9 ms·

Justice Department Warns Academy over Oscar Rule Changes Threatening Netflix

67 points by rainhacker 8y ago

joekrill 8y ago
I just don't understand how Spielberg and others can argue that there is some appreciable difference between a "TV Movie" and "Real(?) Movie". Except for maybe historical reasons? But they just don't make sense any more. Is there really any major difference in the way a movie is created, acted in, etc? People would find it absolutely ridiculous if, when CDs were introduced, the Grammys said "Well, we only count cassette sales - you'll need your own reward show for CDs". It's effectively the same thing, isn't it?
- sampleinajar 8y ago
  Probably more like if Spotify became a record label, controlled the entire process of an artist and only allowed access to artist's songs on their platform. It's not just the media that is changing. The entire process is disrupted. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just a more apt comparison than Cd and Cassettes.
- pfranz 8y ago
  The academy of motion picture arts and sciences was formed for theatrical motion pictures. The Academy Awards was created specifically to promote theatrical motion pictures. If I got the summary of Spielberg's letter correct, the Emmys were designed to promote Television works. Sure, you can say that's historical and they're out of touch. But he's on the board for that organization and that's their goal. Those lines might not be there for the average person, but the organizations (and flow of money) is still structured that way. Netflix is doing the minimum to co-opt the prestige of the Academy Academy (which, everyone knows is a joke but still take seriously) so they can take that prestige to promote their own streaming service.
- anoncake 8y ago
  CDs are, in a way, just better cassettes. The exact UI is different, but in both cases, you have a physical storage medium which you play back using a CD/cassette player. Watching a movie in a cinema vs watching it at home are different experiences. Its not just about what it was made for.
chomp 8y ago
Is Spielberg going to feel the same about Apple's streaming service? Would he want his movies there excluded from the Oscars? I don't have much sympathy for Netflix since you can't acquire a standalone copy of most of their content (TV yes, but I believe to date they've yet to release an original movie on physical media) - you must subscribe to watch the videos. They sort of release in theaters, sometimes, whenever they feel like it, but the majority of their content is locked into their platform. I feel like Netflix would love for there to be zero requirements to show their movies in theaters. On the other side though, Spielberg is well invested into Hollywood production, and it seems clear that he wants the Academy to shut out a huge competitor. For some reason, I don't take anything he's saying as genuine concern of film. EDIT: I just thought about it. I feel like he's possibly trying to protect standard exclusivity agreements. Check out a related story when Netflix started a simultaneous release agreement with IPic: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-netflix-ipic-20161005-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-... The movie industry relies on theaters (and then royalties/physical media sales to a lesser extent) to make money on their content. The theater industry wants exclusive release windows. Netflix doesn't have either of these problems, and that's a threat to the standard business model of the movie industry. So I feel like that's why he's trying to push for a staggered release for Netflix, so that Netflix has to be encumbered by the same business model he deals with.
- jerf 8y ago
  "I don't have much sympathy for Netflix since you can't acquire a standalone copy of any of their content - you must subscribe to watch the videos." A requirement that it must be commonly and reasonably purchaseable as stand-alone content on some reasonable schedule wouldn't necessarily be out of line. "You want to win an award, you must put it out in a format that it can be legally archived outside of your particular walled garden. We're not willing to give an award to a movie that may not be available in 50 years."
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Sounds like a pragmatic and sensible suggestion,
threatofrain 8y ago
> The letter came in response to reports that Steven Spielberg, an Academy board member, was planning to push for rules changes to Oscars eligibility, restricting movies that debut on Netflix and other streaming services around the same time that they show in theaters. Netflix made a big splash at the Oscars this year, as the movie “Roma” won best director, best foreign language film and best cinematography.
tacomonstrous 8y ago
