How else do they think the movie is getting onto the Internet BEFORE the movie gets into theaters!? Duh!
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-04-2009, 02:59 PM:
 
Can't agree more Bobby.

AJG
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-04-2009, 03:15 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The MPAA is too cowardly to draw the physical distinction that separates pornography from movies with simulated sex and violence. Doing so would give too much of an advantage to independent film producers who are more likely to come up with daring, different material. Big Hollywood studios only know how to play it safe. So they need to have some way of keeping the indy crowd under their thumbs.
I've read this paragraph ten times now, and I still can't see the point you're trying to make. Many independent studios aren't even MPAA signatories, and as such don't even bother with submitting their films for rating. How are they being kept under the MPAA's thumb when they don't even participate in the system?

This last weekend I saw the new Lars Von Trier film, Anitchrist. It has some of the most graphic and intense sex scenes I've ever seen on film, outside of deliberate porn, and also includes (and you really don't want to look at this)
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Here's the thing: it's unrated. And it's doing a land office business. How are the people behind this film under the thumb of the MPAA?
 
Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-04-2009, 03:35 PM:
 
Chris: I disagree with you that 60 Minutes wasn't dumbed down in the past. I think it was. I don't mean that in the condescending way that it probably comes across in type. That's the way MOST media is.

Digging up good dirt instead of writing fluff and dumbing something down so just about every Joe Q. Public can understand it are two different things.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-04-2009, 04:17 PM:
 
Um... perhaps you should read the post more closely, because nowhere did I claim that it wasn't dumbed down.

Since you don't get it, I was repeating the conversation and trying to understand where you got the notion that Frank's statement "purported you to have said something different from what you meant." I still don't understand.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2009, 04:21 PM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
I've read this paragraph ten times now, and I still can't see the point you're trying to make.
Let's see if this is simple enough:

In one movie a couple of people are acting like they're having sex.

In another movie the two people are not acting. They really are having sex and the camera shows all the explicit in-out details to prove they really are having sex.

Understand now?

It doesn't really matter how "graphic" a scene of simulated sex or violence may be. It's still fake. Just like pro wrestling. The X-rating is meant for stuff that's really happening. The NC-17 is for shocking stuff that's still being faked.

quote:
Many independent distributors aren't even MPAA signatories, and as such don't even bother with submitting their films for rating. How are they being kept under the MPAA's thumb when they don't even participate in the system?
Because a lot of movie theater chains refuse to book NC-17 rated movies or "unrated" movies with adults-only oriented content. Many TV stations and newspapers will not run any ads for movies rated NC-17. A NC-17 rating is a commercial death sentence for most movies.

The NC-17 rating failed miserably in living up to its purpose: being an alternative rating for non-porn adults-only movies while letting the porn industry have the X. The MPAA refused to draw a line between porn and other types of adults-only movies. That refusal has made the NC-17 rating irrelevant and carry the much of the same stigma as the X rating. Many movie theaters, newspapers and TV stations aren't going to take any chances while the line of separation remains stupidly blurry.

quote: Mark Ogden
Here's the thing: it's unrated. And it's doing a land office business.
Antichrist has made $158,000 in very limited release. That's hardly "land office" business. The movie sure won't get any sort of mainstream bookings in theater chains like Carmike Cinemas. However, I am certain the movie will find its way onto home video in its uncut form and maybe even play on cable networks like HBO or IFC uncut as well if there is enough demand for it.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-04-2009, 04:38 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
It doesn't really matter how "graphic" a scene of simulated sex or violence may be. It's still fake. Just like pro wrestling. The X-rating is meant for stuff that's really happening. The NC-17 is for shocking stuff that's still being faked.
Maybe you were trying to say how you'd like things to be, but fyi there's no such rating as "X" anymore.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-04-2009, 05:05 PM:
 
The 1979 version of this story is much more interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZtfEDyTXiU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc8_dlrLUkY
 
Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-04-2009, 05:09 PM:
 
Speaking of old-school piracy, I've heard stories of guys renting out 16mm prints, making dupes of them, then sending the dupes back! [Big Grin]

Now *that* takes gall.
 
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-04-2009, 05:15 PM:
 
I personally think dumbing down and propaganda are two totally different evils. Above is propaganda and Phil nailed it with

quote:
I also found it super-interesting that CBS and Paramount are both subs/owned by the same whore "MOTHER" company!
Most news in either print or tv, aims for infotainment and simply reinforce your existing beliefs and values, never to teach or preach.

