Talk:Motion Picture Association/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Does not cite references or sources?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there tons of references and sources strewn about the article?

--Pyrogenix 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

IP Adresses

I have removed the list of IP addresses that appear on this page because it is not the sort of thing to appear in an encyclopedia article. Also there was such a huge range of IP addresses it is hard to believe that they all belong to the MPAA. -- Popsracer 22:37, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Valenti

The statements Valenti made in 1982 are not POV - they're famous. Everytime he makes (another) end of the world prediction for the movie industry, someone bring up the boston strangler quote. They belong in the article. →Raul654 15:23, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

PS: Calling other people vandals does not help your credibility, especially when they've been here far longer than you.

This is an article about the MPAA. Not about Valenti, and not about the DMCA. Including this quote out of context is extremely POV. Anthony DiPierro 15:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Valenti was before Congress not as an individual, but rather in his professional capacity as president of the MPAA. Further, his testimony, Boston Strangler and all, is completely consistent with the MPAA's lobbying position at the time. (One could even argue Valenti's testimony, for practical purposes, defined the MPAA's lobbying position.)

Consequently, the Boston Strangler quote stands as an excellent illustration of the MPAA's political history. We must not fear the "wrong before, wrong now" implication; otherwise we lose the ability to document cases where anyone was verifiably "wrong before." Matt Fitzpatrick 23:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's review that statement...

OK, let's review that statement piece-by-piece.

This is an article about the MPAA.

A good start. I agree, so far...

Not about Valenti,

No. Valenti was president of the MPAA since it was founded over 40 years ago. He and it are virtually synonomous. He was called to testify before congress in 1982 *because* he was president of the MPAA. For either of these reasons (but especially when both) what Jack Valenti has to say about *anything* bears strongly on an article about the MPAA.

and not about the DMCA.

Given that the MPAA is one of the biggest proponents and users/citers of the DMCA, it also bears strong relavence to this article.

How has the MPAA used the DMCA? The DMCA is generally used against the MPAA, as a defense for copyright infringment. Or are you talking about DeCSS? Most of the big DeCSS cases have been based on criminal law, on which the "user" of the DMCA is the federal government, not the MPAA. Anthony DiPierro 05:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Including this quote out of context

Let's consider the quote in question: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Taking something out of context means that you express it lacking in something that was in the orignal expression, so as to change the original meaning of the statement. So, please tell me - what context am I missing here? What meaning of the sentence has been changed by quoting it here? I assume the boston strangler and VCRs he refers to are the same ones I know of today.

try this link. Matt Fitzpatrick (see below) is right. capi 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

is extremely POV.

His point of view, maybe. Definetely not mine. But citing a quotation to illustrate his opinion does not violate wikipedia policy on having articles with a neutral tone.

→Raul654 17:16, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

How about a compromise? I agree with Anthony that including the quote, straight, is POV; quotes, without context or support, nearly always are, since only the most outrageous quotes are memorable. However, a sentence about Valent/MPAA's opposition to technology would fit well into the article. Meelar 21:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - qualify it if you want, if you think it'll make the article more NPOV. I never said it shouldn't be qualified or context explained. But unquestionably, it's encyclopedic and belongs in the article. →Raul654 22:47, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good now. Anthony DiPierro 05:30, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At one time the article said that some (most?) people think DRM infinges in users rights. It was than changed to say that IN FACT it DID infringe on users rights. I changed it back This is still a hot debate. It is improper to say it is decided. The NPOV is that it is still an issue.

You can't stop us all.

Bah, someone vandalized it, deleted the whole thing, reverting.

Biased

I mostly find this article is heavily focused on the negative aspects of the MPAA, and doesn't give both sides of the arguments. Most of the links are anti-MPAA, most of the criticism are thoes that bash the system. I think it needs to be rexamined.

--71.195.245.28 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I find no bias in the article's focus on the MPAA as a pro-copyright corporate lobbyist, nor on its overall negative coverage of the MPAA's activities in that capacity. These days, the MPAA works exclusively toward copyright legislation and litigation, to the benefit of copyright licensors, and to the detriment of copyright licensees and those who draw on unlicensed (including fair use and public domain) content.

NPOV doesn't mean discouraging the reader from making negative conclusions about the topic, when such conclusions are fair and warranted. On the contrary, the article would be more "balanced" with a claim that the MPAA is pro-artist, pro-consumer, and pro-technology, but these conclusions would be not be supported by history and documented facts.

I'll admit there is room for improvement, however, by also discussing the MPAA's historical work in other arenas, before the MPAA lobbying position became all copyrights, all the time. For instance, the article could make more prominent mention the MPAA's important role in crafting the Waldorf Statement and the Motion Picture Production Code.Matt Fitzpatrick 23:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I find the article biased, is it mostly has tells the negatives, it seems very point of view to me, of thoes opposed to the system, and barley of any of thoes in favor. Yes I don't mind a person telling the negatives as well, but with all the NPOV disputes I see, clearly this needs work. It's not balanced enough.--ShortShadow 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that articles regarding freedom of information controversies deserve special NPOV attention, since Wikipedia is, at its heart, a social movement toward freer information. In this case, however, I still don't see a balance problem. You are correct in that balance is indeed one of the standards by which POV is measured. Here, about half the article is given to criticism, but it's not like we've given half the article to some tiny fringe position. The MPAA's primary focus is corporate lobbying and other cartel-like behavior, and their policies, especially in the realm of copyright enforcement and expansion, work to the benefit of some and to the detriment of others. I'd say 50-50 coverage is fair for a cartel whose only good publicity of late is their own news releases. Still, if you have something nice to say about the MPAA, by all means, contribute! Matt Fitzpatrick 21:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing nice to be said about the MPAA. Their efforts are misguided and serve only to inconvenience the paying customer. Stop and think for a minute -- you go to a movie theatre, you pay good money for a ticket, and get ripped off royally for concessions. You go and sit down in a seat, and not only do you have to endure a bunch of advertising before start time of the movie, when the projector finally starts you are subjected to several extra minutes of commercials, one of which may include an MPAA sponsored commercial telling you how when people "steal" (download) movies from the Internet ("with just a few clicks of the mouse"), hard working employees like you get pay-cuts, and over-paid movie executives and actors get richer than ever. Why they hell should I -- someone who just paid to see this movie, be subjected to annoyances insulting my intelligence, which are basically informing me that the hard working people behind the scenes (set designers, stunt men, etc) are getting ripped off by rich executives under the guise of Internet movie piracy, and worse yet trying to make me feel somehow guilty about it when I'm not downloading the movie -- I just paid to see it! If anything this is going to make me want to buy and/or download pirated movies just to avoid all the commercials and stupid MPAA funded crap that I get assaulted with at the movie theatre, and sometimes even with store-bought DVDs. Stop punishing the paying consumers! --Thoric 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rah and well said. 216.208.32.210 (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredibly annoying when someone comes to a page like this one and decides they want some of the negative taken away so it can be balanced with the very little, if any, good. How about instead, the company stop doing so many negative things, and then there will be a balanced view. As it is now though the MPAA/RIAA/MAFIAA are just a group of thugs that uses strong arm tactics to get what they want. Now I am not posting any of this in the actual article, because that would be against what wikipedia is. There is the difference in me, and someone like Shortshadow. I have negative opinions but I am willing to let the facts speak for themselves, while others want to edit out the bad facts to suit their needs.Tenetke

"and the lead spokesperson in the current battle with the BitTorrent technology invented by Bram Cohen. "These claims (by Torrentspy) are false. Torrentspy is trying to obscure the facts to hide the fact that they are facilitating thievery. We are confident that our lawsuit against them will be successful because the law is on our side."[1]"

Is that at all relevant? The section is about leadership, and then it suddenly starts on about BitTorrent. Shouldn't be there, but I am not sure enough to delete it myself. Opinions? Scorchsaber 15:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's completely out of context. I'd like to see it moved to a new section dedicated to current MPAA litigation (boy is there a lot of that going on!). Otherwise delete, it makes no sense here. Matt Fitzpatrick 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

MPAA serial numbers appearing in end credits of a film

Please see my question on the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 July 25#MPAA approval numbers. --Mathew5000 09:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

I added subheadings and rearranged the paragraphs to make it clear that there are three criticisms, with their associated examples. I'm not advocating all this verbage should be present, I'm just organizing what's there. Wjhonson 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One help might be to switch the word "criticism" out for "controversy." On all these points, the MPAA is both criticized and supported by outside groups. Just, for whatever reason, their supporters either don't visit Wikipedia or aren't editing this page! Anyway, the word "controversy" might encourage more positive things to be said.

Also, I'm kind of surprised This Film Is Not Yet Rated doesn't also get mentioned under Film Ratings too! Matt Fitzpatrick 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the significance of the fact the unauthorized use of the Forest Blog platform (and it seems to be a template, not a platform - a platform would be something like "Blogger" or "Wordpress") was reported quickly on Slashdot and Digg? I understand there are members of both these communities that support the Torrentfreak position advanced at the beginning of the paragraph, but this fact on it's own does not seem to warrant mention these news sites reported this infraction. As this page is locked, I'd like to nominate this sentence for deletion. Jbgreen 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) <---- Scratch that, I deleted the sentence. Jbgreen 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed structure to accommodate extension and the fact that the online piracy controversy is so current. Added info on Pirate Bay raid and the MPAA position, also tried to neutralise some of the language. Still needs work. --SasiSasi (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Controversies section should also include the Waldorf Statement and subsequent enforcement of the Hollywood Blacklist. 150.101.30.44 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rating System - Left Behind section

A bit over a week ago, an anonymous user added this paragraph to the Rating System:

"On the final week of shooting of "Left Behind" in 2000, Cloud Ten Pictures approached the MPAA board to talk about the film originally receiving an 'R' rating due to the climactic shooting scene. The folks at Cloud Ten Pictures were angered by this, and fought a long-ensuing battle that even continues today, that Bible films have no place in Hollywood. The overruling 14-1 vote brought the MPAA rating down to 'PG-13'." (emphasis added)

The whole section is unencylopedic and doesn't really even entirely make sense, and seems rather POV. Does anyone want to try to clean it up into something useful, or should it just be removed? -=Blurble 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the segment today, because it has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph and little to do with the rating system. This belongs on the "Left Behind" page. The only way this could be justified for inclusion is if it were held up as an example of conflict between moviemakers and the MPAA. If it is being used as an example of suspected censorship, then the text should make that clear and it would require citation. Jboyler 02:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me summarize

What the R-rating means?

