Ethics of Critic Screeners

What are the agreements related to getting screeners? Does the critic agree not to show it to anybody?

If you want to hold yourself to the ethical obligation of your friend, or possibly "friend," that's what matters.

This is my favorite time of the year...because of the weather and cheer of course! Why bother yourself with the ethics of it? If you have a critic friend and they invite you over, watch the movie. You haven't stolen anything or committed any crime. There is nothing morally wrong with a friend treating you to a movie is there?

Agreed. Plus, you can't throw a fucking stick in L.A. without hitting a "screener party".

So essentially if you live in the right city or cities have the right friends, there's no ethical quandry.

...but if someone on the other side of the world isn't in the right city, doesn't have the right friends, downloads that screener and invites their friends over for a viewing, they're off to movie-watching hell.

That's what we're going with?

I don't believe in movie watching hell. If someone borrows a movie from the library or from a friend and a bunch of people sit around and watch it, is it wrong?

Unless you're dling the movie yourself who cares?

Because on the other side of the world, devoid of the right friends who have access to screeners and not living in the right city where screeners are readily available, the only way for a person and their friends to have access to that screener would be to download it in the first place.

So I'm wondering how much peoples thoughts of ethics are based around "well some get lucky and have access"=ethical and "some are unlucky and don't"=unethical.

RD, just to see if I'm following right, do you think it's wrong of me to go to a friend's apartment to watch Boardwalk Empire? If so, would it be because I'm not paying the cable bill or because there are wide swaths of the world where HBO is not available?

Honestly Schwartz I dunno where I fall on this. I just wonder why it's okay for people who know the right people to have access to screeners and that access is seen as ethical while the rest of us have access that's classed as unethical by many and how that works.

I guess I'm wondering how much of an ethical debate about this revolves around the luck of having the 'right kind' of access.

Again, I'm not trying to make a statement, I don't know where I fall on this to be honest, hence why I'm asking and trying to stimulate the discussion.

Well, it seems to me (in my basically screener-less existence) that the ethics are governed entirely by the terms on which they are distributed. I know that critics would be wrong to charge admission or to have screenings that are open to the public, but I base that on the assumption that they agree on at least that much before they receive them.

Making it about availability is just nuts. Are we supposed to be limiting ourselves to only taking advantage of opportunities that are available to everyone, everywhere on principle? By that logic, I'm in the wrong to avail myself of air travel, wireless internet, prescription medications, the public library or my mother's cooking.

But isn;t that more a matter of adhering to the law rather than being ethical?

No because it's not seen as unethical to do any of those things normally, watching a film that hasn't been released yet or that is only at cinemas - isn't that unethical? Sure it could be argued that a critic watching the film isn't unethical as they're giving something back to the makers in the form of a professional response or a vote to the Academy - but what about all their friends and neighbours they invite over? What are they giving back to the makers of the movie?

Like I said, I'm spit-balling here and thinking out loud. I have no firm position.

Again, it's really down to the agreement between the studio and the critic, and that's a matter of honesty and fair dealing. It could be that the studio agrees that the critic provides them enough value that their immediate family or even private guests are included in the privilege that is advanced screening. I really have no idea how it works in real life, but I'd guess it's limited to just the critic for simplicity's sake.

As for the audience in the such a case, it's hard to say. It seems like it kind of depends on whether they're intentionally trying to avoid paying for something that would be otherwise available or not. But that gets pretty nebulous rather quick.

I get screeners. Looking at a pile of 'em right now. Looking forward to popping in Black Swan in particular.

I'll invite people over, or invite myself over if the person has a good home system.

Some studios are more hardcore than others. Some want you to destroy the screener as soon as you've watched it.

I don't post 'em online. I don't sell 'em. I don't charge admission. I don't do anything, in other words, that would call bad attention to myself and make screeners no longer happen.

Mostly they come in cheap envelopes, and there's "property of" shit all over the picture. Occasionally you get a shrinkwrapped commercial copy (i.e., exactly what you'd get in the store), usually from Paramount, and usually something you already saw months ago in the theater. Last year it was Star Trek. This year it was Shutter Island. Those I usually donate to the library.

Then you get other shit like soundtracks or songs from a movie, or screenplay books. One year everyone got a little drum for The Visitor.

...but does 'calling bad attention' have anything to do with the ethical questions it raises or is that just not wanting to mess with a good thing?

The studios that want you to destroy their screeners Martin - do you acquiesce to their wishes? Surely the ethical suggestion of "destroy after watching" means the people that sent you that film don;t want anyone else to see it - do you invite people over for screenings of those ones?

I think it's more that they don't want screeners floating around that could theoretically be copied. In other words, when you're done, don't just toss it in the trash; put it in the shredder or break it or something.

