By MCN Editor

MPAA Accuses Wikipedia Of “Gimmick” In SOPA Blackout

WASHINGTON —The following is a statement by Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) on the so-called “Blackout Day” protesting anti-piracy legislation:

“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”

19 Responses to “MPAA Accuses Wikipedia Of “Gimmick” In SOPA Blackout”

  1. Jim Heaphy says:

    I have thought highly of Chris Dodd for many years – until today. This astounding and insulting statement shows that Dodd and MPAA aren’t interested in reasonable compromise. I’ve owned a small business for 18 years that now relies on Google and the Internet for our marketing, and I am also an active Wikipedia editor. We didn’t enter into this protest lightly – our attorneys advised us that SOPA and PIPA are a real threat. Why would a guy like Chris Dodd throw down the gauntlet so aggressively? Mega-corporate greed? That explains it.

  2. CJ says:

    Poor honest organisations like the MPAA are being bullied by corporate monsters like Wikipedia?
    I wonder if anyone would swallow this tripe.

    And trying to play the “non-Americans are evil, we will protect you” card was already overused by Bush. People have had their eyes opened since then.

  3. “… administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.”

    SOPA and PIPA won’t affect American criminals?

  4. hhuntzinger says:

    Here’s a compromise:

    let us go fix our Copyright system, back to the duration which was originally passed in 1790. Afterall, with digital technologies, the barriers to publishing have fallen, both in terms of their cost and their time-to-market.

    That would mean a max duration of 28 years (14 + 14 extension), instead of the effectively “infinite” system we have now, with Congress passing a 20 year extensions each time that Mickey Mouse gets close to expiring…

    And for Dodd: Senator and MPAA CEO … that’s clearly a Conflict of Interest … Recusal is an ethical mandate.

    PS: that little icon next to my name? I haven’t signed a legal release for that gives them permission to use my Copyrighted Works. As per the terms of the SOPA/PIPA, this website must be shut down.

  5. Andrew says:

    “and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.”

    Foreign criminals? Are you talking about my Eastern European friends who live in countries where the average income is below $1000 a month, and who cannot otherwise afford to watch movies?

  6. Fred MacKenzie says:

    Business interests? Punish their users?

    The decision to blackout Wikipedia was made by the users! What business interest do they have? They are registered charitable organization, hence with no profits. Former Senator Dodd, you are playing fast and loose with the truth. You should think about your actions and words, and judge in your heart whether they accord with honest and righteous motivation or from a shameful attitude.

  7. DAM Attorney says:

    “…stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns…”

    “…irresponsible response…”

    “…an abuse of power…”

    “…a dangerous and troubling development…”

    “…intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests…”

    “…another gimmick…a dangerous one, designed to punish”

    And Wikipedia is being hyperbolic??? Somebody send the good senator a link to so he can look up the definition of “HYPERBOLE”. While he’s in the H’s, maybe he can look up the definition of “HYPOCRITE”!

  8. DT says:

    Yet more confirmation that the major crooks we have to combat seem to be our own politicians and business leaders.

  9. Pat says:

    SENATOR Chris Dodd, CHAIRMAN and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. Of course an honest, objective personage such as Mr. Dodd wouldn’t have a conflict of interest. Would he?

    How is the Wikipedia blackout punishing elected and administration officials? (In fact, the “blackout” is only a “brownout”, since Jimmy Wales et al. have given instructions how to circumvent it.) Seems to me this is a very responsible way to get users’ attention and to educate them.

  10. yurps says:

    wish this arrogant jerk would pull his head out of his ass just in time for a law- abiding gun-toting yank to blow his frigging head off

  11. Thor A. says:

    Here’s a problem. Say you have a son or daughter, and they spend
    the weekend at grandmas. Here they download to their hearts contempt,
    and even upload the entire series of “Family Guy”, all without the consent
    of their grandmother. They continue this cycle over and over, each time
    they visit, cause you know; they’re gonna need entertainment.