It means that if Cameron Diaz would have lifted her tshirt for 5 seconds in “My Best Friend's Wedding,” the MPAA Board would have watched that movie with the same level of disgust as “House of 1000 corpses.”

History

This article is disappointing. Is everyone so worried about NPOV and that is why no useful information is given? There should be a lot more on the history of the MPAA, how and why they got started, in what ways were they involved in the censorship in the 40s and 50s, etc. More about the actual process a filmmaker goes through to get a film rated would be nice. Some comparisons of how the ratings standards have changed over the years would be cool. And preferably the info should be provided by someone who is not using "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated" as their only source. It is a biased and one-sided documentary. 216.90.56.122 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to do that you know? Those ideas would greatly enhance the article, I personaly look forward to your contribution.

Tenetke 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think very many people are actually welcome to edit Wikipedia. This place is as much a cartel as the MPAA. Change one thing and you guys flock to the page to fine tooth comb it for every which way you can fix it. Every year you get more and more anal about the minutiae.

Pictures

Does anyone know where the logos for the now defunct ratings such as X can be found so we can upload them. Even better, someone should make a page on the history of the MPAA like the one for the BBFC and set it out like said article and have a gallery of the logos with their descriptions for each era. I can since I have an account, but won't until the old logos are uploaded. --82.39.211.206 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Indie.Bones

Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America

Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America redirects here, yet was a different entitty when named that, although the two are related. Why no discussion of this early incarnation? Is anyone opposed to adding it, or think it should be broken away? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

This page is badly in need of some cleanup both in it's writing and sourcing. Now the MPAA is an oft biased, corporate formed and privately run board with no direct oversight so yeah, I'll concede PERSONALLY that especially it's rating system and often it's other facets are pretty much going to be done with a slant to them (when does "privately run and has no oversight" turn out any other way). That being said what a person feels personally should mean squat when posting here... you STILL need sources for any criticisms you post here. Otherwise, and Wiki doesn't mince words on this, it's slander and not appropriate to wikipedia. People really need to start using source links for what they put up here and it can't be that hard because between newspapers, magazines, and the internet I've already read everything on here. Clearly the people who put it up did too... they just need to make sure they cite that place they read it from. Even (Especially) if/when the MPAA is being the big corporate bad guy, this is an encyclopedia, it needs to be written neutraly {especially if it's on a pending case where guilt hasn't been established, or it's a matter of opinion on an issue}. People just don't seem to be getting that on wiki, the Care Bears page, the Red Cross page, the MPAA page, and the Hitler page all need to be written with the same neutral language, it's not optional and it's just asking for the page to eventually be stricken or total redone (even if it does take forever for the wiki folks to get to a bad page). Or worse, god forbid the MPAA take an interest and begin updating it's own page like some corporations do/attempt to do. That becomes just a pain in the ass for all involved. [Thursday, 2007-07-19T17:40UTC]

What Rating does this classify as?

Some people may call this an irresponsible topic question. But my site hosts roleplays that members may play in, but they MUST rate their sections. We have a dillema... What rating would the following classify as:

Thread Topic Name: "My Lesser Half" Thread Topic Desc: "Jaspwer is an authority figure for Cadence, and they believe in the old styles of punishments. THey believe in spankins and such."

Current Thread Content: "OTK Spanking ; with hairbrush."

This is not bare, and DOES NOT contain ANY refrences to sex, and the only swear word used is "ass", and it was used once.

23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Damon.

Shawn Hogan

a millionaire sued buy the mpaa for downloading a film [1].He sais “They’re completely abusing the system” “I would spend well into the millions on this”.

No mention of christian enforcement???

Where is the mention of the well-documented enforcement of christian-cloud-people beliefs on the general scientific-based public? There are hundreds upon hundreds of discussions proving with no room for doubt that the MPAA (most notably the amazing documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated is both controlled by, and in turn enforcing, "American Right" christian views; essentially and in practice (due to theatres' illicit enforcement of ratings restrictions) infringing on the rights of the rational community, violating the parent's right to raise their children as they deem fit, and enslaving said rational people to 2000 year old values (a proven fact when comparing ratings such as R and NC-17 to the often significantly lower rating granted in other countries, see IMDB for an easy reference) that are out of sync with the majority of the world, not to mention drastically inconveniencing parents who are essentially mandated to accompany "minors" to films they are perfectly willing to allow their children to see but may have no interest in themselves, or to take time from their busy schedules as both parents and productive members of society to purchase films in stores. Such actions as rating a film R or NC-17 to fit to the archaic values forces writers, directors, and studios to censor films for American release so as to not lose profits do to these illicit enforcements. The words christian enforcement should be included as without it this article can not be 100% factual, for it ignores to true intention of the MPAA.Lostinlodos 07:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...yeah, dude. Take a cold shower or something. It'll be okay. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.8.21 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

User:SasiSasi made the following comment on the merge tag, which I am moving here:

"this add in is the context of the MPAA's fight against piracy, which is covered in the main article and information about this add would fit in nicely. Also, there is not that much to say about the ad, so I am not sure if it really needs its own article."

I am not supporting or opposing the merge, merely moving the comments here. SilkTork *^YES! 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am merging the two articles: move the content of You Wouldn't Steal a Car advert into the MPAA article, and create redirect You Wouldn't Steal a Car to MPAA so that if anyone searches for the title gets re-directed. --SasiSasi (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

any notice of "You Wouldn't download a car"? 83.109.221.234 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Where Is The History??

I agree about there is hardly any history information about M.P.A.A. I looked at this article because I was wanting to know when they switched logos. They did not always have the present oval logo. And there should also links included in the "See Also" section specifying all the symbols and logos, such as whatever the organization has that star-shaped logo with the letters inside them. And also the Dolby logo, and the Panavision logo, for example. This article is mostly about the anti-piracy commercials. Those commercials, like most other clueless public service announcements, are worth nothing to myself and others. The commercials need to be completely rewritten, along with this article. I want to learn about all the information there is to know about M.P.A.A. and its history, not about public service announcements. In-Correct (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I came to this article to read about those numbers that've been assigned to American movies since the 1930s—but this article is almost entirely about anti-piracy and movie-ratings controversies. I want to know which movies get the numbers, in what sequence they're assigned, and where to find a complete list of every number and its corresponding movie. I also would like to know when they changed from the vertical oval with lowercase letters to the horizontal oval you mention. Maybe someday ... — President Lethe (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fight Against Online Piracy

I first encountered this article and immediately jumped to this section (for research purposes), and it's absolutely awful. The first couple paragraphs have sentences that seem to be about completely different topics, and the two sentences in the third paragraph are completely contradictory. I ought to fix it rather than bitch about it, but I have to write this paper... Gary (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed this sentence because it appears to be synthesis: "However, contrary to MPAA statements, several studies and commentators have concluded that one download hardly equals one lost sale, since many downloaders would not purchase the movie if illegal downloading were not an option."

For all we know, the MPAA was already discounting the cost of piracy to less than 100%. They never claim otherwise, and the prior sources obviously don't say anything about their study. The sources afterwards are more on-target. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

The quality of the article has improved recently - granted the coverage still needs a lot of work. There are two sections which still have major quality issues and should be removed from the article (they have been tagged for a long time. I will move these sections into the talk page so those who are so inclined can work on rewriting them.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And we should ensure the talk page is kept to wikipedia standards, in relevance to the article as well as the subject and on a smaller point. I would remind everyone to please remember to sign and date posts (four tildes). Due to the abnormally wide editing appeal of this article, I feel this is worth reiterating. (Protectthehuman (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Leadership - original research tagged content (may 2008)

"In 1922, the movie studio bosses hired Will H. Hays as the first of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association of America (MPPDAA). A former U.S. Postmaster General (and President Warren G. Harding's election campaign manager), Hays created the Production Code in 1930. It was laxly enforced until the major studios agreed, under threat of religiously instigated state and Federal censorship, that every movie released on or after July 1, 1934, would adhere to the Hays Office Production Code of the MPPDAA, or face a punitive pecuniary fine. In 1934, Joseph I. Breen became president of the Production Code Administration (PCA); he served as head of the PCA until retiring in 1954.

Will H. Hays served as head of the MPPDAA until 1945, when Eric Johnston assumed the presidency and the MPDPAA was renamed the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). In November 1947, Johnston was part of a private meeting with 47 movie studio executives in New York City, which resulted in the publication announcement, on 25 November, 1947, of the Waldorf Statement, a two-page press release signaling the institution of the Hollywood blacklist. Eric Johnston remained MPAA president until he died, in 1963; Ralph Hetzel was interim president until 1966."

