Justice Department Warns Academy over Oscar Rule Changes Threatening Netflix

"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."

> 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.

> 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.

Spielberg isn't making movies for Apple. He's making new episodes of Amazing Stories, a TV show he first made in the mid-80s.

>I'm not sure I understand why the government is involved

they probably shouldn't be involved, but my guess would be lobbying from Netflix.

That the awards matter that much to Netflix is surprising to me.

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.

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.

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.

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

A combination in restraint of trade takes more than one participant. Hollywood is more than one participant.

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.

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.

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.