If someone were to get caught illegally recording a movie in New York City today, he would get charged with a violation (like a speeding ticket) and hit with, at most, a $250 fine. Not much of a deterrent, I daresay, for folks who make a criminal enterprise out of making and selling bootlegs. Furthermore, only the folks actually in the theater with the camcorder would get in trouble -- everyone else, like the people doing the selling, get off scot-free, assuming they're not breaking any other laws.

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was joined Monday by Tina Fey and a couple of other movie types for the unveiling of the "Piracy Protection Act," which would make piracy either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on whether you're a first-time or repeat offender, and punish it with actual, y'know, jail time (up to a year for first-timers). They're hoping to have the law in place within the month. So, uh, if you're in New York City and you're planning to bootleg something, I'd recommend doing it now.

This law is obviously a result of movie industry lobbying, as evidenced by MPAA president Dan Glickman standing by Cuomo's side at the press conference. Does the new punishment fit the crime? Will harsher punishments make a difference? (I'm not so sure -- especially not if New York law enforcement doesn't dedicate more effort to actually ferreting out the bootleggers.) And are you surprised to hear that up until now people could record movies with virtual impunity, even if they got caught?

ed note: Corrected Attorney General's name

I find it kind of interesting -- no, funny, actually -- that while tons of movie fans were down in Austin for SXSW, enjoying the greatest cinema experience available, at the Alamo Drafthouse (Ritz and South Lamar), exhibitors from all over the country were piling into Las Vegas for ShoWest, the annual convention and trade show, where discussion and conversation often turns to the question, "how can we make moviegoing a better experience and, more importantly, a more lucrative business?"

Maybe some of the suits should have made the trip to SXSW instead, had a beer and a burger (ahem, a Royale with Cheese), and started lobbying their districts, if need be, to begin following the business model of the Alamo. I know that in my state of New York, it's not technically legal to serve alcohol in a cinema, but surely it is part of some antiquated law that needs to be adjusted (like how technically you're not allowed to dance at many bars in NYC).

To quote an official MPAA movie ratings poster: "THE SYSTEM CAN'T WORK UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM."

How many NC-17-rated films did you see in the theater in the past year? Maybe one? That is if Ang Lee's Lust, Caution even played in your 'hood. And considering the most screens it ever played on in any single week was 143, I highly doubt it (understandably, it could have played in more than 143 locations over the course of its 20 weeks in theaters, but I doubt many more).

But if there had been more NC-17-rated films, and they actually played near you, would you have gone to see them? And if so, why? Because you expect something more titillating than the other releases to choose from? And if not, why? Are you afraid of others thinking you are going to see something dirty? Are you embarrassed about both attending and watching graphic sex on screen? Do you correlate the experience to going to a porno theater?

"A friend hooked me up with it." This is what a fifth-grade teacher told his class right before he showed them a bootlegged copy of Shrek the Third. And he may have even gotten away with it if one of his female students didn't run home and write Dan Glickman a scathing email. Okay, I'm kidding -- but she did tell her father what had happened, and he subsequently told MSNBC that he is pissed -- not because his daughter was shown an illegal bootleg of a film still in theaters -- but because the teacher in question was actually screening this film in replace of whatever the lesson plan should've been for that day. And I whole-heartily agree.

The school, located in Peekskill, New York, is currently investigating the issue, and Superintendent Judith Johnson issued a statement saying that, essentially, it is against school policy to show a pirated video. No word yet on what will happen to the teacher, Lovell Quiroz, but personally I feel he should be sent to some sort of moron jail. I mean, c'mon dude -- was it that important for you to look "cool" in front of a bunch of fifth graders? Next week, during show and tell, will you pass around that bag of pot your friend hooked you up with as well? And it's actually quite comical, because this is exactly where I think the MPAA should be focusing a lot of their efforts. In a couple of years these kids will be wizards of the online world (if they aren't already), and they'll most certainly learn how and where to download illegal movies. If you want my opinion, the MPAA should set up some sort of program where actors (or what have you) travel around to different elementary schools to talk about the disadvantages of movie pirating. Get to these kids while they're still young and naive.

And as far as this teacher goes, I'm not sure what should happen to him. Should the guy lose his job over this? Should he be given a warning? If you were the parent of a child who was in that classroom, what type of penalty would you suggest?