Impact on Pop Culture

Numerous sociologists have studied the impact of the MPAA on films, and thus popular culture. It has been noted that the structure of an industry (such as regulations and limitations) will ultimately influence the outcome of the cultural product. The MPAA sets and maintains regulations based on what they believe is morally sound. Films with overt or explicit sexual relationships often receive NC-17 ratings. For example, Brokeback Mountain initially received an NC-17 rating before being edited to receive an R rating. The MPAA’s subjective disapproval of overt or explicit sexuality is an indicator of their moral compass reflecting community standards. However, filmmakers and directors are often critical of the MPAA, because there seems to be no systematic guidelines for what type of content will receive a certain rating. The result of the MPAA’s control over films is a complex and mysterious one. Some argue that the MPAA has a huge impact on culture, by dictating what rating a film receives, and thus how commercially successful it is. In effect, the MPAA acts as a gatekeeper to what people can and cannot see. Almost every major theater company in the United States will not show NC-17 movies, and if a film receives an R rating, it limits the amount of potential movie-goers that can see the film (no one under 17, unless with an adult). Globally too, the MPAA’s influence is felt. Nearly every movie theater on the planet features American movies, which subsequently goes through the MPAA’s moral filter. In this sense, the MPAA’s moral standards reach far beyond the American movie theater. Globalization is increasing the impact of the MPAA as American films become more popular and accessible abroad. As such, the MPAA has a sister organization, the Motion Picture Association, which represents the interests of MPAA members outside the United States.

Documentary

Does anyone know the title of this full feature doc where several PIs were hired in order to uncover the private backgrounds of the people working there? It was hillarious, I would really like to check if there is any dvd with it avaible but can't remember the title and/or producer. It is full with most detailled facts on the rating system witch would really enrich the article's factbase.84.152.99.210 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Try This Film Is Not Yet Rated.--Nemissimo (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)--Nemissimo (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Please leave this section at the end; it makes inline citations visible. 84user (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What is it that gives the MPAA so much power internationally?

I have been wondering about this for a while now. It seems that the MPAA can reach out across any continent or any ocean and get anyone in any country(one possible reason that the MPAA is referred as the MAFIAA). My question is WHY? Any why do other countries (Sweden, for example) bow down to the MPAA? I can't imagine entities from other nations coming here to the USA and start mastering us around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.42.179 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall copyedit

I spent about 90 minutes this morning giving the article an overall copyedit from start to finish, primarily trimming the verbosity, cleaning up some redundancies, and making style consistent. I also replaced some POV language with more objective phrasing. While copyediting, I noticed some unattributed statements. I didn't mark these but I did remove some outright errors. Dead links were also removed. Footnotes are still in several styles; however, I amplified each one where no details were provided.173.49.135.190 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference to use

• The MPAA's Joan Graves watches out for the movie watchers at Los Angeles Times

Reference to use. Erik (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead link for reference

A rather important citation has 404ed -- number 18. Just pointing it out to anyone who might have a new source. GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

if anyone wants references just ask. i simply do not feel it is necessary when one is to use common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.234.38 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

many editors of wikipedia have a different opinion in regards to common sense.. btw archive.org? Divinity76 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

There seems to me to be a serious inbalance in the article's content that has the effect (probably intentional) of minimising and removing criticism of the MPAA. For example, I have just rewriten the section dealing with the issuing of inaccurate figures by the MPAA. The way it had been written amounted to a whitewash. But there is a more serious problem. There is no mention in the article of the considerable criticism that exists about the MPAAs activities regarding film ratings. A "main article" link is meant to lead to an article that expands on content in the originating article. But for this article there is NO content, not even a tiny paragraph - the "Motion Picture Association of America film rating system" article appears to be acting as a pov fork to hide away content that should be summarised on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Added citations for Monopoly section

I removed the citation needed tag and added 2 citations in good faith, an article from The Daily Princetonian and another from CNET News. Hope this is enough! 98.210.62.64 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

nit pick, references to online piracy

the line "While the advent of the digital era created new opportunities for delivering movies to consumers, it also gave rise to a potential threat to the industry—online movie piracy" is out of place with the article and should be removed. The sentence lies right in between two others that talk about who was leading the MPAA, nothing at all about piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.18.106 (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference Uncited

Reading through I noticed that the History section contains several word-for-word similarities with the description at http://www.mpaa.org/about/history. If this information was in fact copied directly from the mpaa page it should at least be cited. Note in particular "while fulfilling its core purpose of informing parents about the content of films so they can determine which movies are appropriate for their children" and "Glickman led the association during a period of significant industry transformation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.60.50 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Interest in improving this article

Hi, I'm not sure if anyone is watching this page but I wanted to introduce myself here as a representative on Wikipedia for the Motion Picture Association of America. I work for the MPAA, and my colleagues and I have noticed that this article is in bad shape. We would like to assist volunteer editors in making this a better article, both under Wikipedia's guidelines and as an informative page about MPAA. For example, I think it's important to replace the "History" text which borrows (sometimes word for word) from the MPAA website. With help from someone knowledgeable about Wikipedia, I'm working on a better version of this section and I'll hopefully be able to share that here soon. For questions or thoughts about this page, you can reply here or on my user talk page. MPAA Kyle (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revisions for "Members" section

Hello, As I mentioned previously, I am an employee of the Motion Picture Association of America and am hoping to work with volunteer editors to improve this article. As the first step, I'd like to propose some revisions to the "Members" section of this article, found in the collapse box below.

This revision provides more historical context regarding members of the MPAA—rather than providing a bullet list of members, as in the current version of the article. It documents changes in membership throughout the history of the MPAA, ending with the current membership of the MPAA and additional citations to verify the information.

Members

The original members of the MPPDA were the “Big Eight” film studios, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Loews, Universal Studios, Warner Bros., Columbia Pictures, United Artists, and RKO Pictures. Two years later, Loews merged with Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures, and Louis B. Mayer Productions to form Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. United Artists briefly resigned from the organization in 1956 over a ratings dispute, although they rejoined later in the decade. By 1966, Allied Artists Pictures had joined the original members. In the following decade, new members joining the MPAA included Avco Embassy by 1975, and Walt Disney Studios in 1979. The next year, Filmways became a MPAA member, but was later replaced in 1986 along with Avco Embassy, when the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group and Orion Pictures joined the MPAA roster. As of 1995, the MPAA members were: the Walt Disney Studios; Paramount Pictures; Universal Studios; Warner Bros; 20th Century Fox; MGM—which included United Artists after their 1981 merger—and Sony Pictures Entertainment, which included Columbia and TriStar Pictures after their acquisition in 1989. Turner Entertainment joined the MPAA in 1995, but was purchased in 1996 by Time Warner. As of 2013, the MPAA member companies were: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLC; and Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. References

If these changes seem acceptable, I'd appreciate it if someone could replace the current "Members" section with this text. If you have any thoughts before this is moved over into the mainspace, please feel free to reply here or on my talk page. Looking forward to your feedback! MPAA Kyle (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This look good. You can add it yourself (just to make your copyrights valid within history's page). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tbhotch, Thanks for your quick reply, and for taking the time to look at this! I think, though, that I'd prefer to have someone else move the edits over, rather than doing them myself, if at all possible. I want to make sure that everything here is as above-board and transparent as possible, so I'll be posting a request over at Paid editor help in the hopes of finding someone. Thanks again! MPAA Kyle (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll add them meanwhile WP:COOP replies. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the section over, Tbhotch. I'm hoping to have some more revisions to share soon, if it's ok, I might be in touch then. Thanks again for your help! MPAA Kyle (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposing updates for "Film ratings" section

Hello, I'd like to propose an update to the "Film ratings system" section of this article. As I've previously indicated, I have a COI in that I work for the Motion Picture Association of America. I'm thus hoping to get feedback from volunteer editors on these changes. The revised section I'd like to propose is below. I've made a number of changes to this section, including:

• Providing the historical context and motivation for instituting the system, along with the original ratings.
• Adding detail on addition of descriptions to R-rated films to explain the ratings.
• Moving discussion of This Film is Not Yet Rated into this section, from the "In other media" section, as it relates to film ratings specifically. I have also included mention of MPAA's response to the film.
• Adding a table of the current ratings symbols, along with the meaning and explanation for each symbol.

Film rating system

Main article: Motion Picture Association of America film rating system Within a year of taking over as president of the MPAA, Jack Valenti instituted a voluntary system of film ratings. The ratings were intended to provide viewers, particularly parents, with information about the content of films, while allowing adult moviegoers to watch any film they wanted. In addition to concerns about protecting children, Valenti stated in his autobiography that he sought to ensure that American filmmakers could produce the films they wanted, without the censorship that existed under the Production Code that had been in effect since 1930. The voluntary film ratings system went into effect in November 1968. It originally consisted of four ratings—"G" for general audiences, "M" for mature adults, "R" for adult supervision of viewers under 16, and "X" for viewers over 16 only—and has gone through several changes since first being implemented. In 1990, the MPAA added descriptions to R-rated films to indicate why the film had received that rating. In 1992, the MPAA added similar descriptions to PG and PG-13 movies. In 2007, the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated criticized the MPAA's rating process for its lack of transparency. In response, the MPAA posted its ratings rules, policies, and procedures, as well as its appeals process, online. The ratings currently used by the MPAA's voluntary system are: Rating Meaning MPAA's Explanation G General Audiences "All ages admitted." PG Parental Guidance Suggested "May contain some material parents might not like for their young children." PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned "Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers." R Restricted "Contains some adult material. Children under 17 require accompanying parent or adult guardian." NC-17 No One 17 and Under Admitted "Patently adult. Children are not admitted." References

I'd appreciate help from volunteer editors in making sure that this section is appropriately neutral and encyclopedic. If it is, it would be great if someone could move the section over into the article. Thanks, looking forward to your feedback! MPAA Kyle (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Your proposed revisions present a chronology of the development of the ratings system which is better covered by the Film ratings article. This article just needs to briefly cover the purpose of the ratings system, their purpose, and how they are administered. The section needs to be sourced but I would prefer to retain the current wording because it provides a better overview. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks for your feedback. In comparing the new version I've drafted and what's in the current article, I understand what you mean when you say my version has too much information about history, and not enough about what the system does or how it is administered. I'm going to work on adding details to my draft from the current version, if I can find citations for these, and trimming the historical information. I'll share the updated draft here soon.