Often it is made to appear balanced between the (only) two popular points of view expressed by party politics. Dispite that on most issues there are really thousands of different points of view and rarely is anyting as simple as black or white but really more the shades of gray.

Now with the evils of the editor? Or is that the legal department's interference? Most of the more interesting facts seem to be removed from serious reporting due to the fear of being sued rather than being dumbed down for 12 year olds.

Thats my 2 cents worth, its based from my past experience working in the camera department of a tv station.

Noam Chomsky has an interesting documentry on the topic called "Manufacturing Consent" which I remember running in cinemas years ago.
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-04-2009, 05:42 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The X-rating is meant for stuff that's really happening. The NC-17 is for shocking stuff that's still being faked.
No. The NC-17 tag WOULD ALSO be for the stuff that's really happening, if the producers of those films cared to submit them to the board, because as Chris pointed out, there is no official "X" tag anymore.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Many TV stations and newspapers will not run any ads for movies rated NC-17. A NC-17 rating is a commercial death sentence for most movies.
Yeah. Pretty much my point. That's why IFC and other distributors ignore the MPAA's "thumb" completely. Why bother with them at all? Do you honestly believe they had any illusions about landing a picture like Antichrist at a Regal or a Carmike? As you correctly pointed out, they won't get any mainstream bookings. They will, however, get the Landmarks, the Laemmles, the Angelicas, the independents, the college circuits, and they will get to run ads in the New York and Los Angeles Times, the Village Voice, the Boston Phoenix, The Chicago Reader, LA Weekly (is that still going?) et. al., in addition to on-line coverage (TV stations and newspapers? How very passe). In short, they will reach and show the film to exactly the audience they want. And they will do so with no say from the MPAA or its' "thumb" whatsoever. So how was it they are being controlled by them?

quote:
Speaking of old-school piracy, I've heard stories of guys renting out 16mm prints, making dupes of them, then sending the dupes back! [Big Grin]
I used to work with a guy who took 35mm porn films out of the booth of the only triple-X theatre in town and took them somewhere overnight and made 16mm reduction prints from them. They looked like crap, but in the days before VHS, he did a good business.
 
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-04-2009, 06:28 PM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
Yeah. Pretty much my point. That's why IFC and other distributors ignore the MPAA's "thumb" completely. Why bother with them at all? Do you honestly believe they had any illusions about landing a picture like Antichrist at a Regal or a Carmike? As you correctly pointed out, they won't get any mainstream bookings.
By ignoring it, they are victims of it. They can't get wider exposure because they can't screen the film many places because they didn't submit it for rating (knowing that submitting it would brand it NC-17 and destroy ANY marketing opportunity). They may not have dreamed of Regal or Carmike, but there are plenty of independents who won't (or can't) take the chance on an unrated film, either. So, the filmmaker takes the lesser of two evils. If the ratings were applied more evenly, films like this would play more screens in more cities.

Simply put, ignoring the ratings system doesn't make it disappear, the indies are still suffering because of it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-04-2009, 06:31 PM:
 
They could have gotten around all the NC-17 vs. X nonsense if they had just created an "S" rating for sexual content, with an additional "ES" rating for explicit sex. Violence has to be obscenely over-the-top to get an NC-17 on its own; most very violent movies are still rated R.
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-04-2009, 06:41 PM:
 
Anslem, the point is, they don't care, they willfully ignore it, and this removes their victim-hood. They could have submitted a less graphic cut of the picture for a rating, either that or washed their hands of it entirely. Many adult oriented films play without ratings, from producers who accept the situation but don't want to have to water down their film to satisfy the board. They know full well what the marketing potential of these films are going in, and they accept it. Hard to be a victim when you understood what you were getting into going in.

A good example of this is John Cameron Mitchell's wonderful Shortbus, from 2006. Great film, but very sexually explicit, and no faking either. Both he and THINKFilm, the distributor behind it understood what the intentions were and what was going to be shown, and the limited bookings they would get. They went for it anyway, and made a fine movie, albeit one with an "all actors were over 18" board at the head.

Not everyone is willing to compromise and/or suck up to the MPAA to get a 3000 print release, thank God.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2009, 08:47 PM:
 
The NC-17 rating serves absolutely NO PURPOSE. The MPAA might as well have kept the X-rating and done nothing else. Cowards. Everyone understands what "X rating" means. NC-17 sounds needlessly complicated and yet serves no conceivable difference from the X-rating. There is no purpose for it other than what we thought it would be when introduced back in 1990.