MPAA leader Dan Glickman had a lot more to say about the ratings system this week during the ShoWest film exhibition and distribution convention. As you remember, the MPAA unveiled revisions to its system earlier this year, and since then it has had to continually explain, clarify, defend and fine tune its changes due to confusion and dissatisfaction. One thing that continues to be unclear, though, is if the MPAA is more interested in removing the stigma of the NC-17 rating or in altering the perception that an R-rated film is perfectly suitable for all ages. On Thursday the Classification and Ratings Administration, which operates the ratings system for the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), revealed a new advisory for the R rating that it hopes will be a better warning to parents. It will read: "Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures."

Additionally, some theater chains are looking to go further and ban very young children from R-rated movies, a practice already observed by many art house cinemas. NATO head John Fithian also spoke about the ratings system at ShoWest, and it is apparent that theater owners have their own ideas regarding the subject. First he stressed the importance of having theatrical releases rated by the MPAA in order to perform well. Even though the NC-17 rating has a stigma attached, movies released with that rating earn more money than those released without a rating. He also claimed that without the ratings system we'd possibly have to deal instead with a government-run system of censorship.

Finally he made a request for Hollywood to stop releasing special unrated editions of DVDs -- or at least stop marketing them as being better because they are uncensored. He said that this practice undermines the authority and purpose of the ratings, plus it emphasizes the idea that for some movies it is better to avoid the theater and to wait for the more complete DVD. I guess we'll have to see if the studios abide by this request, but just be warned there may only be one version of Knocked Up, so you might as well just go see it in the theater. Grindhouse, on the other hand, will probably need an unrated DVD no matter what.

According to an article in today's Variety, MPAA chairman Dan Glickman is trying to find a new rating that will group together the movies that currently tip the dirtier scale of the R-rating -- the 'hard R' films that contain copious amounts of nudity, the f-word every three seconds, or gruesome torture-horror imagery, for instance. The move is apparently being motivated by outraged parents who can't believe what is allowed under today's R-rating and demand there be something new between PG-13 and R to let parents know whether they are allowing their teenage children to see a 'soft R' or a 'hard R.' The article reminds us that this debate has been had over and over throughout the years, and that X-rated films like Midnight Cowboy even won Academy Awards before the rating was 'overtaken' by the adult film industry.

The MPAA is also under pressure from the studios to get rid of the NC-17 rating, because its association with heavy sexual content has made it almost worthless -- Blockbuster refuses to carry any DVDs rated NC-17, for example. Many daily newspapers also refuse ads for NC-17 films, even though unrated films with similar content can sometimes skirt by, the article notes. Cinematical recently interviewed Kirby Dick, director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, about the pros and cons of the current ratings system, if you want to know more.

Forget about whether or not the MPAA is actually making improvements to the film ratings system. You can believe that it is, or you can believe that it isn't. The important thing is that the board should be communicating more clearly to moviegoers the point of film ratings and the reasons for a film being rated what it is rated. The worse thing for independent cinema is not that films may unfairly receive an NC-17 rating; it is that the public misunderstands the NC-17 rating. This problem is still mostly the fault of the MPAA, along with the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO). Fortunately, the MPAA may be finally acknowledging this.

Last week, when the MPAA's ratings revision proposal was announced, there was mention of a plan to provide more specific descriptors for R-rated films, addressing whether they are more or less inappropriate for children. I wrote hopefully that this was a plan to steer away from the poisonous NC-17 rating. But in his official declaration of the new policies, Dan Glickman stated the opposite. The MPAA, he said, would like the world to love and embrace the NC-17.

Some of us were pretty excited yesterday after hearing that the MPAA and NATO (and CARA) is reforming the film ratings policies, procedures and practices. But two people aren't buying the whole "change" part of the announcement. This Film is Not Yet Rated director Kirby Dick and producer Eddie Schmidt have released a statement saying that they are grateful their documentary has put uncredited pressure on the MPAA, but that they see through the B.S. of the ratings revisions, calling all but one "cosmetic."

For each supposed "change" to the system, Dick and Schmidt gave a response that exposes the real meaning, and explain the continuing problems with the ratings system despite the MPAA's claim that things will be more fair and honest from now on. It is great that we are getting such quick commentary from these guys, since they are the experts on the issue (as much as any documentary filmmaker is an expert of their subject). Such a public reaction also can't hurt the guys with regards to their upcoming DVD release.

Check out the responses (lifted from the official press release) after the jump ...

One year ago, the MPAA's film ratings system was exposed for being unfair and inconsistent. This was thanks primarily to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which screened at Sundance. Now, without acknowledging that film's possible influence on the decision, the MPAA is announcing a change in the ratings process and procedures. A campaign is set to begin at Sundance on Monday, when Dan Glickman will be joined with Classifications & Ratings Administration head Joan Graves to officially go over the revisions.