While I'm sympathetic to Netflix, I'm not sure I understand why the government is involved in deciding who should be eligible for the Academy awards.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  The DOJ would almost certainly lose any lawsuit they filed on this. The Academy Awards is an industry group. It has no monopoly on movie awards. Their are no fewer than 6 major movie awards during the awards seasons, and dozens of less prestigious awards. The Academy has only a monopoly on its own awards, and any interference in that would almost certainly violate the First Amendment. The Academy is within its rights to control the eligibility requirements for its awards. If Netflix doesn't like that, they can fudge off and create the Streamies, recognizing excellence in movies made for streaming services.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're right that the Academy Awards don't have a monopoly so they're unlikely to succeed by arguing the Academy is exercising market power to gain/maintain a monopoly. However, this is a group of movie producers, who are usually competitors, working together to completely exclude a new participant (and new competitor) from the market for the most significant movie award. That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation. That's very clearly not a cartel under the Sherman Act...nor is it an antitrust violation to deny them an award. An Oscar award is not a market activity, so restricting eligibility for a trade award is not a restraint of trade. Might be time to take a refresher CLE course on antitrust law?
      - elliekelly 8y ago
the_watcher 8y ago
Spielberg's efforts are ridiculous and transparently self-serving, but how is there an anti-trust case here? Awards like this are given by private organizations who can set their own criteria. Not being eligible for an Oscar doesn't stop films from being made.
- lostmyoldone 8y ago
  I believe the issue is that Oscars is perceived in a way by the public that could make it anti competitive to exclude certain film makers, especially if rules change so they just happen to match exactly one company, one which is seen as a threat to the status quo by at least some of the incumbents. Essentially, if you claim to hold a competition open to everyone fulfilling certain criteria, and it becomes valuable due to marketing ( competition ) to participate, then you will have to accept some government scrutiny of rule changes to ensure they are not anti competitive.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- lr 8y ago
  Exactly! And it also does not stop Netflix from playing by the MPAA's rules, which have requirements for showing the film in a theatre for a given period of time. Newcomers love to throw out the "rules" (or outright knowingly facilitate the breaking of laws) that have been in place for generations, which have made industries possible and to thrive (like, in this case, the relationship between the studios, distributors, and theatre operators). Yes, times have changed, but the MPAA allowing Netflix to bypass the rules will do the same thing to movie theaters that Uber and Lyft have done to cab companies.
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    Except Netflix is actually following the rules from what I’ve read. They’re releasing the movies in theaters for the minimum amount of time required: a week. If they wanted to make it harder for Netflix, make better rules
lr 8y ago
The Academy Awards are for "movies" that are to be projected onto a screen in a movie theatre. Netflix has chosen to not play by the rules that govern that way of distributing a film. There is no antitrust in this case. Now, if the MPAA made agreements with theatre operators to prevent Netflix from showing its movies in any movie theatre (which would then disqualify Netflix from being eligible for an Oscar), then that would be antitrust. [Edited last sentence for further clarify.]
- fmajid 8y ago
  As the article mentions, the movies were shown in theaters precisely to make them eligible for the Oscars.
IronWolve 8y ago
If apple and google can deny competitors from using their stores, Why can't Hollywood deny streaming services?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  A combination in restraint of trade takes more than one participant. Hollywood is more than one participant.
- anoncake 8y ago
  Apple and Google being allowed to act anti-competitively does not imply that they should be, and it does not mean that Hollywood should be.
  - fmajid 8y ago
    And the EU is investigating both Google and Apple's app store monopolies.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I find it hugely ironic that the Department of Justice has refused so far to step in on Google, Amazon, or Apple, as they harm the entire population, but is willing to step in and demand that Netflix be able to win awards for it's movies. Which is to say, whoever's running antitrust at the DOJ must've really loved Roma. (I do, as a note, believe Netflix movies should be eligible, I just think the DOJ's priorities are incredibly derailed here.)
- gbear605 8y ago
  The idea is that the Oscars have a monopoly on film awards, but Apple and Google don’t have a monopoly on app stores. Now that’s very debatable, but the EU is investigating both them, so we’ll see what happens.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
RickJWagner 8y ago
I am in favor of anything that disrupts Hollywood. It's full of prima donnas, run by the likes of Harvey Weinstein, and entirely too self-important. If Netflix rocks the boat, more power to them.

