It's official: The MPAA has partially lifted its screener ban Thursday and will allow the studios to send encoded videocassette screeners, under strict guidelines, to the 6,000-plus members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

But members of other groups -- such as the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn., the SAG nominating committee and the various critics' associations -- will not be given screeners this year.

The compromise, which was approved at a midday teleconference by the heads of the MPAA member companies along with nonsignatories New Line Cinema and DreamWorks Pictures, was announced jointly by Academy president Frank Pierson and MPAA president Jack Valenti.

The plan, which is being characterized as a one-year experiment, would appear to bring to an end what Valenti described in an interview as "the toughest single issue I have ever faced in my 37 years at the MPAA. Trying to gather everyone in a circle and bring about a unanimous decision was difficult and agonizing. But I feel good that I pulled this out of the deep abyss."

Pierson brought the plan to Valenti in the wake of the MPAA's controversial Sept. 30 decision to ban awards season screeners altogether in an effort to curtail piracy. It calls for individual Academy members to sign a document agreeing to new procedures: Members must promise not to allow the individually encoded videos out of their homes, and they may not lend them to friends or relatives. At the end of awards season, they must securely destroy any screeners they choose not to keep. If a screener is pirated, it can be traced back to the individual member to whom it was sent, and that member will be subject to immediate expulsion from the Academy.

In announcing the new policy, Valenti said: "Frank Pierson and the Academy have constructed a sensible design that emphasizes the seriousness of piracy and, at the same time, under strict rules, can allow the studios to make available videocassette screeners to all Academy members. ... Under this plan, all films are treated as equals. There can be no misreading of the purpose of this initiative, which is the long-term health of this industry, for films large and small."

Pierson added in a statement: "We (at the Academy) had never been directly involved in the distribution of tapes and DVDs, and the Academy was prepared to maintain its distance from the subject. But as the days wore on and more and more fears were expressed in news articles, op-ed pieces and letters to me from our members, I thought it might be appropriate for me to call Jack and see if a compromise might be worked out."

When told of the compromise, one studio marketing exec said: "You have to hand it to the Academy -- they saw an opening and they went for it. This only goes to prove that the Academy remains the top dog in town."

While the amended ban is likely to take much of the steam out of the anti-ban protest that has galvanized the film industry in recent weeks, it still provoked some angry reactions.

Although representatives from several studios argued during the Thursday session that screeners should go to other groups as well, that proposal was ultimately rejected.

While the group felt that the Academy has enough leverage to ensure that its members would abide by the new guidelines, it was not convinced that the same was true of other groups. Sources suggested, for example, that since the 2,100-member SAG nominating committee is composed of SAG members selected at random, the studios could be sending screeners to unemployed actors who might be tempted to sell them or pass them on.

The amended ban immediately triggered a letter to Valenti signed by SAG president Melissa Gilbert and national executive director Bob Pisano. "The implication of your action is that you regard Screen Actors Guild members as less trustworthy than Academy members," they wrote.

Their letter continued: "Frankly, Jack, we are also stung by the apparent shortness of the MPAA's collective memory. The Association and its member companies have not hesitated in the past to solicit SAG help and support for MPAA initiatives. ... Against a backdrop of SAG's repeated cooperation with the MPAA, it is especially difficult for us to understand or accept your decision to treat our members as second-class artists. Suffice it to say that your actions will not enhance our future ability to win actors' hearts and minds for MPAA causes."

Unlike SAG, the WGA and the DGA -- both of which have been traditionally excluded from the DVD screener pool -- embraced the agreement.

WGA West president Victoria Riskin called it a "reasonable compromise," which will "allow independent films the chance to compete on an equal playing field. I hope in the future, technology will allow us to develop protections to allow us to return to a wider distribution of screeners."

DGA president Michael Apted said in a statement that his guild "support(s) the MPAA and the Motion Picture Academy in their approach." However, in calling it an "experimental approach," Apted did hedge a bit, adding that the DGA "plans to review and evaluate the impact of this experiment and assist the MPAA and the Academy in developing approaches for future award seasons."

HFPA president Lorenzo Soria said in a statement that his group, which votes on the annual Golden Globe Awards, viewed the decision "with dismay and concern. ... The fact that screeners now will be sent to about 6,000 people, but not to the 90 members of the HFPA, creates an impression that issues other than piracy are involved. We are now evaluating our options to have a decision reversed that we regard as unfair, completely arbitrary and an assault on the professional integrity of our members.

Reaction to the compromise was mixed within the independent film world, where protests against the ban first took hold out of a concern that a total ban would favor wide studio releases at the expense of smaller indie rollouts come awards time.

"It's great to see that there is progress," said producer Ted Hope, the former Good Machine partner whose new banner This Is That is in production along with Killer Films on John Waters' "A Dirty Shame" "But I think it would be a mistake to limit (screeners) to just the Academy. If you look at the Los Angeles film critics canceling their awards, that hurts the marketing of all (indie) films. It makes it that much more difficult to see these films. Critics should see films (in theaters) when they can, but they are faced with seeing three films a day."

It is unclear whether the compromise will deter any legal action being discussed by various indie producers.

A number of indie insiders also said that protests against the MPAA would continue, even if the objections were lobbed in more subversive ways than the open letters of protest that have been used so far. One source close to the issue indicated that irked Academy voters could punish the studios' handling of the ban with their ballots come Oscar time by favoring indie films. "One way or the other, people will retaliate," he said.

Said IFP/Los Angeles director Dawn Hudson: "I think this absolutely does not solve the problem that was created with the ban; issues of access and free trade are not dealt with here. While the Academy Awards are the most important awards in terms of creating public awareness for specialized films, they still are only part of the whole picture. Not to send screeners to critics, the DGA and SAG still puts the specialized film community at a disadvantage and does not level the playing field. The fact that the MPAA still has not convened any discussion or dialogue with the independent film divisions makes me question the sincerity of this initiative."

However, Hudson's colleague, IFP/New York executive director Michelle Byrd pointed to the progress that has been made by those protesting the ban. "Any kind of change in (the MPAA's policy) is a win," she said. "But how much of a win? It's very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction of outrage, and say, 'This is Byzantine. This is insane!' But that's not going to be very helpful at this moment. The IFP has created a communal voice of a broad cross-section of people who came together on this (issue). I've never heard of such a thing, and that's significant. The voices of opposition aren't going to end with this."

In looking back over the past contentious month, Valenti said: "I knew there was going to be a reaction for the simple reason I was going to be unhappy about not getting my own screeners. But what caused me great concern was the caliber of the reaction. I heard from directors, producers, dear friends I have made over 37 years and that pained me greatly, and I listened to what they were saying. I kept asking, 'Is there a better way, a middle ground?' "

He acknowledged that the amended ban will make "a lot of people unhappy, but it will make a lot fewer people unhappy" than the original ban.

Valenti added that the decision to permit screeners to go only to Academy members reflected the fact that "the Academy is unique. It cuts across every line in the movie business. It includes people from all the creative guilds, IATSE, composers, editors. It is the one organization that has under its canopy this great cross section of the motion picture industry. And the Academy offered something that was a clincher. If a pirated screener is traced back to a member, then he is immediately expelled. That's a severe penalty, and that's the best anti-piracy device you can have."

Ian Mohr in New York and Peter Kiefer in Los Angeles contributed to this report.