BTW, I think anyone who can't tell the difference between a porn movie and a regular movie with realistic, yet simulated sex scenes is pretty damned stupid.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-04-2009, 09:22 PM:
 
The difference between "X" and "NC-17" is that X was never trademarked by the MPAA. Anyone can self-apply the X rating to his own film, regardless of content, without paying to have it rated by the MPAA.

By contrast, NC-17 cannot be self-applied, and can only be used when a film is rated by the MPAA with that designation.

Presumably, the idea was that producers of porn films would not pay to have them rated, and, thus, NC-17 would imply that the film is a legitimate non-pornographic release with adult content. Unfortunately, this was thwarted because the newspapers which had previously refused to carry advertisements for X-rated films extended the policy to NC-17, with the result that few mainstream exhibitors would book these films.

Not that this has anything to do with movie piracy.
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 11-06-2009, 10:17 AM:
 
quote: Aaron Garman

MPAA = Motion Picture Asswhipes of America.
Are you sure?
In his 1963 film "Irma la Douce" Billy Wilder had the pimp's union of Paris named MPPA (for Mec's Paris Protective Association) [Smile]
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-06-2009, 11:13 PM:
 
Must have missed that day of film class. [sleep]

AJG
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-06-2009, 11:59 PM:
 
In my opinion, the biggest weakness of the MPAA ratings system is that it treats Paranormal Activity and Erin Brockovich the same as Bruno and Borat. This one area does more to undermine the ratings system than anything else. Unless parents are watching movies like Borat or Bruno, they have a false idea of what an R rated movie is.

I also think the standards used to apply the ratings are out of date with modern society. They still put too much emphasis on the "F" word and there is no parallel to what kids have access to on cable.

As for piracy, I'm sick of hearing it used as justification to try and close the DVD release window. If they really want to make a dent in piracy, they need to put more emphasis in teaching kids that downloading content is illegal and basically the same as stealing. With today's teenagers having grown up in a post Napster world, they see downloading as totally normal and don't see anything wrong with it.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-07-2009, 12:58 AM:
 
Justin -- right on the money.

As much as we would like to think the "honor role" system is a goal all should strive after, the reality is, expecting people to do the right thing based solely on their inner sense of right and wrong is totally unrealistic. If that honor role concept would really work, even only 50% of the time, there might be a chance that kids wouldn't download and copy copyrighted material. But there is no chance this will work. How do I know this? Have you ever walked into the locker room of a police station? There are locks on all the lockers....in a POLICE STATION. Human nature says we will try to get away with stuff unless there are consequences. Stealing from via the internet is seen as without even the most remote spectre of capture or punishment.

Downloading music or movies from the internet will never be seen as "evil" because there is about zero to negative zero chance that there will be any consequences to the theft. You might as well think a kid who sees a $100 blowing in the wind in an open field won't pick it up and pocket it. He knows the chances are zilch that anyone knows he found the bill in the first place, and he doesn't see anyone being hurt by his theft and there are no consequences to his action.

There is no way internet piracy can be stopped unless there can be a way to easily and accurately identify the people who do it and there is punishment assigned to the action. In terms of recondition the minds of today's youth -- sorry to say, this generation is just lost when it comes to getting them to think watching or listening or sharing music or movies is a crime like shoplifting. They just don't and won't. And btw, bragging every chance the film companies get that it cost them 30 million dollars to make a move and they grossed 85 million in the first weekend isn't the way to teach youngsters that they are hurting people when they engage in piracy activities.

It will take at least another generation. maybe two to instill the concept that there are serious consequences for piracy and that there is a good chance that you will get caught. But that kind of detection and prosecution of individuals is nowhere near a reality and maybe never will be. What keeps most people from committing crimes is the severtiy of the punishment and the high possibility that the crime will be detected and punishment will be meeted out.