67 points by rainhacker 8y ago

I just don't understand how Spielberg and others can argue that there is some appreciable difference between a "TV Movie" and "Real(?) Movie". Except for maybe historical reasons? But they just don't make sense any more. Is there really any major difference in the way a movie is created, acted in, etc? People would find it absolutely ridiculous if, when CDs were introduced, the Grammys said "Well, we only count cassette sales - you'll need your own reward show for CDs". It's effectively the same thing, isn't it?

sampleinajar 8y ago
Probably more like if Spotify became a record label, controlled the entire process of an artist and only allowed access to artist's songs on their platform. It's not just the media that is changing. The entire process is disrupted. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just a more apt comparison than Cd and Cassettes.
pfranz 8y ago
The academy of motion picture arts and sciences was formed for theatrical motion pictures. The Academy Awards was created specifically to promote theatrical motion pictures. If I got the summary of Spielberg's letter correct, the Emmys were designed to promote Television works. Sure, you can say that's historical and they're out of touch. But he's on the board for that organization and that's their goal. Those lines might not be there for the average person, but the organizations (and flow of money) is still structured that way. Netflix is doing the minimum to co-opt the prestige of the Academy Academy (which, everyone knows is a joke but still take seriously) so they can take that prestige to promote their own streaming service.
anoncake 8y ago
CDs are, in a way, just better cassettes. The exact UI is different, but in both cases, you have a physical storage medium which you play back using a CD/cassette player. Watching a movie in a cinema vs watching it at home are different experiences. Its not just about what it was made for.

chomp 8y ago

Is Spielberg going to feel the same about Apple's streaming service? Would he want his movies there excluded from the Oscars? I don't have much sympathy for Netflix since you can't acquire a standalone copy of most of their content (TV yes, but I believe to date they've yet to release an original movie on physical media) - you must subscribe to watch the videos. They sort of release in theaters, sometimes, whenever they feel like it, but the majority of their content is locked into their platform. I feel like Netflix would love for there to be zero requirements to show their movies in theaters. On the other side though, Spielberg is well invested into Hollywood production, and it seems clear that he wants the Academy to shut out a huge competitor. For some reason, I don't take anything he's saying as genuine concern of film. EDIT: I just thought about it. I feel like he's possibly trying to protect standard exclusivity agreements. Check out a related story when Netflix started a simultaneous release agreement with IPic: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-netflix-ipic-20161005-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-... The movie industry relies on theaters (and then royalties/physical media sales to a lesser extent) to make money on their content. The theater industry wants exclusive release windows. Netflix doesn't have either of these problems, and that's a threat to the standard business model of the movie industry. So I feel like that's why he's trying to push for a staggered release for Netflix, so that Netflix has to be encumbered by the same business model he deals with.

jerf 8y ago
"I don't have much sympathy for Netflix since you can't acquire a standalone copy of any of their content - you must subscribe to watch the videos." A requirement that it must be commonly and reasonably purchaseable as stand-alone content on some reasonable schedule wouldn't necessarily be out of line. "You want to win an award, you must put it out in a format that it can be legally archived outside of your particular walled garden. We're not willing to give an award to a movie that may not be available in 50 years."
- Angostura 8y ago
  Sounds like a pragmatic and sensible suggestion,

threatofrain 8y ago

> The letter came in response to reports that Steven Spielberg, an Academy board member, was planning to push for rules changes to Oscars eligibility, restricting movies that debut on Netflix and other streaming services around the same time that they show in theaters. Netflix made a big splash at the Oscars this year, as the movie “Roma” won best director, best foreign language film and best cinematography.

tacomonstrous 8y ago

While I'm sympathetic to Netflix, I'm not sure I understand why the government is involved in deciding who should be eligible for the Academy awards.

