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-...
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.
"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."
That's slightly different, because a customer could assume that eventually they could purchase a physical copy of a film. Neither Disney and Netflix were/are being customer-friendly here. If I want a physical copy of a TV show or film they created, I should be allowed to buy it.
It seems hard to square that with what seems to be Spielberg's real objection, which is that Netflix is diminishing the theatrical experience. He prioritizes that film experience over any other. It seems incoherent to make rules about home media in order to support theaters.
Yes, that was just me musing, not directly reacting to Spielberg. My comment is more sourced from copyright law principles (even though they obviously do not directly apply) than Spielberg's complaints. I'm not very invested in his opinions in any direction; he is welcome to them but his perspective and mine are very distant.
And by a similar token, it's totally reasonable to have a "must be viewable in a theatre" requirement, for the same reason. If you view going to a theatre essential to the experience of seeing a movie—even if it's an ephemeral opportunity—you should be able to set criteria based on that.
I wouldn't agree that's a similar requirement to the one I laid out; a critical aspect of what I said is the ability to archive, and, at least officially, you can't archive a theater presentation. Unofficially, of course, we (for suitable values of "we") have a taxonomy of terms for the precise type of theater-based archiving one can do. But I'd like to make the archive requirement publicly-available.
The rules already require that films are first publicly exhibited in a theatre, and so you are misrepresenting Spielberg's view. He, for some reason, doesn't want people to be able to see the movies on streaming services for some period after they are first shown in theatres. I don't quite understand the justification for wanted that though I have my guesses.
This is true, insofar as (it seems to me) Spielberg is specifying the wrong criteria.
However, if you believe that the theatre experience is critical to a film, I think it's also fair to be annoyed at what Netflix is doing. Only a select few have the ability to see Netflix's films in a theatre, because they're only released to a couple theatres in a handful of major cities.
I’d argue that the theatre limitation would be detrimental as it’s a entranched industry that has not been shown to be moving forward for a long time.
Cannes’ festival makes it an actual requirement to be shown in theaters, and I think it discredit lot of the prestige that it had, now that truely excelent pieces are tv only or streaming only. All the more so, showing in theatres has legal ramifications that go beyond art and movie making.
> We're not willing to give an award to a movie that may not be available in 50 years.
You know how at the end of every movie it has that MPAA registration number? The only way to get that is to submit a copy of the film to the MPAA for archiving. So they have a copy of every film. If the movie studio ceases to exist, they still have at least one copy.
In my own view, the people arguing that movies never available to the public in some archive-able format should be given secondary consideration kind of have a point. I've been to the Louvre. Several times. I've seen the Mona Lisa. So I can make my own judgement. But if someone in, say, 1525 said, "This is one of the greatest works of all time", and then locked it in a Vatican Vault for the next 500 years, I should be forgiven for being skeptical. (At least until 2025 when they brought it out from the vault. Whereupon I can make my own judgement.)
I'm not in the movie business at all, so I'm just a regular person, but I guess what I'm saying is, in 50 years, why do I have to just take the Academy's word that Film X is good? They'd be saying, "Trust us. We have a copy of it, and we've seen it. It's one of the best films ever." Which is fine. But why can't I get it and judge for myself? Why can't I get it show it to some friends and neighbors and talk about it? It's a legitimate issue in my view.
I see your point, but luckily there is a solution. This year the MPAA is opening a museum and supposedly will have an area where you can view any film that was ever made from their archive. It'll probably take a while to digitize it all, but at least there will be a way to view the movie if you happen to be in Los Angeles.
So, I was all with you folks on the "must be able to buy it outside subscription" requirement, but this example falls really flat. If you want to go the Louvre and see the Mona Lisa, you have to buy a ticket to see it for a day.
Netflix is selling tickets for like ten bucks to see Roma for a whole month.
I'm not in a position to find out right now or for the next several hours, so, open question to the house: do Netflix's in-house movies have those numbers already?
> 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.
But that's not the thing Spielberg, et. al. are saying disqualifies them. It's this vague idea that it's a "TV format" and something about amount of time in theaters:
> “Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie. You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar,” he said at the time. “I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.”
> you can't acquire a standalone copy of most of their content
That was the default for decades in film. Film schools had personal libraries students would schedule time to use. Home video changed that (which was fought against by the industry) and the original DVD Netflix changed that again for rare movies. I can see how that would affect your emotions but it has had little/no effect with the Academy Awards.
I actually think Spielberg would be ok with not allowing Apple, either. Years ago, when iTunes and iPod video started getting films, Spielberg said something like, "I didn't create these movies to be viewed on a tiny screen."