The way it is today, you are just expecting that people are going to always be on their best behavior in the privacy and security of their own homes. That's a pretty big piece of wishful thinking to swallow. Unless the major studios change the way they have set up the current distribution model with the relationship of theatrical release and ancillary video window, they best be resigned to give up that 6 billion every year.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-07-2009, 07:41 AM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
That's why IFC and other distributors ignore the MPAA's "thumb" completely. Why bother with them at all?
The public sure doesn't seem to bother with ratings much anymore. I was shocked to see 8 and 10 year olds in "Saw 6" last week. Any parent who would take their kid to see something like that...
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-07-2009, 08:56 AM:
 
It is important to keep in mind in this discussion that the self-described purpose of the ratings is to be an advisory to parents. The MPAA is contradicting themselves every time they get on one of their enforcement campaigns.

I the ratings fail to to meet their purpose. At best they are just a crutch for parents who don't want their kids to see a movie. Oh, it's rated blah blah blah so you can't go. Of course, since there are no actual standards, how can the adults know anything about a rating? Though I do love reading the little descriptions in the box they now have, always good for a chuckle. Really, it should be the parents job to know about the movie before approving or disapproving it for their children.

The MPAA likes to claim it is a success because so many people know about it, but name recognition and effectiveness or usefulness are not the same thing.

Indie distribs certainly don't release a lot of movies parents would even think about for their kids. Certainly if the movie has subtitles there is no reason in the world to pay to get it rated. When they do get things rated, they end up with totally mysterious results like The Fall, which would be a great movie for anyone 12 and over, getting an R rating.

The MPAA ratings - totally useless for 40 years!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-07-2009, 11:30 AM:
 
quote: Tim Reed
The public sure doesn't seem to bother with ratings much anymore. I was shocked to see 8 and 10 year olds in "Saw 6" last week. Any parent who would take their kid to see something like that...
Those were the same bad parents that took their kids on airplanes when they were infants. [Razz]
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-07-2009, 12:39 PM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
Have you ever walked into the locker room of a police station? There are locks on all the lockers....in a POLICE STATION.
The honor system doesn't really apply for a police station. Even if every police officer is an absolutely honorable person... criminals seem to come in an out of the station on a pretty regular basis.
 
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-16-2009, 11:32 AM:
 
I think it's pretty obvious the MPAA isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary. The rating system is meant to be a very broad generalization. The more important stuff is the specific content warnings the MPAA also provides - "strong graphic violence" and the like. Without the ratings system, people wouldn't even have a rough idea of what content a movie may include. We must have something, however general, to give our consumers an idea of the product.

quote: Aaron Garman
I'm also for a system that doesn't influence the art itself, but rather aids in helping a parent choose what films their kids may be ready for.
Therein lies the catch-22. If a parent is going to choose based on rating, then the studio is going to slide their content in that rating's favor to gain that parent's dollar. If a movie doesn't have a rating, the parent won't know if it is suitable for their kids.

I don't think the MPAA has anyone "under their thumb." Their boards are made up of real people representing a cross-section of the country. They show the movie to the people they've assembled and recommendations are made. It is an attempt at a fair, impartial system to rate movies, but with people being hired to make up these boards, you're going to have some differences.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2009, 12:10 PM:
 
"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is an excellent documentary film made in 2006 that is an expose' of the MPAA.
 
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 11-17-2009, 12:58 AM:
 
No ratings system is perfect. You may be able to improve the US system faster than we could improve the Australian one. Ours is government run and carries legal (financial) penalties.

Here, a cinema must display the correct rating on all posters and advertising including consumer advice.

A correct rating tag must be spliced to trailers.

The strange anomalies include the following;

A standee does not have to have a rating (apparently, everyone will see a poster but no one will notice a standee).

If we are showing something like Sense and Sensibility (rated G) which will not attract anyone under the age of 21, we can't sgow a trailer for Up (rated PG).

Yet, we can show a trailer for some pretty nasty stuff when we are screening one of the M-rated comic book films that won't bring in anyone over 16.

Because of a different protocol, we can book space on tv to show trailers that we can't show on our screen. Or we can show those trailers on a giant screen tv in the foyer.

Also, there is little opportunity to screen trailers for MA15+ or R features. So you can not give audiences an impression of the contents of such films. This can be a problem for the very, very sensitive who will think that Beautiful Kate (great film) sounds like a "nice" film but can't read any ads to warn them to get their tut-tuts ready.

But … back on topic, piracy will not stop until people are made aware that there will be no decent entertainment in the future if no one can make a living from it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-17-2009, 01:56 AM:
 
quote:
The MPAA likes to claim it is a success because so many people know about it,
There've been multitudes of surveys where the majority of people say the ratings are useful.

No, it's not perfect. Nothing would be.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2