One thing I'm curious to get your opinion about is the mention of This Film Is Not Yet Rated in this section. Discussion of the film is currently in the article in the Controversies and criticisms section, but the film isn't really a criticism of the MPAA as a whole, just of the film ratings process. It seems to me that mention of this belongs in the film ratings section, if it should be in this article at all, rather than just in the main film ratings article. What do you think?

Thanks again for your feedback! MPAA Kyle (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Controversies and claims" section is problematic in its entirety, unfortunately. WP:STRUCTURE says, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Your suggestion fits that. In addition, coverage related to file-sharing should be in one section: the MPAA's actions, and the responses to them. Just my $0.02. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erik, Thanks for your feedback. This sounds good to me—I'll leave mention of This Film Is Not Yet Rated in the film ratings section when I redraft it. I also appreciate you pointing out WP:STRUCTURE. I've been working on rewriting most of this article, trying to put things in their proper context based on this guideline.

I'll be sharing a revised version of the film rating system section soon, and other sections as I complete them. Thanks again! MPAA Kyle (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I've now revised the film ratings section based on your feedback. You can find it in the collapse box below. I tried to keep much of the language in the current article, although in places, the wording seemed confusing, so I also tried to tighten things up as I went. The content is much the same, though. Three things remain from my previous draft:

• I left in mention of film ratings system beginning in 1968, which seemed helpful for framing the section.

• I left in mention of the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated, based on feedback from Erik (see above).

• I also left in the table of film ratings, as it seemed easier to read than the prose version currently in the article, and seems like it would be something readers of this article might want to have access to at a glance.

Film rating system

The MPAA administers a motion picture rating system used in the United States to rate the suitability of films' themes and content for certain audiences. The system was first introduced in November 1968. The ratings system is completely voluntary, and ratings have no legal standing. Instead, theater owners enforce the MPAA film ratings after they have been assigned, with many theaters refusing to exhibit non-rated films. In 2007, the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated criticized the MPAA's rating process for its lack of transparency. In response, the MPAA posted its ratings rules, policies, and procedures, as well as its appeals process, online. The ratings currently used by the MPAA's voluntary system are: Rating Meaning MPAA's Explanation G General Audiences "All ages admitted." PG Parental Guidance Suggested "May contain some material parents might not like for their young children." PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned "Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers." R Restricted "Contains some adult material. Children under 17 require accompanying parent or adult guardian." NC-17 No One 17 and Under Admitted "Patently adult. Children are not admitted." References

I'm curious about your feedback on this version—does is seem more appropriate for the article? If so, could you replace the current section with this draft? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the table is a good idea, but why not copy the one at Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Ratings? It would include the trademark letters. Also, I think that your draft gives the impression that these ratings have been in place since 1968. Maybe mention in that last sentence when the current set of ratings was last updated? And lastly, what does the This Film Is Not Yet Rated mean for the "In other media" subsection per what I said about folding the narrative to be neutral? If we are going to cover the documentary as a step toward folding the narrative, the "In other media" content may need to be revised and merged depending on the prominence of its claims. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The new re-write is much better. I have mixed feeling over copying in the main table from the ratings article: on one hand it would be good to have the symbols, on the other it may swamp the article. Maybe we could just copy in the symbols and reduce their size. Betty Logan (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan and Erik, Thanks for your replies. I've responded to your feedback below, and you'll find a revised version of this section below my replies.

• Regarding the film ratings table, I think I agree with Betty Logan—copying over the table from the other article would be too unwieldy for the short discussion we're aiming for here; I think the table I've provided works better. I actually tried to develop a version of this table with the ratings symbols included, but I couldn't get the spacing to work right. No matter what I did, one of the symbols ended up bigger than the others, when they really should all be the same size. Maybe one of you could move this over as it is now, and if you two are better at dealing with images, see about including them in the future?

• Regarding mention of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, I think it should be removed from the "In other media" section—and, really, that section should be removed, since it only contains discussion of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and nothing else. As you mentioned, Erik, it's best to frame this criticism in its proper context, which I think means a short mention in the "Film rating system" section here, and more thorough discussion on the film rating system article, though I'm open to other ideas.

• Finally, Erik, I added mention to the first paragraph that the film rating system has gone through several revisions since its inception, which should help clarify what is meant by "current system" when the table is introduced. Here's the revised section:

Film rating system

Main article: Motion Picture Association of America film rating system The MPAA administers a motion picture rating system used in the United States to rate the suitability of films' themes and content for certain audiences. The system was first introduced in November 1968, and has gone through several changes since then. The ratings system is completely voluntary, and ratings have no legal standing. Instead, theater owners enforce the MPAA film ratings after they have been assigned, with many theaters refusing to exhibit non-rated films. In 2007, the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated criticized the MPAA's rating process for its lack of transparency. In response, the MPAA posted its ratings rules, policies, and procedures, as well as its appeals process, online. The ratings currently used by the MPAA's voluntary system are: Rating Meaning MPAA's Explanation G General Audiences "All ages admitted." PG Parental Guidance Suggested "May contain some material parents might not like for their young children." PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned "Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers." R Restricted "Contains some adult material. Children under 17 require accompanying parent or adult guardian." NC-17 No One 17 and Under Admitted "Patently adult. Children are not admitted." References

If everything here looks good now, would one of you be willing to replace the section in the current article with this draft? Thanks again, both of you, for your feedback on this! MPAA Kyle (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I implemented the draft as seen here. As for the "In other media" subsection, I am still mulling over the difference in content. The "Film rating system" section currently mentions the documentary contesting the lack of transparency, but the "In other media" subsection goes further about why transparency was a problem. (In short, the apparent inconsistency in issuing ratings based on the production and/or subject matter.) However, the existing citations are dated. This is one recent source I am looking at. Betty, I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to elaborate a little further on the transparency issue within the "Film rating system" section and ultimately remove the "In other media" subsection? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Erik, Thanks so much for moving this over! I'll be curious to see what Betty Logan thinks about This Film Is Not Yet Rated. I'll be back in the near future with a new draft of the history section of this article as well. Any chance you might be willing to take a look at that as well? MPAA Kyle (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Expanding "History"

Hello, I'd like to propose a revised version of the "History" section in this article. The current section is very short, especially given that the MPAA is more than 90 years old. The current section also contains prose taken from the MPAA website, as noted above.

As per the previous discussions on this page, I have a COI with regards to this article, as I work for the MPAA. I'm thus hoping volunteer editors can take a look at the changes I'm proposing and, if they look okay, implement them into the article, replacing the current "History" section. The complete section I'd like to propose is below, broken down into major eras for the MPAA. I look forward to your feedback! MPAA Kyle (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

