The way I see this is as a debate on whether awards eligibility should be based on release path or 'production type', for lack of a better term. David, CJ and some others believe 'production type' should be the criteria, while the Academies use release type. That may be overly simplified, but seems to be the basic point of debate. If the Academies had changed their rules over time from production type to release path I might agree with the 'production type' argument. While both Academies have exhibited more than their share of hypocrisy, that is not the case WRT this point. Both Academies, from their very beginnings, have consistently maintained release path as the primary eligibility requirement and have only made changes to reinforce that. I would also note that I believe this is a "Good Thing". In my opinion the strong stance both Academies have taken has been a motivating factor for the creation of other awards shows, film festivals and other alternative awards programs. Those other shows are competition and competition is good. If enough viewers/consumers/customers stop watching the Oscars and Emmys and start watching other awards shows and it is because of eligibility rules, it will force them to change those rules. That that hasn't happened, at least not yet, is the real answer right now, IMO.