I have screeners going back to 2007, but that's more because I'm lazy. God knows I haven't felt the need to watch Frost/Nixon again. Liked it, but not enough for repeat viewings. One of these days I'll cull the screeners and have a shred-fest.

As for the "bad attention" thing, yeah, that's only the practical part. If a studio's going to trust me with their material, I'm not going to screw them.

But we also get invites to screenings (that I can never get to, but that's a different story) and it's very often "you and a guest." When I hold my, I guess you could say, "private screenings," it's for me and the one other movie geek in town that I've known for decades; I don't invite, like, 20 people. So, to me, the "you and a guest" thing works for screeners as well as screenings. If they didn't want a civilian friend to see it with you, why would they be fine with you bringing someone to a screening?

For the record, this is typical wording (I'm copying it off a screener I happened to grab nearby):

"This screener is the property of Fox and is loaned to you, the member, for viewing by you for your awards consideration use only. It may be DIGITALLY WATERMARKED and TRACEABLE TO YOU. Do not copy, upload to the Internet, or publicly perform it. Do not loan, rent, sell or give it away. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted."

A lot of that seems to me to safeguard against the screener falling into other hands that might not treat it so ethically. Like, don't loan it to your sister's dumb boyfriend, because if he uploads it somewhere, it'll get traced back to you, not him, and you'll be fucked.

I don't really see anything there that forbids you to have a couple friends over. "Publicly perform it" is a different animal; like, don't have an auditorium or library screening for a bunch of strangers in a group larger than could fit into your living room, because someone could camcorder it and upload it, and it'll get traced back to you, yada yada.

For some reason this makes me think of someone dressing up and re-enacting the film via interpretive dance or something - and that makes me giggle.

But what folks are asking in the thread: why is it okay for you, dude I've known for years, to come over my crib and watch Black Swan, but not okay for you, dude I don't know who doesn't know any critics who get screeners, to watch Black Swan on the web?

I dunno. "Who you know" things are never fair, I guess.

Hey, you haven't lived till you've seen my Shutter Island.

Bingo - that's what my thoughts were orbiting. So if we can say "I guess stuff like that isn't fair", how can you claim one thing is ethical when another isn't, when the 'not fair' scenario is seen as the ethical one?

Here's what I've been saying for a while now.

These smaller films like Black Swan or 127 Hours that won't see the inside of a plex in Bumfuck, Flyover State, where Serious Film Buff is unlucky enough to live. The studios backing these things, after the Oscar nominations are announced, if those flicks are on the roster, should offer them online for, I dunno, $7 a pop. Something like that. Stream it, whatever. On-demand cable.

That way everyone who doesn't live near a big city can actually get to see nominated films that don't have a wide release, before Oscar night. This would mean more rooting interest in the nominees.

This is as likely to happen as The Human Centipede getting a 3,000-theater release while Transformers 3 gets platformed from 12 screens on opening day to a whopping 26, but hey.

Because the studio put the screeners out there intentionally for certain audiences, and not on the web for anyone to see.

Going by the language you posted, they clearly anticipate private screenings with more than just the original critic. It would've been very easy (easier even, than going through all the stuff about loaning and public viewings) to throw in there that no one but you, the member, should watch it.

It's not fair inasmuch as it isn't fair that some people have things while other people don't have things. That doesn't mean it's unethical for anyone to have things.

I mean, if you have a friend with a Mercedes and I don't, I guess you could call that unfair. It doesn't make it unethical for you to take a ride in it.

But does that make it unethical for you to torrent a Mercedes?

No, the fact that Mercedes doesn't make their vehicles legally available to torrent makes it unethical.

This is like if they were giving out cars to VIPs, under the condition that they don't turn around and sell/rent them out. That doesn't mean it's unethical for friends or strippers to accept rides in it.

I feel better now about inviting that stripper over to watch Restrepo.

While I see where you're coming from Schwartz I don't know if the Mercedes analogy entirely fits. A car is a functional tool that can be used over and over again, so once you've had your ride in it the owner can then go on to use that tool for its primary function indefinitely. A film is a piece of art and intellectual property and once you've watched the film your friend received as a screener presumably if you're like the vast majority of film viewers, you have no need to see it again. So I don't think 'riding in a friends car' translates.

Fine. It doesn't change the fact that the language Martin posted indicates the studios are putting these out there with the understanding that they will be screened privately to audiences of more than one.

Is it "unfair" that some people can see them while others can't? Sort of. They're a luxury item, and luxury items are not universally available/often given freely to the people who need them least. It's not comparable to torrenting at all, as the owners of the property don't make it available by those means in any legitimate fashion.

...but is 'ethical' in this case nothing more than 'what the studios by inference are okay with' or should there be a more objective, set idea of what the ethics of the situation are?

I guess what I'm asking is; just because the studios don't have a problem with a critic showing a screener to their nearest and/or dearest does that automatically make the act okay ethically?