History

Foundation and early history: 1922 to 1929 The Motion Picture Association of America was founded in 1922 as a trade association of movie companies and was originally named the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). Former Postmaster General Will H. Hays was named the association's first president. At its founding, the MPPDA represented approximately 70 to 80 percent of the films made in the United States. The main focus of the MPPDA in its early years was on producing a strong public relations campaign to ensure that Hollywood remained financially stable and able to attract investment from Wall Street, while simultaneously ensuring that American films had a "clean moral tone". The MPPDA also instituted a code of conduct for actors in Hollywood films governing their behavior offscreen, and sought to protect American film interests abroad by encouraging film studios to avoid racist portrayals of foreigners. From the early days of the association, Hays spoke out against public censorship, and the MPPDA worked to raise support from the general public for the film industry's efforts against such censorship. At the time of the MPPDA's founding, regional censorship boards in the US often edited Hollywood films to comply with local laws regarding the onscreen portrayal of violence and sexuality. This resulted in negative publicity for the studios, and low numbers of theater goers, who were uninterested in films that were sometimes so severely edited that they were incoherent. In 1924, Hays instituted "The Formula", a loose set of guidelines for filmmakers, in an effort to have the movie industry self-regulate the issues that the censorship boards had been created to address. "The Formula" requested that studios send synopses of films being considered for production to Hays for review. This effort largely failed, however, as studios were under no obligation to send their scripts to Hays's office, nor to follow his recommendations. In 1927, Hays oversaw the creation of a code of "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" for the industry. This list outlined potential issues that movies might encounter in different localities. The MPPDA also made the SRD available to the movie studios to review scripts and advise them about any problems. Again, despite Hays's efforts, studios largely ignored the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls", and by the end of 1929, the MPPDA received only about 20% of Hollywood scripts prior to production. Further, the number of censorship boards continued to increase, and by 1929 more than 50% of American moviegoers lived in a location overseen by such a board. The Production Code: 1930-1934 In 1930, the MPPDA introduced the Production Code, sometimes called the Hays Code. The Code consisted of moral guidelines regarding what was acceptable to include in films. Unlike the "Dont's and Be Carefuls", which the studios had ignored, the Production Code was endorsed by studio executives. The Code incorporated many of the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" as specific examples of what could not be portrayed. Among other rules, the code prohibited inclusion of "scenes of passion" unless they were essential to a film's plot, "pointed profanity" in either word or action, "sex perversion", justification or explicit coverage of adultery, sympathetic treatment of crime or criminals, dancing with "indecent" moves, and white slavery. Because studio executives had been involved in the decision to adopt the code, MPPDA-member studios were more willing to submit scripts for consideration. However, the growing economic impacts of the Great Depression of the early 1930s increased pressure on studios to make films that would draw the largest possible audiences, even if it meant taking their chances with local censorship boards by disobeying the Code. In 1933 and 1934, the Catholic Legion of Decency, along with a number of protestant and women's groups, launched plans to boycott films that they deemed immoral. In order to avert boycotts which might further harm the profitability of the film industry, the MPPDA created a new department, the Production Code Administration (PCA), with Joseph Breen as its head. Unlike previous attempts at self-censorship, PCA decisions were binding—no film could be exhibited in an American theater without a stamp of approval from the PCA, and any producer attempting to do so faced a fine of $25,000. The war years: 1935-1945 In the years that immediately followed the adoption of the Code, Breen often sent films back to Hollywood for additional edits, and in some cases, simply refused to issue PCA approval for a film to be shown. At the same time, Hays promoted the industry's new focus on wholesome films and continued promoting American films abroad. For nearly three years, studios complied with the Code. By 1938, however, as the threat of war in Europe loomed, movie producers began to worry about the possibility of decreased profits abroad. This led to a decreased investment in following the strictures of the code, and occasional refusals to comply with PCA demands. That same year, responding to trends in European films in the run-up to the war, Hays spoke out against using movies as a vehicle for propaganda. In 1945, after 24 years as president, Hays stepped down from his position at the MPPDA, although he continued to act as an advisor for the Association for the next five years. The Johnston era: 1945-1963 In 1945, the MPPDA hired Eric Johnston, four-time president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, to replace Will Hays. During his first year as president, Johnston rebranded the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). He also created the Motion Picture Export Association (MPEA) to promote American films abroad by opposing production company monopolies in other countries. In 1947, the MPEA voted to discontinue film shipments to Britain after the British government imposed an import tax on American films. Johnston negotiated with the British government to end the tax in 1948, and film shipments resumed. In 1956, Johnston oversaw the first revision of the Production Code since its implementation in 1930. This revision allowed the treatment of some subjects which had previously been forbidden, including abortion and the use of narcotics, so long as they were "within the limits of good taste". At the same time, the revisions added a number of new restrictions to the code, including outlawing the depiction of blasphemy and mercy killings in films. Johnston was well-liked by studio executives, and his political connections helped him function as an effective liaison between Hollywood and Washington. In 1963, while still serving as president of the MPAA, Johnston died of a stroke. For three years, the MPAA operated without a president while studio executives searched for a replacement. The Valenti era: 1966-2004 The MPAA hired Jack Valenti, former aide to President Lyndon Johnson, as president of the MPAA in 1966. In one of his first actions as president, in 1968 Valenti replaced the Production Code with a system of voluntary film ratings, in order to limit censorship of Hollywood films and provide parents with information about the appropriateness of films for children. In addition to concerns about protecting children, Valenti stated in his autobiography that he sought to ensure that American filmmakers could produce the films they wanted, without the censorship that existed under the Production Code that had been in effect since 1930. In 1975, Valenti established the Film Security Office, an anti-piracy division at the MPAA, which sought to recover pirated films to prevent duplication. Valenti continued to fight piracy into the 1980s, asking Congress to install chips in VCRs that would prevent illegal reproduction of video cassettes, and in the 1990s supported law enforcement efforts to stop bootleg distribution of video tapes. Valenti also oversaw a major change in the ratings system that he'd helped create—the removal of the "X" rating, which had come to be closely associated with pornography. It was replaced with a new rating, "NC-17", in 1990. In 2001, Valenti established the Digital Strategy Department at the MPAA to specifically address issues surrounding digital film distribution and piracy. The modern era: 2004-present After serving as president of the MPAA for 38 years, Valenti announced that he would step down in 2004. In September of that year, he was replaced by former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. During his tenure, Glickman focused on tax issues and anti-piracy efforts. He led lobbying efforts that resulted in $400 million in federal tax incentives for the movie industry, and also supported a law which created federal oversight of anti-piracy efforts. Glickman stepped down as president of the MPAA in 2010. After a search which lasted over a year, the MPAA hired former US Senator Chris Dodd to replace Glickman in March 2011. In his role as president, Dodd has focused on anti-piracy efforts, trade, and improving Hollywood's image since becoming MPAA president. He traveled to China in 2011 in an effort to encourage the Chinese government to both crack down on piracy and further open their film market. In 2012, he spoke out in support of the passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). Dodd has also highlighted the need for movie studios to embrace technology as a means of distributing content. References

• In general it looks good and better than the currect section we have, but there are a few repetitive words, like "step down". Also, some paragraphs are formed by one sentence, and that makes it choppy. But these are technical corrections that can be changed when added. If there aren't objections by other uses this can be added. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's well written, and I don't generally have a problem with the content, just the emphasis. I think there is too much focus on the history of the production code, which could actually be used to improve Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, which currently provides no background on the code. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tbhotch and Betty Logan, Thanks so much for taking the time to look at this and provide your thoughts; I really appreciate your help here. My thoughts on your feedback:

• Regarding paragraph breaks and repetitive phrasing—I'm happy for things to be tweaked for readability when this section gets moved over.
• Regarding the extent to which the Production Code is discussed—the Code was a major focus for the MPPDA, and directly related to the reasons for the organization's establishment in the first place. I certainly think some of this information could also help to spruce up the film ratings article, but I do think that the discussion is warranted here in order to frame the history of the MPAA properly.

If these issues with the article seem minor, I'd like to ask that we move the draft over into the article, in order to eliminate the plagiarism issue that currently exists, and then talk about what tweaks to make to wording and detail to get this up to snuff. Thanks again! MPAA Kyle (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your version is unquestionably better despite my reservations about the emphasis, so I haven't got a problem with the switch. Once it's in we can see if we can get the balance right. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Okay, great! In that case, would you mind moving the section over? I'd rather not make the edits myself, given my COI. Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Betty Logan, for your help on getting this section moved over and for your input! And thanks also to both Erik and Tbhotch for your feedback—it is very much appreciated! I'm currently finishing up another section of this article, so I'll be back in the near future to propose that as well. Thanks again! MPAA Kyle (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Updating anti-piracy information

Hello, I'm back again with another set of revisions I'd like to propose for this article. Currently, there are two sections in the article—"Controversies and criticisms" and "Anti-piracy efforts"—which cover much of the same material. Since nearly all of the controversies about the MPAA relate to anti-piracy, I think it makes more sense to combine these into a single section, rather than duplicating information across two sections, as has happened in the current article.

I've provided a proposed rewrite of this section below. As User:Erik noted previously, it's better to frame controversies in their proper context, so I've titled this new section "Anti-piracy efforts". I've added a few positive things about the MPAA in an effort to balance the perspective, but I've also kept nearly all of the criticism that currently appears in the article (although I have attempted to present it in a more encyclopedic tone).

Before we get to the draft, I'd like to specifically call attention to things that I have removed from my rewrite, and explain why:

• The current article briefly discussed SOPA and PIPA, especially Dodd's support of it. I've removed this, however, as discussion of his support now appears in the "History" section.
• I've removed discussion about the MPAA being a monopoly. The argument that the MPAA functions as a monopoly is entirely related to the issue of assigning film ratings. After our previous discussion about not going into detail about the film ratings system in this article, I think that this material more appropriately belongs in the film ratings article itself.
• I've removed discussion of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, as it is now discussed under "Film rating system", as per previous discussion here on Talk.
• I've significantly shortened the discussion of the Pirate Bay raid. After our discussion about the level of detail appropriate for the film ratings section, it seems to me that most of the material in the current version of this article regarding the raid is already discussed elsewhere. What is needed in this article is simply an explanation of the extent to which the MPAA was involved, and a link to the main article that discusses the raid; the details of the raid itself don't properly belong here, I believe.

Okay, now for the draft itself:

Proposed "Anti piracy efforts" section

Anti-piracy efforts

The MPAA's concerted efforts at fighting piracy began in 1975 with the establishment of the Film Security Office, which sought to recover pirated films in order to prevent duplication. The MPAA has continued to pursue a number of initiatives to combat illegal distribution of Hollywood films, especially in response to new technologies. In the 1980s, it spoke out against VCRs and the threat that the MPAA believed they represented to the movie industry, with MPAA president Jack Valenti drawing a parallel between the threat of the VCR and that of the Boston Strangler. In 1986, the MPAA asked Congress to pass a law that would require VCRs to come equipped with a chip to prevent them from making copies. Legal efforts at stopping homemade copies of broadcast television largely ended, however, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that such copying constituted fair use. The MPAA continued to support law enforcement efforts to stop bootleg production and distribution of videos tapes and laserdiscs into the 1990s, and in 2000 took legal action against individuals posting DVD decryption software on the Internet. As of 2013, the MPAA has also continued to support law enforcement efforts to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted materials online. The MPAA and its British counterpart, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), also funded the training of Lucky and Flo, a pair of Labrador Retrievers, to detect polycarbonates used in the manufacturing of DVDs.

Online file sharing

In the early 2000s, the MPAA began to focus its anti-piracy efforts on peer-to-peer file sharing, initially using a combination of educational campaigns and cease and desist letters to discourage such activity. In the first six months of 2002, the MPAA sent more than 18,000 such letters to internet service providers that hosted copyright-infringing content.

In late 2004, however, the MPAA changed course and filed lawsuits in a concerted effort to address copyright infringement on a number of large online file-sharing services, including BitTorrent and eDonkey. The following year, the MPAA expanded its legal actions to include lawsuits against individuals who downloaded and distributed copyrighted material via peer-to-peer networks.

