You are mistaking the role by which the MPAA was established with having some control over theatres.
As a previous owner/operator of a movie theatre in Canada, I can give you a better understanding of this situation.
In the early 1900's (sometime around the 1930's), the public became concerned about censorship issues and warnings to the public about the content in a movie. There was a large public demand for the government to become involved in this censorship issue.
The large studios fearing government intervention in this censorship issued, offered to establish the MPAA and thereby provivide self-censorship. This was considered acceptable, and as such it is the MPAA that provides the rating information on films.
In contrast, in Canada, we actually have government controlled censors. The bigger provinces like Ontario, have their own censors, and some of the smaller provinces (like the maritime ones) share in providing this service to the public. So to exhibit a movie in Canada, the applicable censor rating from the appropriate government must be provided and advertised with any movie exhibited in a movie theatre in Canada. The censorhip process is meant to be a service to protect the public.
The MPAA's rating process is in the United States, only just a process of informing the public about the content in the movie and how offensive or in-offensive it may be.
The idea of sef-regulating bodies in an industry is not unussual. Doctors, lawyers, and accoutants, also have self-regulating bodies over members in their industry/profession.
The real problem is that the MPAA has expanded its mandate into areas (like trying to stop movie piracy), which it is not qualified or authorised to deal with.
You are dealing with two extremes and focusing on "the internet", when in reality the studios just need better "security controls" which are available.
Unfortunately the MPAA and many other studio employees seem to beleive that if a solution exists, that they should be given it for free. That they can be trusted implicitely to know what to do with it. That they couldn't possibly mess things up. etc.
The solution to movie piracy is in itself intellectual property. As such they should understand and be willing to obtain it in the same way their movies are expected to be sold.
With any product or service which can not be returned, without assurances that the purchaser has not or will not use it without authorization, the terms and means of payment must be negotiated FIRST! Imagine everyone being able to go to a movie theatre to watch a movie, and only after they have watched the movie, deciding what if anything they will pay for it. This would be evidently rediculous.
Yet, when the MPAA is informed that a solution to movie piracy exists, they act like they are entitled to it for free, and that they should be implicitly trusted to make sure the person who provided it will recieve due credit, and that they will decide what if any monetary reward they will receive. This is where the MPAA is completely ridiculous.
If you are truely interested in knowing more about ways to solve this problem, then recognise that security starts at the top. The top is the studio CEO's, not the MPAA.
The MPAA could have been a facilitator, but chose not to be.
If more interested, then check-out the web-site Intellectualpropertyprotectionexpert.net. You can then contact me directly if you still have further questions.
At least you are asking the right questions. Good Luck!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Glenn Stencell.
Re: MPAA Controls the Theaters - for now
As a previous owner/operator of a movie theatre in Canada, I can give you a better understanding of this situation.
In the early 1900's (sometime around the 1930's), the public became concerned about censorship issues and warnings to the public about the content in a movie. There was a large public demand for the government to become involved in this censorship issue.
The large studios fearing government intervention in this censorship issued, offered to establish the MPAA and thereby provivide self-censorship. This was considered acceptable, and as such it is the MPAA that provides the rating information on films.
In contrast, in Canada, we actually have government controlled censors. The bigger provinces like Ontario, have their own censors, and some of the smaller provinces (like the maritime ones) share in providing this service to the public. So to exhibit a movie in Canada, the applicable censor rating from the appropriate government must be provided and advertised with any movie exhibited in a movie theatre in Canada. The censorhip process is meant to be a service to protect the public.
The MPAA's rating process is in the United States, only just a process of informing the public about the content in the movie and how offensive or in-offensive it may be.
The idea of sef-regulating bodies in an industry is not unussual. Doctors, lawyers, and accoutants, also have self-regulating bodies over members in their industry/profession.
The real problem is that the MPAA has expanded its mandate into areas (like trying to stop movie piracy), which it is not qualified or authorised to deal with.
I hope this helps.
Re: Other options and workable solutions do exist
Unfortunately the MPAA and many other studio employees seem to beleive that if a solution exists, that they should be given it for free. That they can be trusted implicitely to know what to do with it. That they couldn't possibly mess things up. etc.
The solution to movie piracy is in itself intellectual property. As such they should understand and be willing to obtain it in the same way their movies are expected to be sold.
With any product or service which can not be returned, without assurances that the purchaser has not or will not use it without authorization, the terms and means of payment must be negotiated FIRST! Imagine everyone being able to go to a movie theatre to watch a movie, and only after they have watched the movie, deciding what if anything they will pay for it. This would be evidently rediculous.
Yet, when the MPAA is informed that a solution to movie piracy exists, they act like they are entitled to it for free, and that they should be implicitly trusted to make sure the person who provided it will recieve due credit, and that they will decide what if any monetary reward they will receive. This is where the MPAA is completely ridiculous.
If you are truely interested in knowing more about ways to solve this problem, then recognise that security starts at the top. The top is the studio CEO's, not the MPAA.
The MPAA could have been a facilitator, but chose not to be.
If more interested, then check-out the web-site Intellectualpropertyprotectionexpert.net. You can then contact me directly if you still have further questions.
At least you are asking the right questions. Good Luck!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Glenn Stencell.
Submit a story now.