    A year’s gone by and by the federal attorney’s count, old grandma
    has uploaded and downloaded enough to be sent to the pokey for
    two years. So the FBI kick down her door as she suffers a mild heart
    attack. After concluding the situation, the lawyers discover that
    grandma isn’t going to jail, and the kids sure as hell aren’t going to
    juvie… maybe. But who then, who will be punished? Why, _you_,
    of course…

    So please, stop this idiocy at it’s roots… SOPA and SIPA do NOT prevent
    piracy; it funds sharks in suits to trample on the rights of the innoscent.
    Nothing more…

  12. JS Partisan says:


  13. Josh says:

    “It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.”


    Chris Dodd, you are self-serving trash.

  14. Don R. Lewis says:

    Welcome newcomers! And welcome everyone to a post that made it fairly deep without a sanj link!

  15. LexG says:

    Is that a BROWNOUT in the Sunny in Philadelphia sense?

  16. cadavra says:

    And to think I once supported Dodd’s presidential bid.


  17. Joshua says:

    Just to note, Chris Dodd isn’t in the Senate any more. He retired at the end of his term before joining the MPAA. That said, any valid point he might have wanted to make was swallowed up by the hyperbole about the “irresponsbile response” and “abuse of power.”

  18. Matt says:

    So pursuing corporate interests is only a good thing when it’s your own? F U MPAA.

    Sounds like sour grapes. Getting beat at your own game.

  19. hoopersx says:

    FUCK YOU DODD! Fucking sellout.

Quote Unquotesee all »

“The sad and painful truth is that pretty much everyone in this town knew who Harvey was. I have had long talks with my most liberal friends. Did we know he was a rapist? We didn’t. But did we know that for decades he has been offering actresses big careers in exchange for sexual favors? Yes, we did — and make no mistake, that is its own kind of rape. And did we all — or did any of us — refuse to do business with him on moral grounds? No. We ALL STAYED IN BUSINESS WITH HIM. I have never done business with Harvey but I can tell you with certainty that I would have — because I was recently approached by a film festival he sponsors. They asked me to submit my short film for their consideration and I did it without thinking twice. I am a dyed-in-the-wool feminist and a vocal one at that. So why didn’t I think twice? Because this entire town is built on the ugly principals that Harvey takes to an horrific extreme. If I didn’t work with people whose behavior I find reprehensible, I wouldn’t have a career.”
~ Showrunner Krista Vernoff

From AMPAS president John Bailey:

Dear Fellow Academy Members,

Danish director Carl Dreyer’s 1928 film “The Passion of Joan of Arc” is not only one of the visual landmarks of the silent era, but is a deeply disturbing portrait of a young woman’s persecution in the face of the male judges and priests of the ruling order. The actress Maria Falconetti gave one of the most profoundly affecting performances in the history of cinema as the Maid of Orleans.

Since the decision of the Academy’s Board of Governors on Saturday October 14 to expel producer Harvey Weinstein from its membership, I have been haunted not only by the recurring image of Falconetti and the sad arc of her career (dying in Argentina in 1946, reputedly from a crash diet) but of Joan’s refusal to submit to an auto de fe recantation of her beliefs.

Recent public testimonies by some of filmdom’s most recognized women regarding sexual intimidation, predation, and physical force is, clearly, a turning point in the film industry—and hopefully in our country, where what happens in the world of movies becomes a marker of societal Zeitgeist. Their decision to stand up against a powerful, abusive male not only parallels the cinema courage of Falconetti’s Joan but gives all women courage to speak up.

After Saturday’s Board of Governors meeting, the Academy issued a passionately worded statement, expressing not only our concern about harassment in the film industry, but our intention to be a strong voice in changing the culture of sexual exploitation in the movie business, already common well before the founding of the Academy 90 years ago. It is up to all of us Academy members to more clearly define for ourselves the parameters of proper conduct, of sexual equality, and respect for our fellow artists throughout our industry. The Academy cannot, and will not, be an inquisitorial court, but we can be part of a larger initiative to define standards of behavior, and to support the vulnerable women and men who may be at personal and career risk because of violations of ethical standards by their peers.