I haven't followed this too closely, but I get where Spielberg is coming from--although, I dunno if I agree with him that Emmys are better suited for Netflix (they have their own agenda). The Academy was built for the betterment of theatrical feature film. The whole point of the Academy Awards is to promote feature film. If Netflix is just doing the minimum to gain credibility for something that's not feature films, I can see why the Academy is not cool with that.
>I actually think Spielberg would be ok with not allowing Apple, either. Years ago, when iTunes and iPod video started getting films, Spielberg said something like, "I didn't create these movies to be viewed on a tiny screen."
So, in future movies he required a rider on the studio contract that they'd never be released on mobile phone or tablet platforms? He restricted himself to indie movies where he could ensure this artistic purity now that he has unlimited wealth to rest on?
See kahirsch's comment below—Spielberg believes in a distinction between media designed for large screens and media designed for small screens. He has made both types of media, and so clearly believes they both have merit, but thinks only the former—films for large screens—should be eligible for an Oscar.
> Is Spielberg going to feel the same about Apple's streaming service? Would he want his movies there excluded from the Oscars?
Yes.
“Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie,” he told ITV News in March 2018. “You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar. I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.”
Spielberg has produced many TV series and TV movies and has won 4 Emmy Awards.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Awards matter to the people making the movies, and if your work for Netflix will never be eligible for an award, it may make it harder for them to recruit top talent.
Which also answers the question of why this is a legitimate subject for antitrust enforcement. It's at least as relevant as, say, drug testing in professional baseball, which Congress has certainly wasted enough time on.
For analogy, what if the top 3 gaming publications ing the 90s (when Apple was struggling) refused to review Apple-only games, in part because Apple didn't buy ads in their magazines.
(Edit: The analogy is that they're not making it so you can't buy the games or the platform, but excluding it from the really credible praise.)
Is that evil? Is that legitimately within the scope of antitrust?
Edit: I actually don't know. I was going to agree with you until I thought of that comparison.
Not sure, but that might be subject to some kind of anti-cartel regulation? But if there are 3 top gaming publications, and only one of them refused to review Apple-only games, then I don't think intervention is justified.
I guess but it's ultimately unnessecary when the Oscars are dying without anybody else being involved. Seems like a massive waste of the Justice Departments resources with so many other problems that aren't working theirselves out. The Oscars were dethroned as the dominent movie rating platform by Rotten Tomatoes long ago.
There are also worse problems than the Netflix exclusion like the rampant nepotism and the very existence of "Oscar campaigns" where you can pay your way to oscar votes from people who never ever watched your film. Happens every single year.
Since Oscars has a marketing value, is entrenched among established producers in the field, and is perceived by the public to be open to what is considered to be a "movie", arbitrary changes to rules can certainly be seen as anti competitive practices - which many believe the government should care about.
While there certainly is other industries that would need similar attention, it's kind of low hanging fruit if you change you rules in a way that right now only prohibits a single company from entering. Especially when it's one many of the incumbents said colloquially, "Seems to have some beef with."
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.
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.
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?
A snarky attack on my professional ability is an excessive response to my offering another way of viewing the issue that your original comment had overlooked. This would be a case of first impression so no one has the answer. Not even you.
I appreciate your concern and I assure you my knowledge of antitrust law is plenty fresh.
But next time you're near a law library check out the Third Restatement of the Law of Unfair Competition. I helped write it.
My apologies. I did not realize you were Prof. Denicola or Perlman of the University of Nebraska College of Law...or one of their student assistants...
But my point stands. If you were involved in writing that treatise 23 years ago, you need to re-read your own research or get caught up on the case law since that 1995 treatise was published.
An award is an act of speech, not an act of trade, and is not subject to antitrust laws. Especially when that award is but one of many such awards, several of which also restrict Netflix films from eligibility on the same grounds.
Who says speech and trade are mutually exclusive? An Oscar nomination has demonstrable value in the market in the form of increased revenue.
And attorneys (not students) update the Restatement annually with commentary on recent cases that clarify/change the application of the rules.
But it's clear you're more interested in telling me I don't know what I'm talking about than you are in having an interesting discussion so I'll leave you to have a lovely Friday afternoon.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
68 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 561 ms ] threadI 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-...
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.
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."
That's slightly different, because a customer could assume that eventually they could purchase a physical copy of a film. Neither Disney and Netflix were/are being customer-friendly here. If I want a physical copy of a TV show or film they created, I should be allowed to buy it.
You see "ability for the public to see this movie in X years" as important for cinema.
Steven Spielberg sees "ability for the public to see this movie in a theatre" (at some point) as important for cinema.
Both are valid criteria.
