NEW YORK -- A federal judge in New York has tossed out the MPAA's ban on awards season screeners.

Ruling that the ban runs afoul of antitrust laws, U.S. District Chief Judge Michael Mukasey made the dramatic ruling Friday moning as he granted a preliminary injunction that effectively lifts the ban.

The MPAA said it is preparing an appeal, which would take about two weeks, according to MPAA co-chief operating officer, executive vp and general counsel Simon Barsky. In a statement, MPAA head Jack Valenti said, "From day one, the screener policy has been about one thing: preserving the future of our industry for filmmakers of all sizes by curtailing piracy. We know, without dispute, that in the past screeners have been sources for pirated goods both domestically and overseas. We will appeal because the impact and growing threat of piracy is real and must be addressed wherever it appears."

The judge's ruling followed an evidentiary hearing Wednesday, in which a coalition of indie film producers presented their case against the MPAA, the object of their multimillion dollar antitrust suit.

Mukasey found that the testimony offered by the defendants in the case -- the MPAA's case was presented by Valenti, Warner Independent Pictures head Mark Gill and a senior vp within the MPAA's antipiracy unit -- actually corroborated the plaintiffs' assertions that the ban would hurt the indie film business and is considered a conspiracy under the law.

Valenti had argued on the stand that the ban had been put into place to combat piracy, which he called "a malignant fungus on the face of the industry." But the judge said the MPAA's concern over piracy did not outweigh the harm that the ban caused independent filmmakers. "The plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable harm because of the MPAA's screener ban," the judge said.

Citing Valenti's testimony, Mukasey observed that the ban prohibited the studios from competing against each other during awards season. Instead, he said, the studios should have been allowed to make their own policies individually on a film-by-film basis.

Mukasey pointed to Gill's testimony, in which Gill said, "a huge part of (an indie film's success) is getting critics to review smaller films," before arriving at the conclusion that the ban would keep indie films out of critics' hands resulting in less media coverage for the films and ultimately less business.

The judge said that the MPAA did not provide the court with persuasive evidence that awards screeners lead to piracy. He also questioned why the policy covered titles already available on commercial DVDs. "Once a film reaches the home video market," said the judge, "they are available in stores and can be pirated at will."

Mukasey also cited another excerpt from Valenti's testimony, in which Valenti described his role as the "voice and the conscience of the (MPAA's) member companies." Turning that statement on its head, Mukasey said that Valenti "fulfilled one of the conscience's functions in this case, by getting people to behave other than they would otherwise."

Mukasey did add, however, that the case did not go so far as to "impose an unreasonable restriction in trade."

In making his ruling, the judge based much of his opinion on the testimony of "American Splendor" producer Ted Hope and a declaration by Miramax Films co-chairman Harvey Weinstein.

Hope testified that "the success of an individual film depends on (its) critical success and word of mouth," and that the screener ban would hurt his "standing in the industry." It woud also affect his ability to get first-look deals and attract talent to projects, he said, and as a result his profits "would be greatly reduced" and his career would "suffer grave risk."

Weinstein asserted that screeners could ultimately make the difference between a film grossing $5 million and $20 million, due to the amount of exposure the films can get through reviews and awards. Mukasey also pointed to Weinstein's testimony in which the Miramax exec asserted that even if screeners do not result in a film winning awards, they are still of value because they may assist a film getting on critics' lists and earning nominations.

(Click here to read the declaration from Miramax Film co-chairman Harvey Weinstein in PDF format. Requires Acrobat Reader.)

Mukasey rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the ban was hatched by the MPAA to keep indie movies out of the awards race, dismissing that notion as a "paranoid fantasy."

Initially, when Mukasey read his ruling at 10 a.m., he issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of the plaintiffs. But the defendants then requested that he instead grant a more-encompassing preliminary injunction since a preliminary injunction is more subject to an appeal. The judge granted that request.

Ultimately, the suit would move to a trial phase that could take anywhere from months to over a year, according to the plaintiffs' attorney, Frederick Juckniess.