Tag: mpaa

Who’s the real “Bully” here?

This particular story has been developing for quite some time before my blog post. So rather than weigh in after just one story, I will link to several:

This should not, however, be considered an all-inclusive timeline, because to fully understand the controversy surrounding “Bully” requires a look at how we even got the present day movie ratings to begin with. We’ll get there.

The documentary film “Bully” is about, well, bullying in schools. The first EW.com story above says it best:

It’s a tricky catch-22: How do you make an honest movie about the epidemic of adolescent bullying and not have it land an “R” rating?

And it begs the question: whose fault is it that one can’t make a movie about what goes on in schools that kids need to see, without risking the wrath of the MPAA ratings board in the form of an “R” rating (or even an “NC-17” rating)? The easy answer is to blame the schoolkids for using that kind of language in school (and I understand that teachers and faculty shouldn’t tolerate it, but at the same time they can’t be everywhere and hear everything all the time). The more difficult, but possibly more correct, answer is to blame the MPAA’s no-nonsense hard limits on certain swear words, at or above which the “R” rating becomes automatic.

For those of you unfamiliar with the MPAA’s rating system (which would include most of my readers outside the US and Canada), this is a summary of the MPAA’s official guide:

  • “G”: General Audiences. Children of all ages can see these films alone, no questions asked. Minimal violence, no profanity, no drug use, no sex or nudity. Most “G” rated feature films are intended for children, though the “G” rating by itself does not signify this.
  • “PG”: Parental Guidance Suggested. Most theaters will still allow unaccompanied children into these films. There may be some profanity, violence and/or brief nudity, but nothing intense. (Any drug use will also disqualify a film from a possible “PG” rating; “Whale Rider” got a “PG-13” for a brief shot of drug paraphernalia.)
  • “PG-13”: Parents Strongly Cautioned. We’re still not at the point where theaters will deny admission to unaccompanied children. One of the harsher expletives or any drug use are an automatic “PG-13” rating. Usually, two or more of the harsher expletives, or one such utterance in a sexual context, will result in an “R” rating (see below). The “PG-13” rating came about because the existing categories of “PG” and “R” were too broad and was actually suggested by Steven Spielberg, who in 1984 directed “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” and produced “Gremlins”, both of which were controversial because of their “PG” rating.
  • “R”: Restricted. Now, we’re getting into films made primarily for adults. Most theaters will check identification and deny admission to children under 17 for an “R” rated film. To quote the MPAA: “Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.”
  • “NC-17”: No One 17 and Under Admitted. This replaced the original “X” rating in 1990 (“X” had long since been taken over by, and is now nearly synonymous with, pornographic films). These films are, in the judgment of the MPAA ratings board, made for viewing by adults and appropriate only for viewing by adults. Most theaters will not screen an “NC-17” rated film. Most video rental chains will not stock titles rated “NC-17”. Again quoting the MPAA: “NC-17 does not mean ‘obscene’ or ‘pornographic’ in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience.” Nevertheless, many movie producers consider an “NC-17” rating a “commercial death sentence” for the reasons mentioned before.

How did we get here? The gory details are at Wikipedia’s article on the MPAA film rating system. The system grew out of the original Production Code, commonly called the Hays Code after Will H. Hays, Hollywood’s chief censor. The first MPAA film “rating” was actually not G, PG, R, or even M or X; it was “SMA” for “Suggested for Mature Audiences” toward the end of the Production Code era.

The MPAA ratings system is labeled a “voluntary” system. Technically, this is the case. No motion picture producer is required to seek an MPAA rating to release their completed work. But take the example of “Kids”, a 1995 drama film where all of the major characters are no older than 17. It was rated NC-17 by the MPAA, but later released unrated; Harvey and Bob Weinstein were forced to buy back the film from Disney, releasing the film under a one-off company Shining Excalibur Films, since Disney’s policy forbade the release of an NC-17 film. (And yes, these are the same Weinsteins who own the distributors of “Bully” today.)

Did kids of the 1990s really need to see “Kids” as much as today’s kids need to see “Bully”? Probably not. Are there kids who could benefit from seeing “Kids”? Probably. Are there kids who will not get to see “Kids” until they become adults because of the NC-17 rating the film originally received? Most definitely, and I feel this is evidence of how broken the MPAA’s rating system has been and continues to be.