The MPAA also played a role in encouraging the Swedish government to conduct a raid of the Pirate Bay file-sharing website in May 2006. Swedish officials have acknowledged that part of the motivation for the raid was the threat of sanctions from the World Trade Organization, along with a letter from the MPAA.

In 2013, the Center for Copyright Information unveiled the Copyright Alert System, a system established through an agreement between the MPAA, the Recording Industry Association of America, and five of the nation’s largest internet service providers. The system uses a third party service to identify content being distributed illegally. Users are then informed that their accounts are being used for possible copyright infringement and are provided with information about ways to get authorized content online. Users who receive multiple notices of infringement may have "mitigations measures" imposed on them, such as temporary slowing of their Internet service, but the system does not include termination of subscriber accounts. Subscribers facing such action have a right to appeal to the American Arbitration Association.

Publicity campaigns

The MPAA has also produced publicity campaigns to discourage piracy. The Who Makes Movies? advertising campaign in 2003 highlighted workers in the movie industry describing how piracy affected them. The video spots ran as trailers before movies, and as television advertisements. In 2004, the MPAA began using the slogan "You can click, but you can't hide". This slogan appeared in messages that replaced file-sharing websites after they had been shut down through MPAA legal action. It also appeared in posters and videos distributed to video stores by the MPAA. Also in 2004, the MPAA partnered with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore to release a trailer shown before films in theaters called You Wouldn't Steal a Car. The trailer was later placed at the beginning of many DVDs in way that could not be bypassed, which triggered criticism and a number of parodies.

In 2005, the MPAA commissioned a study to examine the effects of file sharing on movie industry profitability. The study concluded that the industry lost $6.1 billion per year to piracy, and that up to 44% of domestic losses were due to file sharing by college students. In 2008, the MPAA revised the percentage of loss due to college students down to 15%, citing human error in the initial calculations of this figure. Beyond the percentage of the loss that was attributable to college students, however, no other errors were found in the study.

Accusations of copyright violations against the MPAA

The MPAA itself has been accused of copyright infringement. In 2007, the creator of a blogging platform called Forest Blog accused the MPAA of violating the license for the platform, which required that users link back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA had used the platform for its own blog, but without linking back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA subsequently took the blog offline. Also in 2007, the MPAA released a software toolkit for universities to help identify cases of file sharing on campus. The software used parts of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, released under the General Public License, which stipulates that the source code of any projects using the distribution be made available to third parties. The source code for the MPAA's toolkit, however, was not made available. When the MPAA was made aware of the violation, the software toolkit was removed from their website.

References

Markup

==Anti-piracy efforts== The MPAA's concerted efforts at fighting piracy began in 1975 with the establishment of the Film Security Office, which sought to recover pirated films in order to prevent duplication.<ref name=WindsorStar75>{{cite news |title=Movie industry fights film piracy |url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=HUU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=DVIMAAAAIBAJ&dq=jack%20valenti%20piracy&pg=2594%2C4176001 |work=[[Windsor Star]] |date=14 April, 1975 |accessdate=18 April, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Clabaugh04>{{cite news |title=Valenti retires, Glickman named Hollywood's Washington man |author=Jeff Clabaugh |url=http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2004/06/28/daily27.html?page=all |work=Washington Business Journal |date=1 July, 2004 |accessdate=2 April, 2013}}</ref> The MPAA has continued to pursue a number of initiatives to combat illegal distribution of Hollywood films, especially in response to new technologies. In the 1980s, it spoke out against [[Videocassette recorder|VCRs]] and the threat that the MPAA believed they represented to the movie industry,<ref name=Marbach82>{{cite news |title=Putting the Bite On the Home VCR |author=William D. Marbach |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SJ4-FRJ0-0008-X3VM&csi=5774&oc=00240&perma=true |work=Newsweek |date=26 April, 1982 |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> with MPAA president [[Jack Valenti]] drawing a parallel between the threat of the VCR and that of the [[Boston Strangler]].<ref name=Jones87>{{cite news |title=The invasion of the VCRs |author=Malcolm Jones |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SKP-90V0-0060-2035&csi=11063&oc=00240&perma=true |work=St. Petersburg Times |date=26 April, 1987 |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> In 1986, the MPAA asked Congress to pass a law that would require VCRs to come equipped with a chip to prevent them from making copies.<ref name=McCloskey86>{{cite news |title=Movie Producers Want Anti-Copy Device On VCR Makers |author=Bill McCloskey |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SJD-HRB0-0011-83BF&csi=304478&oc=00240&perma=true |work=The Associated Press |date=23 September, 1986 |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> Legal efforts at stopping homemade copies of broadcast television largely ended, however, when the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled that such copying constituted [[fair use]].<ref name=CommDaily87>{{cite news |title='Distortion' Charged; DAT Anticopy Technology Debated At Joint Hill Hearing |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3TVV-HHR0-0019-30PX&csi=6944&oc=00240&perma=true |work=Communications Daily |date=3 April, 1987 |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> The MPAA continued to support law enforcement efforts to stop [[bootleg recording|bootleg]] production and distribution of videos tapes and [[laserdisc]]s into the 1990s,<ref name=Billboard91>{{cite news |title=MPAA Bags Some 50,000 Bogus Vids in N.Y. Bust |author=Paul Verna |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=3SJD-WP60-002S-H0VG&csi=5545&oc=00240&perma=true |work=Billboard |date=18 May, 1991 |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Goldstein94>{{cite news |title=Picture This |author=Seth Goldstein |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=TAgEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=RA1-PA53&dq=MPAA%20laserdiscs&pg=RA1-PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false |work=Billboard |date=21 May, 1994 |accessdate=19 March, 2013}}</ref> and in 2000 took legal action against individuals posting [[DVD]] [[Digital rights management#DRM and film|decryption software]] on the Internet.<ref name=Costello00>{{cite news |title=Content de-scrambling fought |author=Sam Costella |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=414V-TG80-00J5-J3D9&csi=169977&oc=00240&perma=true |work=InfoWorld Daily News |date=6 September, 2000 |accessdate=8 March, 2013}}</ref> As of 2013, the MPAA has also continued to support law enforcement efforts to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted materials online.<ref name=Lieberman13>{{cite news |title=MPAA Cheers Prison Sentence For Leader Of Internet Piracy Ring |author=David Lieberman |url=http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/mpaa-imagine-group-justice-department-conviction-sentencing/ |work=Deadline.com |date=4 January, 2013 |accessdate=22 April 2013}}</ref> The MPAA and its British counterpart, the [[Federation Against Copyright Theft]] (FACT), also funded the training of [[Lucky and Flo]], a pair of [[Labrador Retrievers]], to detect polycarbonates used in the manufacturing of DVDs.<ref name=Kirk06>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/125679/article.html |title=MPAA Trains Dogs to Sniff Out Pirate DVDs |author=Jeremy Kirk |date=11 May, 2006 |work=PCWorld |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> ===Online file sharing=== In the early 2000s, the MPAA began to focus its anti-[[Copyright infringement|piracy]] efforts on [[peer-to-peer]] [[file sharing]], initially using a combination of educational campaigns<ref name=Atkinson03>{{cite news |title=Music piracy persists at Boston U., nationwide despite lawsuits |author=Dan Atkinson |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4B6F-HJW0-00K4-105J&csi=172244&oc=00240&perma=true |work=University Wire |date=10 December, 2003 |accessdate=8 March, 2013}}</ref> and [[cease and desist]] letters to discourage such activity. In the first six months of 2002, the MPAA sent more than 18,000 such letters to [[internet service providers]] that hosted copyright-infringing content.<ref name=Woolley02>{{cite news |title=Shiver me timbers: Online bootlegs bane of entertainment industry |author=Simon Woolley |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4600-8XW0-015H-052Y&csi=244819&oc=00240&perma=true |work=Townsville Bulletin/Townsville Sun |date=3 June, 2002 |accessdate=8 March, 2013}}</ref> In late 2004, however, the MPAA changed course and filed lawsuits in a concerted effort to address copyright infringement on a number of large online file-sharing services, including [[BitTorrent]] and [[eDonkey network|eDonkey]].<ref name=Locklear04>{{cite web |url=http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2004/12/4467-2/ |title=MPAA lawsuits target BitTorrent, eDonkey and Direct Connect networks |author=Fred Locklear |date=14 December, 2004 |work=Ars Technica |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> The following year, the MPAA expanded its legal actions to include lawsuits against individuals who downloaded and distributed copyrighted material via peer-to-peer networks.<ref name=Johnson05>{{cite news |title=MPAA Anti-Piracy Lawsuits Target Individuals |author=Bary Alyssa Johnson |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4H0K-M4X0-01KX-14V2&csi=262320&oc=00240&perma=true |work=PC Magazine |date=29 August, 2005 |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> The MPAA also played a role in encouraging the [[Government of Sweden|Swedish government]] to conduct [[the Pirate Bay raid|a raid of the Pirate Bay]] file-sharing website in May 2006.<ref name=Mennecke06>{{cite web |url=http://www.slyck.com/story1227.html |title=Sweden Pressured to take Pirate Bay Action |author=Thomas Mennecke |date=20 June, 2006 |work=Slyck.com |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> Swedish officials have acknowledged that part of the motivation for the raid was the threat of sanctions from the [[World Trade Organization]], along with a letter from the MPAA.<ref name=Ahrens06>{{cite news |title=U.S. Joins Industry in Piracy War |author=Frank Ahrens |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402071.html |work=The Washington Post |date=15 June, 2006 |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Ewing06>{{cite web |url=http://www.thelocal.se/4128/20060621/#.UTdo1nyY4RE |title=US threatened Sweden with sanctions over piracy |author=Adam Ewing |date=21 June, 2006 |work=The Local |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> In 2013, the [[Center for Copyright Information]] unveiled the [[Copyright Alert System]], a system established through an agreement between the MPAA, the [[Recording Industry Association of America]], and five of the nation’s largest [[internet service providers]].<ref name=Miller13>{{cite news |title=MPAA-Backed Copyright Alert System Unveiled |author=Sean J. Miller |url=http://www.backstage.com/news/mpaa-backed-copyright-alert-system-unveiled/ |work=Back Stage |date=26 February, 2013 |accessdate=22 April 2013}}</ref> The system uses a third party service to identify content being distributed illegally. Users are then informed that their accounts are being used for possible copyright infringement and are provided with information about ways to get authorized content online.<ref name=>{{cite news |title=The new copyright alert system is running |author=Sarah Laskow |url=http://www.cjr.org/cloud_control/cas_system_already_in_action.php?page=all |work=Columbia Journalism Review |date=28 February, 2013 |accessdate=22 April 2013}}</ref> Users who receive multiple notices of infringement may have "mitigations measures" imposed on them, such as temporary slowing of their Internet service, but the system does not include termination of subscriber accounts. Subscribers facing such action have a right to appeal to the American Arbitration Association.<ref name=CASFAQs>{{cite web |url=http://www.copyrightinformation.org/resources-faq/copyright-alert-system-faqs/ |title=Copyright Alert System FAQs |work=copyrightinformation.org |publisher=Center for Copyright Information |accessdate=25 April, 2013}}</ref> ===Publicity campaigns=== The MPAA has also produced publicity campaigns to discourage piracy. The ''[[Who Makes Movies?]]'' advertising campaign in 2003 highlighted workers in the movie industry describing how piracy affected them. The video spots ran as trailers before movies, and as television advertisements.<ref name=Boliek03>{{cite news |title=H'wood steps up antipiracy fight |author=Brooks Boliek |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4BG8-SXP0-01V4-X35T&csi=12015&oc=00240&perma=true |work=The Hollywood Reporter |date=23 July, 2003 |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> In 2004, the MPAA began using the slogan "[[You can click, but you can't hide]]". This slogan appeared in messages that replaced file-sharing websites after they had been shut down through MPAA legal action.<ref name=BBC05>{{cite news |title=Movie body hits peer-to-peer nets |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4256449.stm |work=BBC News |date=11 February, 2005 |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> It also appeared in posters and videos distributed to video stores by the MPAA.<ref name=Hernandez04>{{cite news |title=MPAA Files Piracy Suits |author=Greg Hernandez |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4DTP-V1K0-TWDH-T3C9&csi=157105&oc=00240&perma=true |work=The Daily News of Los Angeles |date=17 November, 2004 |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> Also in 2004, the MPAA partnered with the [[Intellectual Property Office of Singapore]] to release a trailer shown before films in theaters called ''You Wouldn't Steal a Car''.<ref name=IPOS04>{{cite web |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040804074635/http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/newsroom/media_rel/mediarelease1_270704.html |title=Be HIP at the Movies |author= |date=27 July, 2004 |work=Intellectual Property Office of Singapore |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> The trailer was later placed at the beginning of many DVDs in way that could not be bypassed, which triggered criticism and a number of parodies.<ref name=Rohrer09>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8106805.stm |title=Getting inside a downloader's head |author=Finlo Rohrer |date=18 June, 2009 |work=BBC |accessdate=6 March, 2013}}</ref> In 2005, the MPAA commissioned a study to examine the effects of file sharing on movie industry profitability. The study concluded that the industry lost $6.1 billion per year to piracy, and that up to 44% of domestic losses were due to file sharing by college students. In 2008, the MPAA revised the percentage of loss due to college students down to 15%, citing human error in the initial calculations of this figure. Beyond the percentage of the loss that was attributable to college students, however, no other errors were found in the study.<ref name=Pope08>{{cite news |title=MPAA admits mistake on downloading study |author=Justin Pope |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080207045516/http://www.newsweek.com/id/98009/page/1 |work=Newsweek |date=23 January, 2008 |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> ===Accusations of copyright violations against the MPAA=== The MPAA itself has been accused of copyright infringement. In 2007, the creator of a [[Blog software|blogging platform]] called Forest Blog accused the MPAA of violating the license for the platform, which required that users link back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA had used the platform for its own blog, but without linking back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA subsequently took the blog offline.<ref name=Thomas07>{{cite web |url=http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2007/02/19/MPAA_violates_software_license/ |title=MPAA violates software license |author=Brett Thomas |date=19 February, 2007 |work=bit-tech.net |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref> Also in 2007, the MPAA released a software toolkit for universities to help identify cases of file sharing on campus. The software used parts of the [[Ubuntu (operating system)|Ubuntu]] [[Linux]] distribution, released under the [[GNU General Public License|General Public License]], which stipulates that the source code of any projects using the distribution be made available to third parties. The source code for the MPAA's toolkit, however, was not made available. When the MPAA was made aware of the violation, the software toolkit was removed from their website.<ref name=Paul07>{{cite news |title=MPAA's University Toolkit hit with DMCA takedown notice after GPL violation |author=Ryan Paul |url=http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2007/12/mpaas-university-toolkit-hit-with-dmca-takedown-notice-after-gpl-violation/ |work=Ars Technica |date=4 December, 2007 |accessdate=5 March, 2013}}</ref>

