Talk:Motion Picture Association of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Criticisms

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Moron

whoever changed the comment from what used to be usefull information to the offensive statement should be banned from wikipedia because they are childish! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.89.17 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 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.”

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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”.

[edit] 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)