To quote the fifth EW.com story above:

TWC had mounted an aggressive effort to persuade the MPAA to reverse its initial ratings verdict. Nearly half a million people signed a petition from Katy Butler, Michigan high school student and former bullying victim, on Change.org to urge the MPAA to lower the rating. “The kids and families in this film are true heroes, and we believe theater owners everywhere will step up and do what’s right for the benefit of all of the children out there who have been bullied or may have otherwise become bullies themselves,” said TWC president of marketing Stephen Bruno. “We’re working to do everything we can to make this film available to as many parents, teachers and students across the country.”

Despite all the outrage, all the petitions, and a member of Congress getting into the act, the MPAA hasn’t budged. “Bully” is still, according to the MPAA ratings board, rated “R”. Most high schools and middle schools will not show an “R” rated film for liability reasons. So in effect, the MPAA rating would keep the film from being seen by adolescent students, the ones for whom the film is intended to benefit. Adults don’t really need to see this film, and it’s not aimed at them.

Fortunately, at least some theaters are showing some common sense. AMC is allowing parental permission slips for their children to go see “Bully” unaccompanied, and Regal is treating the film as any other “R” rated film (unfortunate in a way, but at least it is in their theaters). This quote of a quote from the last of the EW.com stories is quite revealing (and refers to AMC’s move regarding the permission slips):

“This move, regardless of intentions, sets a precedent that threatens to derail the entire ratings system,” said PTC head Tim Winter in a statement. “If a distribution company can simply decide to operate outside of the ratings system in a case like Bully, nothing would prevent future filmmakers from doing precisely the same thing, with potentially much more problematic material.”

Mr. Winter says this like the MPAA’s rating system imploding upon itself is a bad thing. I think AMC is doing the right thing here. Even more interesting is that TWC will be using the “Pause 13+” rating given by commonsense.org. (As I understand it, the “Pause 13+” rating is an acknowledgment that the film is aimed at those 13 and older but has content some parents may consider inappropriate for that age.)

I don’t think commonsense.org’s ratings system is perfect, but in this case “Pause 13+” says a lot more than “R” ever could. Maybe it’s time for a few more filmmakers and theater chains to do things that “[threaten] to dreail the entire [MPAA] ratings system.” At the very least, this latest controversy over a film’s rating means it is time for MPAA to get out of the film ratings business and leave it to another organization to either overhaul the ratings system to fulfill its original goal of giving parents concise information, or devise an entirely new one.

It smacks of conflict of interest for the trade association to be slapping ratings on films. Especially given that of the one of which can effectively end a film’s commercial life, and at least one other which is often misleading and which merely says “may not be appropriate for under 17” without acknowledging that 13- to 16-year olds are probably those who most need to see it.

What also really worries me, is the MPAA’s huge cloud of secrecy about its ratings board and their decisions. The people on the ratings board have joint control of what is, figuratively, a loaded gun that they can point at a movie and (commercially) kill. The end of the film “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” should show the MPAA ratings appeal process, from the point of view of the producer. Unfortunately, all we get are descriptions, and re-enactments of the phone call from “someone at the MPAA” detailing the secrecy of these proceedings.

I am undecided as to whether or not secrecy is a symptom of another problem, or part of the problem itself. But I do know you can’t have full accountability with this level of secrecy.

Engadget editor shows us the “restrictions” in Digital Restrictions Management

I know, two stories from the same source. But this one hit one of my hot buttons a bit too hard to just skip.

Paul Miller, senior associate editor for Engadget recently posted about a nasty surprise that his Apple iPad had waiting for him. Instead of quoting the entire story I’ll do my best to summarize in bullet-point format:

  • Paul gets stuck in an airport with his iPad and buys a movie for $15 to pass the time (since his laptop battery is dead, the iPad was his only choice).
  • The download only gets 2/3 of the way completed before Paul has to board his flight.
  • Luckily his flight has in-flight WiFi. Unluckily for him, the port iTunes needs to access to download the movie is blocked (I have no idea how iTunes works so I’m just using the same terminology Paul did).
  • Paul finishes downloading the movie at home, and decides the iPad’s small screen is too small to truly enjoy the film. So Paul connects his iPad to his TV.

And… bam! The “Restrictions” part of Digital Restrictions Management kick in, and the iPad throws up “Cannot Play Movie / The connected display is not authorized to play protected movies.” Not surprisingly, Paul’s next move is to fire up a BitTorrent client and download an unrestricted copy of the same movie, which I would assume works fine.