Variety has the list of changes, which includes the decision to publicly post the standards that must be met to receive a particular rating. Also added to the appeals process is an allowance for a filmmaker to compare his film's content with another lower-rated film's content in order to make a consistency argument. Other parts of the revision include a description of the still-anonymous ratings board members and new rules for the eligibility of those members.

Last week another anti-piracy raid was conducted, this one in the Philippines, and it could have been a lot like the action scenes I've been imagining the MPA's war on piracy to actually be like. The Philippines National Police and Special Action Force officers searched a residence in southern Metro Manila, which resulted in the seizure of not just 6,500 pirated discs, but also hundreds of grenades and rounds of assault-weapon ammo, plus a lot of porn and drugs.

Unfortunately (for cinematic purposes), no weapons were actually used and there wasn't a blockbuster-worthy battle, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. This was just one of those near-climax sequences in which the action hero sneaks up on a bungalow full of guerrillas who are lazily playing cards or sitting in hammocks with their hats over their faces. The pirates simply didn't have time to reach for the grenades and guns. And they never knew what hit them. But we do. It was ... Glickman. Dan Glickman.

If someone were to actually make a fictionalized action movie based on the MPA's war on piracy, then the sequel might be a good, old-fashioned court drama. Or, maybe it could just be more of the same, considering piracy will never actually go away. Here are some updates from the MPA's ongoing campaign:

• Lawsuits were filed by the MPAA last week against six people accused of selling counterfeit DVDs on eBay. The individuals, who don't seem to be related, as they are all based out of different states, were likely producing decent copies of legitimate discs and selling them cheap to poor suckers. Damages could as high as $150,000 per movie title, per person. This press release is fun because the MPAA has included a little "Buyer Beware" tip list for idiots. For the movie version of these trials, we'd look to last year's The Best of Youth and include a similar courtroom full of innocent, yet mentally unstable victims attempting to communicate the pain felt by being duped. Bootlegs aren't the same as electric shocks, but we'd have to make the audience think it's the same, because that is how importantly the MPAA treats them. Caution: this sequel might be six hours long.
• This past weekend, 14 online auctioneers settled with the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft, on behalf of the MPA, for an undisclosed sum. They also had to agree to stop selling pirated discs. All together, the 14 individuals sold more than 10,000 bootleg DVDs over the past year via New Zealand auction sites. I picture a bit of an anti-climactic ending to the movie version.
• If we wanted to go in sort of the Empire Strikes Back, enemy-wins-this-time direction, we'd follow the trial of Shawn Hogan, a millionaire who is willing to spend as much as it takes to defend himself against the MPAA and their allegations that he shared Meet the Fockers online. He denies this act of piracy and is more interested in clearing his name and fighting the bullying system rather than pay a settlement, which would likely be cheaper for him. We'll have to wait and see what happens, but we could start production without a finished script. Hollywood does it all the time.

Odds and ends from Wednesday:

• I bet if Stephen King wrote a five-word poem about his thumb, some studio would find a way to turn said poem into a film. That's how good this guy is. According to Variety, Kate Walsh (Grey's Anatomy) has signed on to star alongside John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson in the latest King adaptation, 1408. Based on the horror writer's short story, pic will follow a debunker of paranormal occurrences (Cusack) who finds himself wrapped up in some real heavy sh*t upon checking into mysterious room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel. Walsh will play Cusack's ex-wife in the film, which will be directed by Mikael Hafstrom.
• Focus Features is attempting to spend an evening with three very lovely ladies. Vanessa Redgrave, Claire Danes and Toni Collette are currently in negotiations to star in Evening, based on the bestselling novel by Susan Minot. Story surrounds a cancer patient and a weekend she spends with her two daughters reminiscing about her past, while the girls struggle to accept their mother's impending death. In an interesting move, Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Michael Cunningham (The Hours) will adapt Minot's novel for the screen.
• Instead of guessing what the audience wants from its moviegoing experience, the MPAA wants to reach out and ask via an online survey. With topics ranging from theater attendance, piracy, advertisements, piracy, home video rental and piracy, MPAA Chief Dan Glickman says their goal here is to provide the studios with "consistent, focused consumer intelligence." Oh, and they also want to know where you bought that bootleg copy of Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest. So, yeah -- fess up!

It should be end of discussion on the matter of Facing the Giants receiving a PG-rating from the MPAA. As I mentioned earlier this month, the filmmakers were under the impression the rating was given because of "religious elements." But as Martha reported in an update, the MPAA straightened the issue out and there was no appeal. Now everyone should be happy, right? Oh wait, the politicians still aren't. What do they have to do with ratings? Nothing officially, but that doesn't stop them from sticking their noses in. Roy Blunt and other members of Congress are so concerned with the MPAA's decision they are urging a close evaluation of the board's practices.