gamblor956 8y ago
The DOJ would almost certainly lose any lawsuit they filed on this. The Academy Awards is an industry group. It has no monopoly on movie awards. Their are no fewer than 6 major movie awards during the awards seasons, and dozens of less prestigious awards. The Academy has only a monopoly on its own awards, and any interference in that would almost certainly violate the First Amendment. The Academy is within its rights to control the eligibility requirements for its awards. If Netflix doesn't like that, they can fudge off and create the Streamies, recognizing excellence in movies made for streaming services.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You're right that the Academy Awards don't have a monopoly so they're unlikely to succeed by arguing the Academy is exercising market power to gain/maintain a monopoly. However, this is a group of movie producers, who are usually competitors, working together to completely exclude a new participant (and new competitor) from the market for the most significant movie award. That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    That's very clearly a cartel under the Sherman Act and very clearly an antitrust violation. That's very clearly not a cartel under the Sherman Act...nor is it an antitrust violation to deny them an award. An Oscar award is not a market activity, so restricting eligibility for a trade award is not a restraint of trade. Might be time to take a refresher CLE course on antitrust law?
    - elliekelly 8y ago

the_watcher 8y ago

Spielberg's efforts are ridiculous and transparently self-serving, but how is there an anti-trust case here? Awards like this are given by private organizations who can set their own criteria. Not being eligible for an Oscar doesn't stop films from being made.

lostmyoldone 8y ago
I believe the issue is that Oscars is perceived in a way by the public that could make it anti competitive to exclude certain film makers, especially if rules change so they just happen to match exactly one company, one which is seen as a threat to the status quo by at least some of the incumbents. Essentially, if you claim to hold a competition open to everyone fulfilling certain criteria, and it becomes valuable due to marketing ( competition ) to participate, then you will have to accept some government scrutiny of rule changes to ensure they are not anti competitive.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
lr 8y ago
Exactly! And it also does not stop Netflix from playing by the MPAA's rules, which have requirements for showing the film in a theatre for a given period of time. Newcomers love to throw out the "rules" (or outright knowingly facilitate the breaking of laws) that have been in place for generations, which have made industries possible and to thrive (like, in this case, the relationship between the studios, distributors, and theatre operators). Yes, times have changed, but the MPAA allowing Netflix to bypass the rules will do the same thing to movie theaters that Uber and Lyft have done to cab companies.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Except Netflix is actually following the rules from what I’ve read. They’re releasing the movies in theaters for the minimum amount of time required: a week. If they wanted to make it harder for Netflix, make better rules

lr 8y ago

The Academy Awards are for "movies" that are to be projected onto a screen in a movie theatre. Netflix has chosen to not play by the rules that govern that way of distributing a film. There is no antitrust in this case. Now, if the MPAA made agreements with theatre operators to prevent Netflix from showing its movies in any movie theatre (which would then disqualify Netflix from being eligible for an Oscar), then that would be antitrust. [Edited last sentence for further clarify.]

fmajid 8y ago
As the article mentions, the movies were shown in theaters precisely to make them eligible for the Oscars.

IronWolve 8y ago

If apple and google can deny competitors from using their stores, Why can't Hollywood deny streaming services?

dragonwriter 8y ago
A combination in restraint of trade takes more than one participant. Hollywood is more than one participant.
anoncake 8y ago
Apple and Google being allowed to act anti-competitively does not imply that they should be, and it does not mean that Hollywood should be.
- fmajid 8y ago
  And the EU is investigating both Google and Apple's app store monopolies.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I find it hugely ironic that the Department of Justice has refused so far to step in on Google, Amazon, or Apple, as they harm the entire population, but is willing to step in and demand that Netflix be able to win awards for it's movies. Which is to say, whoever's running antitrust at the DOJ must've really loved Roma. (I do, as a note, believe Netflix movies should be eligible, I just think the DOJ's priorities are incredibly derailed here.)
gbear605 8y ago
The idea is that the Oscars have a monopoly on film awards, but Apple and Google don’t have a monopoly on app stores. Now that’s very debatable, but the EU is investigating both them, so we’ll see what happens.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

RickJWagner 8y ago

I am in favor of anything that disrupts Hollywood. It's full of prima donnas, run by the likes of Harvey Weinstein, and entirely too self-important. If Netflix rocks the boat, more power to them.