The unfortunate part of Paul’s post is that he has bought into the misleading and loaded usage of terms such as “steal” and “theft” for copyright infringement. Unfortunately, that’s a much bigger problem and it’s not going to be solved overnight, or probably even this year. But that’s another rant for another day. That, and the fact he gets bitten by DRM on a device built entirely around DRM, that is a brick until it’s connected once to a copy of iTunes on Windows or MacOS, is an unfortunate non-surprise to the readers of this blog. (Oh, yes, you read that right! The iPad will not work without being hooked to a computer with iTunes at least once! More on that in a future entry, maybe.)

The reality is that the MPAA is overdue to “get it” like the RIAA did. The RIAA finally figured out that it made more sense to sell unprotected music files via Amazon and even iTunes than it did to keep using digital locks to try to keep the honest people honest. It’s a step in the right direction, of course those are still MP3 and most record companies still aren’t embracing WAV/FLAC downloads (which I could understand being a little more expensive per track, but which I would actually buy).

But the MPAA has held onto “lock it down with more DRM” like a stubborn mule. Why, I don’t know. Movie producers and studios are finally grasping the concept of digital cinema, but a good many productions still originate on 35mm film. The new age is the digital age, an age of non-scarcity, where we can have as many copies as we want. DRM is a failure. Shame on you, MPAA; it’s time to let your obsession with DRM go.

Save the date: A Day Against DRM, 2010 May 04

DefectiveByDesign.org recently published an article entitled “The decade of DRM.” Included among the events were four events prior to 2000 that would set the stage for the introduction and proliferation of DRM (digital restrictions management), arguably one of the biggest steps backward for computing freedom ever.

Even as far back as 2000, a lot of devices that we do not ordinarily think of as computers are in fact exactly that. Television sets, VCRs, CD players, DVD players, portable audio players, mobile phones, copiers, printers, scanners, fax machines, and the list goes on; all of these have computers (microprocessor-based logic) built into them somewhere. In 1980, this was unheard of, but now, it’s a fact of life. I still remember my late grandfather’s rants about these new cars with “all this computer [excrement]” that made them much more difficult to fix.

We have yet to change one thing, and it’s probably one thing that should not be changed. Computers are still, by themselves, incredibly dumb. One would think this, by itself, would discourage widespread adoption of DRM. Sadly, this is not the case.

The recording industry (RIAA) has realized DRM is not in their best interests. However movies, e-books, and cable television continue to be saddled with obnoxious restrictions. It’s often said that locks only keep honest people honest, and this is the same with DRM which is just a cyberspace equivalent of a fancy padlock. Those who do not respect copyright or draconian laws like the DMCA will crack the DRM and share anyway. CSS (not the stylesheet language, the DVD encryption method) was cracked very on in the lifespan of the DVD format. The Blu-Ray AACS key has been changed several times, and it just gets cracked again and again. Copies of these movies, as well as scans of books in PDF form, are easily obtainable on peer-to-peer file sharing networks and sites.

Meanwhile, people who have legitimately paid for video and audio recordings get unwelcome surprises when license servers disappear and they try to play recordings they “own” on a new computer. (The term “own” and “ownership” is kind of pointless with DRM, as even if one still has a copy of the recording, it can be rendered useless on an arbitrary basis. It’s like having a CD, DVD, or book that can just vanish or turn to dust without warning.) Don’t believe me? Ask these baseball fans who got bitten by MLB’s change in DRM licensing servers. Or the many people who bought into Microsoft’s PlaysForSure DRM scheme.

Perhaps the worst example, however, is when Amazon reached in to thousands of Kindle e-book readers it sold and erased copies of George Orwell’s book 1984, back in 2009 July. The content of the book itself makes the message even more chilling than it would otherwise have been.

DRM is an anti-social technology and I feel it is out of place in a world where “social media” is the new buzzword. The sooner it dies, the better.

Maybe we need “rated P for pot”

I’m kidding, of course, but it’s tempting to suggest just that.

The New York Times reports on what many see as an unfortunate move by the MPAA Ratings Board regarding the rating of the movie “It’s Complicated.” The film is rated R, not for violence, sex, or one too many of the nastier swear words. No, it’s rated R for a scene involving marijuana use.

Quoting the story:

This is an absurd ruling rooted in old cultural thinking,” said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Universal and Mr. Martin unsuccessfully appealed, seeking a PG-13 rating.