Let's see if we can understand why this is still not clear to them. After hearing about the initial complaint, Blunt wrote a letter to MPAA head Dan Glickman which said, "This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence." There's his first misunderstanding. He seems to think that G-rated movies have gratuitous sex and violence. His second misunderstanding obviously came when Glickman replied, insisting that the movie was not given a PG because of religious content. Oh, and just to clear it up to our readers, too, the rating was said to be given for mature discussions, including one about pregnancy.

It just got a little harder for you to buy bootleg movies in Chinatown, and your chances of getting Superman Returns off the internet are a little smaller. But Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA, and all the studio heads in Hollywood slept a little better last night, because on Wednesday, the FBI arrested 13 people from two separate groups responsible for what is believed to be half of all the camcorder piracy in the U.S. (and one-quarter of it worldwide). Even though nobody on Earth really likes these shoddy copies -- they are videotaped inside of theaters, so you can see and hear the audience MST3K-style -- camcorded new releases account for an estimated 90-percent of the world's pirated movies.

I never understood the reason that people buy camcorded copies, even at only $5 each. My one and only curiosity was seven years ago, when I watched a bootleg VHS copy of Mystery Men. It was dark and the sound was horrible. To this day I still don't know what is going on in that movie. I've heard the worst is with subtitled films, like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but isn't the attraction of that film the visuals, anyway? I can only understand people getting bootlegs of comedies, which tend not to contain remarkable cinematography or special effects.

So even though I think Glickman has been going overboard with his anti-piracy campaign, I'm pretty happy that these two piracy rings will be put away (like most criminal enterprises, though, another two groups will likely pop up in their place). Nobody should ever watch a movie in such bad shape. Sure we all have reasons for why we hate the theaters, but the movies really do look so much better on the big screen. At least wait three months for the DVD if you're that cheap. But for the sake of cinema, please don't waste your time with camcorded versions. ...

MPAA lead man Dan Glickman had a "get me out of here" look on his face for most of Saturday afternoon's Brave New World: Entertainment and Social Change panel. And can you blame him? A sometime congressman and former Secretary of Agriculture, Glickman was nothing but humble upon his turn to speak. "I came here as the least qualified person to speak about movies," he admitted. "Here I am representing what I believe is the most powerful industry in
America ... [and] I have a lot to learn about this business." Cue poor agriculture metaphor in 3 ... 2 ... 1: "Indie film is the intellectual fertilizer of America," Glickman said. Presumably, this was his way of beslavering the assembled masses, but it hardly came off.

By that point in the panel, Glickman had already dug his own grave with an opening gaffe that pretty much stripped him of what little credibility he had as even a film fan, let alone as the enforcer o fpolitics over content. Earlier, moderator Pat Mitchell got the following all-in-fun jab in the ribs whilst introducing panelist/God of Sundance Robert Redford:

Mitchell: [Redford's] body of work includes, from the very begining ... films about so much
more than enjoying ourselves– they were about changing the world. The Candidate actually led to some people running for office –
Redford: Yeah – the wrong people.

About twenty minutes later, after his own introduction from Mitchell, Glickman tried to improv-riff on that little exchange, with the worst possible results.

Glickman mumbled, so I'm paraphrasing, but his opening statement went something like, "I may have been the wrong person to run for office, but I did it long before The Graduate." It's not just that Hollywood's most powerful government representative managed to accidentally insult the most important independent film advocate in (maybe) the world whilst enjoying said advocate's hospitality – he did it by referencing a film that then-pretty-boy Redford was famously up for the lead in, only to be passed over for Dustin Hoffman. The reaction? Darts from Redford's eyes, a murmur from the crowd, and an interruption from Mitchell: "The Graduate?"

Glickman is a convenient scapegoat in this crowd – probably everyone on the panel (which also included producer Jeff Eberts, founder of eBay and Participant Productions Jeff Skoll, and indie distribution master Bingham Ray) has had a ratings scuffle of some kind, and surely a good portion of the audience lives in fear of his determination to brutally prosecute any and all piracy that appears on his radar. But other than a few moments of minor humiliation for a guy who was probably asking for it by showing up in the first place, the panel was smoothly engaging, if not revelatory. The remainder of my notes follow, below the jump. I think, beyond Glickman, they really key stuff here comes from Jeff Skoll, who broke down exactly why his Participant Productions can justify putting out two potentially incediary George Clooney films in a single year without every worrying about using the star to turn a profit.