Yes, of course, it's their property. Some people are fortunate enough to be in that position. That speaks nothing of the culture in LA where reproducing, swapping and sharing screeners is common practice. Those practices are, to varying degrees, unethical because they are unauthorized uses of unpublished works. ETA: I'm couching that last sentence in legal language, but the law tracks the ethics here.

If the owners of the property aren't bothered by it being shared in a certain way, what exactly would make it unethical?

So your question is, does acting within the ethical guidelines the owners of a product establish for the users constitute an ethical violation? No.

So there is no such thing as an objective set of universal ethics - they're purely subjective?

Yeah.

I feel like you're playing devil's advocate here, so I'm not sure whether or not you're really arguing a genuine position. Ethics are determined and enforced by society and as there are many societies there is no one universal set of ethics (and there are societies within societies, and societies within those). Of course similar ethical rules are found in many societies, and with the momentum for globalization and desire for global solidarity many ethical issues are enforced or pushed in areas that do not already adhere to them by the societies that wish to see them spread. The success of a universal set of ethics applied to all countries is only successful to the extent the entity enforcing them is willing to go to enforce them, and ultimately how much the society (group) which does not adhere to them is willing to adopt them.

I mean if you're point is they are hypocrites, there is a difference between the owner of a product sending a specific person a screener to watch, and a random person downloading the movie to watch. Is it unfair that some people don't have access to the product? Not really. It's not a product a human being should have a right to.

No, no point - or judgement for that matter - I'm trying to work this out myself so yeah, there's some definite advocating for the devil going on from my end.

Potential word of mouth?

See, I could see "publicly perform" be taken to mean "showing it to other people," even if it's in your living room while you're watching it.

I can see the appeal in debating this as a purely intellectual, philosophical exercise, but please don't tell me any of you guys seriously sit there wringing your hands and agonising over this kind of non-dilemma. A handful of people getting to see screeners on the sly is probably 'wrong' but the potential damage being done is so minute in the bigger picture. It's not like it's some out of control cancer that is killing cinema, and in practical terms I don't see it as worse than any of the numerous legal ways to watch movies that don't send direct compensation to the studios. Just buy a ticket later on if you feel that strongly about it.

If a film critic was given a screener, I don't see why he can't share it with others. So long as it is not done for profit.

And of course there's a difference between illegally downloading a movie and having a friend grant you access to a movie that he was given the consent to see.

When I was film critic for a local magazine, I wouldn't get screeners. But I would be invited to pre-release screenings. And I was allowed to bring a friend.

In my case, this whole issue is very murky. Because of the fact that original, factory-sealed DVDs and Blu Rays are near impossible to come by here in Bolivia. Official, licenced video rental houses sell you duplicates for the equivalent of 2 dollars.

Compare that to special ordering Iron Man 2 or Kick-Ass on Blu Ray for 50 dollars. In an economy where an average middle-class salary is between 400 and 500 dollars a month.

It's because of that that I don't really think about ethics. I, personally, don't pirate anything. But I don't really turn my nose up at the people who buy and sell these products. They don't have a choice.

Many movies don't get released theatrically here... I got to see The Fountain, way back when, because I got it from a local video store... I took it home to discover that it was a screener copy.

Clearly some of these people who receive screeners are profiting from them. And that is unethical and just plain wrong.

I am pro-screener. In 2003 a friend had RETURN OF THE KING as an Oscar screener, and we all watched it while the movie was still in theaters (after having gone to see it already). It was great fun and I didn't feel ethically compromised by the experience

So, A) No B) No C) No difference

"Publicly perform" means having a showing that is open to the public. If it's in your living room and by invitation only, it would be a private performance. Mentions of which are conspicuously absent in that disclaimer.

RD, I don't see how there's any murkiness about this. The ethical reason stealing is wrong is because it violates the owner's right to their property. If the owner consents to sharing it, it's not unethical to use it. This isn't any less plain to me if you throw "in a certain context" onto both ends of the last sentence.

No, AND GOD NO. Ethics are contextual, not subjective. And in any case, THERE IS A UNIVERSAL RULE HERE: Don't misappropriate other people's property.

Interesting thread. I'm surprised to see a consistent response to the question; a response that I completely disagree with.

This seems so crystal clear to me: A studio/production company sends a screener to a specific person for a specific purpose, and any performing of the material on that screener outside the bounds of the studio's purpose without specific approval is unethical. Period.

