Last week, the Motion Picture Association of America decided to ban the distribution of VHS… Last week, the Motion Picture Association of America decided to ban the distribution of VHS and DVD screener copies of movies to members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for their consideration come Academy Awards voting time.

Previously, studios would send copies of their films to Academy voters so that they could win one of the coveted Oscars, or at the very least a nomination ? both sure-fire ways to boost the amount of money a film makes at the movie theater.

This year, however, the MPAA and its chief, Jack Valenti, have made the monumentally awful decision to stop this practice. The MPAA claims screeners are being used to make pirated copies of films that get downloaded off the Internet and, thus, effect how much money a film makes at the box office.

While the decision isn?t a surprising one ? we are a nation in the grips of pirate fear, after all ? it?s just the latest poor choice made by Valenti and the MPAA.

The film industry is one that has struggled since the ?50s to make enough money to stay solvent and to keep people coming back to the movie theater. The biggest hurdle the industry has had to overcome is home video technology. When the VHS tape and recordable VCR were introduced, Valenti went on the offensive, saying the technology was the straw that will break the back of the dying motion picture industry camel. He took a similar stance when DVD technology began to gain a foothold in the market and the recordable DVD player loomed on the horizon.

Both of these technologies are the reason the industry still exists.

Studios got the ingenious idea that by co-opting the technology rather than fighting it, they could make big bucks in a largely untapped secondary market. A film doesn?t do all too well in theaters? That?s OK, put it out on video or on a special edition DVD and recoup some money that way.

On top of these problems, the MPAA, through its antiquated ratings system, has alienated adults ? admittedly only a minority ? as well as filmmakers, by forcing edits in sexual content in films that are geared to a more adult audience. If a film gets tagged with an NC-17 rating, most theaters won?t run the picture and chain video stores, like Blockbuster, won?t stock it ? studios lose money, thus they succumb to the prudish pressure of an aging authority group.

In the case of the screeners, the MPAA is combining both of their failures ? technology and filmmaker relations ? into one nasty, ugly package.

By prohibiting the distribution of screeners, the MPAA is taking a retroactive approach that will do more harm than good to a problem that does need to be addressed, just not this way. The irony here is that the actions of the MPAA are meant to strengthen an industry constantly fighting for its existence ? but the actions they have taken to do it are going to make the industry worse.

Piracy of films is a problem. But it?s one that is much easier to curb than downloading music. At sneak previews now, security awaits audience members to search for recording devices by means of looking through bags, waving the metal detecting wand over you and patting you down if necessary.

Obviously, you can?t pat down a DVD. But you can electronically code the things individually so that if a pirated copy of a film made from a screener shows up on the net, then the MPAA can know exactly from whose screener the copy was made and the appropriate action can be taken. Sure, it?s an expensive proposition for studios to take such an action. But in the long run, the money studios spend to prevent people for seeing their movies for free will be recouped either at the box office or when the DVD is released for sale. Again, working with technology rather than fighting it could do the trick.

The bigger issue isn?t the monetary hit, despite the claims of Valenti ? who needs to step down from his post, not right now but yesterday; he?s out of touch and is holding back the industry ? but the effect this will have on independent and small-budget filmmakers.

Studios can afford to put a lot of money behind a big budget film to get Academy voters a chance to see it so they can, hopefully, vote for it. But smaller production houses and indie filmmakers cannot. The only way that voters can see the smaller films, in many cases, is by receiving these screeners. What results, then, is a disparity between the small, really good movies that can?t be seen and the larger ones that might be good but are easier to see. Big movies will make money and smaller ones won?t, thus effecting what kinds of films get made.

Robert Altman was quoted on the Internet Movie Database on Oct. 2, saying, ?It will create this separation between two kinds of product: studio product and independent product. It?s just a stupid assumption that this will stop piracy.?

Indeed, the MPAA?s decision is based on a ?stupid assumption.? But that?s how most of their major decisions are made ? on stupid assumptions.

Unfortunately, this time around, not only will struggling filmmakers ? writers, actors, producers, directors and technicians ? be harmed by the MPAA and Valenti?s wrongheaded decision, but films deserving to be seen and recognized will not receive their audiences and accolades.

Way to go, Jack Valenti.