If this all looks good, I'd appreciate it if someone could move it over into the article, replacing both the "Controversies and criticisms" and "Anti-piracy efforts" sections. If you have feedback about this first, though, I'm all ears. Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Kyle this is well-written but I just have two concerns:

1. I think the monopoly section should be retained, since it is an important criticism of the MPAA. One aspect of the criticism is of the MPAA's application of the film ratings system—rather than the film rating system itself—to procur a commercial advantage, while the other aspect related to an "antitrust" case. I think both criticisms are relevant to the issues at hand.
2. The second problem regards Chris Dodd's threat to cut-off campaign contributions for politicians who oppose SOPA. While I have no problem with this going in the Chris Dodd section, the re-write ignores the controversy his comments created. To remain neutral on this, his comments need to be covered from both sides of the fence.

If you can sort out those two issues I have no problem transferring this in for you. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks so much for taking a look at this! I've provided some comments about your feedback below.

Regarding the monopoly section—I'd like to suggest that we take out the portion about film ratings, which is probably best addressed in the "Film rating system" section, especially given that it comes from This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which is already discussed in this section. I'd like to suggest a rewrite to the paragraph about the film, to include mention of allegation that the MPAA preferentially assigns ratings to films by member studios:

"Film rating system" expansion
In 2007, the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated alleged that the MPAA gave preferential treatment to member studios during the process of assigning ratings, as well as criticizing the rating process for its lack of transparency. In response, the MPAA posted its ratings rules, policies, and procedures, as well as its appeals process, online. References

The antitrust portion of the current "Monopoly" section is a bit trickier, in large part because the wording currently in the article makes it sound like this is an often-made accusation, when it really stems from a single case by a one company. What's more, the allegations were thrown out by a federal judge as groundless. I feel that, if included in the article at all, it ought to be framed as part of the MPAA's history, and not given a distinct section, given how minor it is. Below is my suggested wording for this information, to best match what the references say:

Language about antitrust accusations
In 2009, RealNetworks filed a lawsuit against the MPAA, accusing it of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. A federal judge later found that RealNetworks had no grounds to make such a claim, and dismissed the suit. References

Regarding Dodd's SOPA/PIPA comments—I've rewritten the second paragraph in "The modern era" of the "History" section to address this, including a modified version of the sentence currently in the article to make it more neutral and accurately match the source provided:

Expansion for "The modern era" section

After a search which lasted over a year, the MPAA hired former US Senator Chris Dodd to replace Glickman in March 2011. In his role as president, Dodd has focused on anti-piracy efforts, trade, and improving Hollywood's image since becoming MPAA president. He traveled to China in 2011 in an effort to encourage the Chinese government to both crack down on piracy and further open their film market. In 2012, he spoke out in support of the passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). After the two bills were shelved, Dodd indicated that Hollywood might cut off campaign contributions to politicians who failed to support the movie industry in the future. Dodd has also highlighted the need for movie studios to embrace technology as a means of distributing content. References

Let me know if you have any other feedback here, but if these look okay and address your concerns, do you think you could move this material over into the article? And thanks again for all of your help here; I really appreciate it! MPAA Kyle (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the revisions, Kyle. The only thing I'm not clear about is where you would like the Realplayer antitrust case to go. It seems a bit pointless having a new section for two sentences, so I would suggest adding it to the "anti-piracy" section where decryption software is discussed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Betty Logan, It's such a minor thing that I agree, it certainly doesn't warrant its own section, and where you suggest makes sense. Thanks so much for vetting this and moving it over on my behalf! MPAA Kyle (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Revising the introduction

Hi all, As mentioned above, I work for the MPAA, and have been working with a few volunteer editors here to improve this article, due to my COI. I have one more request: I'd like to propose a new version of the introductory paragraph. The current intro is a bit short and doesn't provide much in the way of framing what the MPAA does. I'd like to propose the following as a replacement:

Proposed Introduction

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is an American trade association that represents the six big Hollywood studios. The MPAA was founded in 1922 as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). Its original goal was to ensure the viability of the American film industry; it did this in part via the establishment of guidelines for film content known as the Production Code. Most recently, the MPAA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry through lobbying to protect creative content from piracy and by advocating against trade barriers. The MPAA also administers the MPAA film rating system. Former Democratic Senator Chris Dodd is the Chairman and CEO. The MPAA has long worked to curb copyright infringement, including recent attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