However, if you believe that the theatre experience is critical to a film, I think it's also fair to be annoyed at what Netflix is doing. Only a select few have the ability to see Netflix's films in a theatre, because they're only released to a couple theatres in a handful of major cities.
Cannes’ festival makes it an actual requirement to be shown in theaters, and I think it discredit lot of the prestige that it had, now that truely excelent pieces are tv only or streaming only. All the more so, showing in theatres has legal ramifications that go beyond art and movie making.
You know how at the end of every movie it has that MPAA registration number? The only way to get that is to submit a copy of the film to the MPAA for archiving. So they have a copy of every film. If the movie studio ceases to exist, they still have at least one copy.
I'm not in the movie business at all, so I'm just a regular person, but I guess what I'm saying is, in 50 years, why do I have to just take the Academy's word that Film X is good? They'd be saying, "Trust us. We have a copy of it, and we've seen it. It's one of the best films ever." Which is fine. But why can't I get it and judge for myself? Why can't I get it show it to some friends and neighbors and talk about it? It's a legitimate issue in my view.
Netflix is selling tickets for like ten bucks to see Roma for a whole month.
The Louvre has a ticket for about $20. Here in the Chicago area, you can visit the Art Institute for $14, MOMA in New York is $25.
I guess the Smithsonian is free, but that's just my tax dollars already spent, really. ;)
I'm not in a position to find out right now or for the next several hours, so, open question to the house: do Netflix's in-house movies have those numbers already?
But that's not the thing Spielberg, et. al. are saying disqualifies them. It's this vague idea that it's a "TV format" and something about amount of time in theaters:
> “Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie. You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar,” he said at the time. “I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.”
That was the default for decades in film. Film schools had personal libraries students would schedule time to use. Home video changed that (which was fought against by the industry) and the original DVD Netflix changed that again for rare movies. I can see how that would affect your emotions but it has had little/no effect with the Academy Awards.
I actually think Spielberg would be ok with not allowing Apple, either. Years ago, when iTunes and iPod video started getting films, Spielberg said something like, "I didn't create these movies to be viewed on a tiny screen."
I haven't followed this too closely, but I get where Spielberg is coming from--although, I dunno if I agree with him that Emmys are better suited for Netflix (they have their own agenda). The Academy was built for the betterment of theatrical feature film. The whole point of the Academy Awards is to promote feature film. If Netflix is just doing the minimum to gain credibility for something that's not feature films, I can see why the Academy is not cool with that.
>I actually think Spielberg would be ok with not allowing Apple, either. Years ago, when iTunes and iPod video started getting films, Spielberg said something like, "I didn't create these movies to be viewed on a tiny screen."
So, in future movies he required a rider on the studio contract that they'd never be released on mobile phone or tablet platforms? He restricted himself to indie movies where he could ensure this artistic purity now that he has unlimited wealth to rest on?
Yes.
“Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie,” he told ITV News in March 2018. “You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar. I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.”
Spielberg has produced many TV series and TV movies and has won 4 Emmy Awards.
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?
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.
Watching a movie in a cinema vs watching it at home are different experiences. Its not just about what it was made for.
they probably shouldn't be involved, but my guess would be lobbying from Netflix.
(Edit: The analogy is that they're not making it so you can't buy the games or the platform, but excluding it from the really credible praise.)
Is that evil? Is that legitimately within the scope of antitrust?
Edit: I actually don't know. I was going to agree with you until I thought of that comparison.
There are also worse problems than the Netflix exclusion like the rampant nepotism and the very existence of "Oscar campaigns" where you can pay your way to oscar votes from people who never ever watched your film. Happens every single year.
While there certainly is other industries that would need similar attention, it's kind of low hanging fruit if you change you rules in a way that right now only prohibits a single company from entering. Especially when it's one many of the incumbents said colloquially, "Seems to have some beef with."
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.
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?
I appreciate your concern and I assure you my knowledge of antitrust law is plenty fresh.
But next time you're near a law library check out the Third Restatement of the Law of Unfair Competition. I helped write it.
But my point stands. If you were involved in writing that treatise 23 years ago, you need to re-read your own research or get caught up on the case law since that 1995 treatise was published.
An award is an act of speech, not an act of trade, and is not subject to antitrust laws. Especially when that award is but one of many such awards, several of which also restrict Netflix films from eligibility on the same grounds.
And attorneys (not students) update the Restatement annually with commentary on recent cases that clarify/change the application of the rules.
But it's clear you're more interested in telling me I don't know what I'm talking about than you are in having an interesting discussion so I'll leave you to have a lovely Friday afternoon.
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.
[Edited last sentence for further clarify.]
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.)
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.