A PG-13 rating is not out of line, especially if history is any guide:

Figuring prominently in the brouhaha are other depictions of marijuana in cinema, particularly the scene in the 1980 comedy “9 to 5” showing Dolly Parton, Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin getting high and raiding the refrigerator. Its rating was PG.

Everyone about my age remembers at least hearing about “9 to 5.” I will admit I’ve never seen it all the way through. If a movie with pot use was only worth a PG in 1980, why would should a movie get branded with an R rating for the same reason here in 2009?

(Note that there was no PG-13 rating yet at the time of release of “9 to 5.” That was added in the summer of 1984. Under today’s MPAA rating system, “9 to 5” would most likely get a PG-13 instead of a PG, all other things being equal.)

The MPAA needs to get real and be consistent. We are much closer to the legalization of marijuana today than we ever were in 1980. Branding a movie with an R rating needs to be taken seriously, and not done as a purely political move, which is what appears to be the case here. These ratings decisions effectively decide box office returns, whether the MPAA intended this to ever be the case or not.

If you don’t believe me, remember “Kids?” That had to be released unrated, because most theaters would not show an NC-17 film. It turned a profit, but probably would not have were it released with its original NC-17 rating. Even then, Disney’s policy (the corporate parent of Miramax, which bought the distribution rights) was to forbid the release of NC-17 rated movies, forcing the creation of a one-off company to get the film distributed.

While technically optional, there is only one realistic alternative to the MPAA’s rating system, that being the Film Advisory Board, and that one is of dubious utility outside of direct-to-video releases. So in effect, the MPAA’s rating system is a de facto monopoly. The MPAA has the power to brand a movie with an R or NC-17 rating and cost the producers seven- to eight-figure sums. This is almost as bad as the Hays Code (Motion Picture Production Code), in essence. In effect, since most cinema owners and movie rental shops and technically even the likes of Redbox enforce the MPAA ratings, in effect the ratings system is a slightly watered-down version of the Hays Code, where instead of “unapproved” we have “NC-17.”

Who does the MPAA think they are, really?

Okay, I’m finally catching up. This should be one of the last “old news” posts for a while. I may have one or two more and then the focus will return to more current items.

As blogged on Lockergnome and BoingBoing, the MPAA has disgracefully acted to shut down an entire city’s public Wi-Fi network due to one user downloading a copyrighted movie. The latter article references the Coshocton Tribune’s original story.

The town of Coshocton, OH, maintained an open public Wi-Fi connection hosted at the courthouse at 318 Main Street. (As you can see from the map, the Tribune’s offices aren’t far from it.) Sometime during the days prior to 2009 November 09, when this story was printed, a complaint came in from Sony Pictures Entertainment to the county’s ISP, OneCommunity, which in turn notified the county.

So now, there is no free Wi-Fi by the courthouse, at least for the moment. The county is looking at installing a filtering program in an attempt to squash those who want to use government resources to get their illicit movie fix, but that does not come cheaply: $2,000 for equipment, then $900 annually for the filtering software license.

The BoingBoing article has choice words for the MPAA, which I am a bit inclined to agree with. They refer to “the MPAA’s spokeslizard” who is identified as Elizabeth Kaltman in the Tribune’s article, who not surprisingly uses the loaded term “piracy” to refer to copyright infringement.

It would be much more reasonable to expect respect for the MPAA’s copyrights if its member studios charged reasonable prices for its movies. When DVD displaced VHS, not only did the studios pocket the lowered expense in producing the former versus the latter, but often upped the price. $20 or more for a DVD movie is still not unheard of; note that the titles that cost $5 to $10 at a discount store are rarely the same ones that one would ever find on a BitTorrent tracker or similar peer-to-peer network. (The RIAA did something similar during the transition from vinyl records and cassette tapes to CDs, charging more for the same music even though production costs went down.)

There is plenty of money to be had by charging a reasonable ($15 maximum, $12 average) price for a DVD. Yet Hollywood (the MPAA) sees nothing but dollar signs, even during the recession, and keeps the price tag arbitrarily high. And then, they wonder why more people get it from BitTorrent or Limewire than Amazon, Wal-Mart, or Target.

If the MPAA’s member organizations don’t like the return on investment they get when setting a reasonable price, maybe they should consider producing higher quality product (movies). Jacking the price up is a no-win for everyone.