* It may not matter that much. The studio may not care that much. The WOM may actually do them a favor. All irrelevant, though, unless the studio tells you they don't care. It's their content; they decide.
* They may not have included TOS language specifically covering all potential non-authorized uses, but they shouldn't have to. The screener was sent for a specific purpose, you know exactly what that purpose is, and everything else is off the table even if they didn't specifically mention it.
* The current climate, in general, is that content creators determine how they want to get paid for their content. With movies, they are usually paid per ticket for theatrical releases, per unit sold for home video, and per channel contract for TV display. So it is unethical for your buddy to come over to watch a screener and not pay back the content creator through one of their approved ways. The fact that it happens a lot anyway doesn't mean it's okay, it just means that the studio can't be everywhere at all times. The fact that PK and her buddies already bought a ticket once: irrelevant. If it's in theaters only, then the content creator has determined that you need to buy a ticket for each viewing. The fact that you feel the ticket or disk is expensive is your problem; if you decide you don't want to pay for something, it doesn't mean you have some predetermined right to own it. It's movies about dudes in costumes smashing each other we're talking about, not penicillin.

Anyway, I'm clearly in the minority here.

Sort of parenthetically, I am grateful that I'm not trying to make a living through the creation of material that can be easily reproduced. What's consistently clear is that whether it's movies, games, software, music, books, whatever... if you want to sell something that can be easily copied, there are loads of people who are going to decide on their own what/if they will pay. Your rights, your investment, and your requirements mean nothing.

Bruce, do you think it's unethical for me to watch HBO at my friend's house? The network has set a clear price for access to the content, which I do not pay, and nothing in his subscription contract specifically authorizes him to invite me over to view it.

Schwartz, I don't think it's unethical to watch TV at other people's houses.

I'd like to see a copy of the subscription contract. Did you actually read it before making your post? And you are saying that there is no language in there that could in any way be interpreted to allow people to come over and watch the channel? I'm amazed that in the space of 75 minutes between posts you got your hands on your friend's HBO subscription terms of service. That's dedication to Internet discussion!

I'd also be interested in your thoughts about how a question about a paid television channel has anything to do with the topic about a free movie screener sent to someone with the following language: "This screener is the property of Fox and is loaned to you, the member, for viewing by you for your awards consideration use only."

It's not stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family. Of course they have a choice. It's not a right to be able to enjoy this entertainment.

If I was a kid, and I wasn't old enough to legally buy a copy of Playboy and I shoplifted one. Is that ok? Because I "don't have a choice"? SUre I do. I can use Mom's Victoria Secret catalogue, Scinemax, and my imagination instead.

And before I get called a hypocrite. Maybe I did lift a copy of a certain magazine from some undisclosed location. Maybe I didn't.

EDIT: And working video stores (Blockbuster, Suncoast) for many years in the past... we received screeners all the time. I didn't rent them to the public, but I never worried about who saw them at my house. Ever. Till now. Am I a bad guy???

They have a choice as to how to make a living? Absolutely. Instead of selling bootleg dvds, they can sell bootleg blue jeans.

But that's not really what I meant.

By "choice" I was referring to the market itself. And the fact that people are forced to consume pirated material because there's nothing else available.

The choice would be: Don't buy dvds and never watch movies ever again unless it plays at the local theater or you're lucky enough to catch it on TV.

Just to be clear, I am fortunate enough that I can afford to buy original dvds and special order stuff. But I don't represent 85% of the population.

Bruce, I was just making a point. When you give control of your property to someone else, you are giving them the authority to use and share it how they see fit. Unless you limit the terms of use in the transfer agreement, which the screener language does, but not to the extent that it limits it to only the critic's eyes. If that were the intended effect, it would be as simple as changing "by you" to "by you and only you" and "publicly perform" to "publicly or privately perform". Any first semester law student could suggest those changes at a glance, and I'm assuming that quite a few trained professionals went over went the language more than once and decided against it.

Just to reiterate, this is all theoretical for me, since the only experience I have with screeners is one German horror DVD I just watched for a Chud review, and I doubt anyone I know would be terribly interested in seeing it anyway. But this part :

would seem to suggest that it is wrong for me to watch a friend's TV. HBO/AMC/Whatever have set a clear price for their product through legal channels, which I have declined. I have no inalienable right to see a new episode of Mad Men, and no intention of compensating the content creator for the privilege. Does that oblige me to leave the room when it's playing? Is it okay for me to catch part of it incidentally if I'm there for another purpose, but wrong if my sole motivation for going there is to avoid the subscription fee established for the product?

Dude, not at all. This entire thread is theoryspace... the studios clearly don't give a rats ass about some dude showing screeners to their friends. Its a non issue in real life even while being an interesting thing to discuss.

I was mainly talking about the consumer. "Forced to consume"? They have a choice. See my Playboy example.

Many foreign country's film industries have blossomed due to stringent import laws/costs.

Tricky thing is... much of regular TV's revenue comes from advertising. So, the more eyeballs on those commercials, the better. The pay channels, however...? Is it analgous to "stealing cable"?

What about pay-per-view parties? Does the big fee "excuse" or even "demand" a larger home audience?

There's also the fact that even with something like Mad Men, we fast forward past all the commercials anyway. That can't be the deciding factor, though, can it?