I'm happy to discuss anything in here, but if it all looks okay, could someone replace the current introduction with this? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I slightly prefer the wording of the first paragraph in the existing version, Kyle, since the main goal always has been to "advances the business interests of its members". It is succinct and to the point. In the second paragraph, I don't like the use of "advocate" twice, so I will copy the second paragraph in for you and then we can discuss any further refinements. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Okay, the version of the introduction you propose looks fine to me! And again, thank you so much for all of your help in getting these changes implemented. Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding an image of Chris Dodd to this article

Hello all, One final addition I'd like to suggest to this page. I've uploaded an image of MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd here Chris Dodd photo. I think this would be well-placed in the "Modern era" section of the "History", as a counterpoint to the image of Jack Valenti. The image is from a screening of the film No, so I'd like to suggest the caption "MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd at a screening of the film No." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPAA Kyle (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added it but I'm not entirely happy with the aesthetics. Despite making the image smaller it is still intruding into the Film ratings section on 1366 resolution monitors. I am going to make some alterations to your photograph if you don't mind, and then let me know what you think. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had to crop the image and add a gallery. It was the only way I could stop the image interefering with the following section in 1366x768 resolution, which is the most popular browers resolution. There is a resolution tester at [2] if anyone wants to experiment. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks so much for adding this and getting it to look right. I’m not particularly tied to where the photo goes, and it looks great where it is. Thanks again for your help with this article! MPAA Kyle (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

3rd Opinion: Terminology Use

MPAA Changes of the terms "pirate," "piracy," and derivatives to "unlicensed" and derivatives. There seems to be disagreement as to whether or not this is accurate, and whether or not source use of "pirate" warrants their use in the article outside of quotes and names of groups/plans/policies.

I believe the terms used in the change are more objective and unbiased, as the traditional pirate is a seabearing criminal. At best, the term is a colloquialism, but is more likely a politically aligned term. 63.153.230.166 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Third Opinion request made in reference to this matter has been removed because the matter has not been thoroughly discussed here on this talk page. The guidelines of the Third Opinion project say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." All forms of content dispute resolution at Wikipedia have a similar requirement. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of POV terminology

There has been a spate of edits altering the terminology by replacing occurences of "piracy" with "unlicensed distribution". I do not agree with the edits, basically because it is not backed up by the sources used in the article nor is it accurate either.

Our own copyright infringement article defines "piracy" to be the "unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright." i.e. 'piracy' extends beyond merely "unlicensed distribution": it also involves the act of copyright infringement and profiteering; essentially theft. For example, "unlicensed distribution" could simply refer to someone who lends a DVD to a friend, or someone who loans out legal editions of a film without an appropriate leasing license. Alternatively, I could hire a film and make a copy of it for my personal use, essentially infringing the copyright. None of these acts constitute "piracy". If I made a copy of a DVD and hired that out to people, that would be piracy i.e. profiteering from the unlicensed distribution of an unauthorized copy. Therefore the changes are by definition incorrect.

Secondly, "piracy" isn't a slang term, it is terminology that is used by a wide range of media in regards to this specific act; to limit examples to just sources used by this article:

• Movie industry fights film piracy (The Windsor Star)
• [3] (Pittsburgh Post Gazette) "devoted his attention to Internet piracy, copyright infringement and tax and ratings issues"
• [4] (LA Times) "Preventing piracy of movies and TV shows dominates the trade association's lobbying agenda"
• [5] (Hollywood Reporter) "Dodd's chief concerns include piracy"
• MPAA Anti-Piracy distribution Lawsuits Target Individuals (Nexis)
• MPAA Cheers Prison Sentence For Leader Of Internet Piracy Ring (Deadline) "IMAGINE distributed the pirated films on the Internet, collecting payments and donations from people who downloaded them."
• US threatened Sweden with sanctions over piracy (The Local)

Replacing terminology that is used predominantly by the sources with a made-up term that isn't used by the sources is WP:Original research, which is prohibited. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Justin Huges wrote a [6] on copyright and its history published in the Southern California Law Review, volume 79, page 993. This was in 2006.

Included in his studies was Adrian Johns' "Nature of the Book" published in 1998 by the University of Chicago Press. Johns traces the origin of the term back to the 17th century, where the term was technically defined (it had existed since Bishop of Oxford John Fell used it to refer to unauthorized copying of books, shortly after the Restoration. Fell restarted the Oxford University Press, the academic publisher.) The definition had technical meaning in the seventeenth century: "a pirate was someone who indulged in the unauthorized reprinting of a title recognized to belong to someone else by the formal conventions of the printing and bookselling community." Johns mentions that the term was soon applied to perceived transgressions of all kinds by printers.

In the US, the first use in a court case was v. Fiske in 1820. Hughes mentions that there was already a wide meaning and use of the term by the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries." The broad usage of the word "piracy" shows that it was generally equated with infringement: there seemed to be no requirement either that the infringement be a "nontransformative" use or that the infringement entail reproduction and distribution on a massive scale."

The origin of the term was not, as you put it, profitable unlicensed distribution. Nor did, at any time in the first 200 years since its creation, have I ever heard of such a use. The term is ambiguous vernacular for a wide variety of activities. The only thing these activities have in common is the license (or earlier on the social contract) being broken.

I therefore submit that the term is indeed slang, and should not be used in an academic context. The term's use strikes me as political theater. 63.153.230.166 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Less technical notes.

The sources may use the terms I changed, but they are not quoted in this article. That combined with the above technical and below non-technical notes attest the terms are synonymous to a degree, with unlicensed distribution being less ambiguous, and since they are not quoted or names/policies/units/etc I do not agree that the deviation from source terminology is important here. This article is not copied and pasted from those sources, after all.

Do you attest that copying and selling not included in "unlicensed distribution?" Both senders and recipients participate in the distribution, as do both sellers and buys of commercial distribution. This alone strikes me as refutation of your second complaint. 63.153.230.166 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The origin of the term is wholly irrelevant here, since we are discussing a single interpretation in a particular context. In the context of home entertainment as described by the sources used by this article, "piracy" carries a meaning that is distinct from "unlicensed distribution" as you put it. It is Wikipedia's job to relay what the sources say, and departing from the industry standard terminology that the sources themselves use is original research. It is also worth noting that the US government bill introduced to combat piracy was called the Stop Online Piracy Act, not the "Stop Unauthorized Online Distribution Act". Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The bill to combat terrorism in the US was called the PATRIOT act. I would never hold up a legislative bill acronym as evidence of correct use of terminology :) 63.153.230.166 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer at WP:3O, where one of you two posted this dispute. I'd have to agree with Betty Logan here. It doesn't matter if "piracy" was defined differently in the past. All that matters is how reliable sources use the term today. Howicus (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Point of note, no one here (at least one must assume until told otherwise, as is required of any other factual statement around here) asked any of these publishers what they meant by "piracy."

You could ask a large percentage of the low-income USA what "healthcare" was, and they would recite a definition for health INSURANCE. I wonder if people would be willing to concede that particular term's separate meaning, just to "reflect the source" when common knowledge indicates the source meant something else. Frog 75.170.243.23 (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

p.s. According to our article on the Patriot Act, the "T" in patriot stands for "Terrorism". Just FYI. Howicus (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Piracy is certainly the word I would use in the context here. There are enough UK and international references to the piracy for international copying and counterfeiting of a range of products, not just the copying of films. There are a range of other terms that can be used (including counterfeiting etc), but piracy is as valid as any other. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture

I've nominated the Free Speech Flag for Featured Picture.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Free Speech Flag.

— Cirt (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy

"Should we plan to release this confidential information at a later date?" The MPAA stands for `Major Players All Across' - A computer subculture phenomenon. [leet] The MPAU actually handles all information that the MPAA handles here. -- this entire article should read MPAU (Motion Picture Association United) {not on Wikipedia (tm) yet./?} where MPAA was mistaken somewhere during Betamax/Maxi~Reil convention, for MPAU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisting???

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a single word on blacklisting. Actually, I didn't see any criticism of this organization anywhere. I guess it was a positive thing to keep freedom of speech out of Hollywood. Sammy D III (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is favorable to the MPAA—possibly written by someone affiliated to the organization—but I don't think there is any ulterior motives at work here in terms of actively keeping the material out. I think the blacklisting is an important part of Hollywood history and would certainly support inclusion of the MPAA's role. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn’t mean cover-up, just bias. Hollywood blacklist only has a passing reference, too. Still, it surprises me, lots of people have been here, I didn’t see that it had ever come up.

If I could, maybe I would. At least it’s been mentioned now, maybe someone will notice. Thank you for your time (and very fast reply). Sammy D III (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Change

I made a change in the Johnson period section regarding the production code. I don't know how to add sources formally into the article in the standard format, but the following http://productioncode.dhwritings.com/multipleframes_productioncode.php will justify my change. There had been numerous changes to the code since it was written in 1930, but I refer to 1934 as the first consistent implementation of the Code (starting July 1), and to 1956 as arguably (but not definitively) the most significant of the changes during that time, thus preserving the spirit of the earlier poster's idea, while making it more consistent with the fact. (The Special Regulations on Crime in the late 1930s was a pretty significant change, so there's room for disagreement as to which was more important, but as it had been written, the existing text was incorrect and uncited.)136.181.195.29 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reinstalled the 1930 date; even your source dates the code to 1930. Even if the code only became binding in 1934 (as claimed by this article), it is factually inaccurate to say the code itself was first implemented in any year other than 1930. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)