By MCN Editor editor@moviecitynews.com

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 MovieCityNews.com 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 dictionary.com 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.

Leave a Reply

Quote Unquotesee all »

“We now have a situation where audiences very often prefer commercial trash to Bergman’s Persona or Bresson’s L’Argent. Professionals find themselves shrugging, and predicting that serious, significant works will have no success with the general public. What is the explanation? Decline of taste or impoverishment of repertoire? Neither and both. It is simply that cinema now exists, and is evolving, under new conditions. That total, enthralling impression which once overwhelmed the audiences of the 1930s was explained by the universal delight of those who were witnessing and rejoicing over the birth of a new art form, which furthermore had recently acquired sound. By the very fact of its existence this new art, which displayed a new kind of wholeness, a new kind of image, and revealed hitherto unexplored areas of reality, could not but astound its audiences and turn them into passionate enthusiasts.

Less than twenty years now separate us from the twenty-first century. In the course of its existence, through its peaks and troughs, cinema has travelled a long and tortuous path. The relationship that has grown up between artistic films and the commercial cinema is not an easy one, and the gulf between the two becomes wider every day. Nonetheless, films are being made all the time that are undoubtedly landmarks in the history of cinema. Audiences have become more discerning in their attitude to films. Cinema as such long ago ceased to amaze them as a new and original phenomenon; and at the same time it is expected to answer a far wider range of individual needs. Audiences have developed their likes and dislikes. That means that the filmmaker in turn has an audience that is constant, his own circle. Divergence of taste on the part of audiences can be extreme, and this is in no way regrettable or alarming; the fact that people have their own aesthetic criteria indicates a growth of self-awareness.

Directors are going deeper into the areas which concern them. There are faithful audiences and favorite directors, so that there is no question of thinking in terms of unqualified success with the public—that is, if one is talking about cinema not as commercial entertainment but as art. Indeed, mass popularity suggests what is known as mass culture, and not art.”
~ Andrei Tarkovsky, “Sculpting In Time”

“People seem to be watching [fewer] movies, which I think is a mistake on people’s parts, and they seem to be making more of them, which I think is okay. Some of these movies are very good. When you look at the quality of Sundance movies right now, they are a lot better than they were when I was a kid. I do think that there have been improvements artistically, but it’s tough. We’ve got a system that’s built for less movies in terms of how many curatorial standard-bearers we have in the states. It’s time for us to expand our ideas of where we find our great films in America, but that said, it’s a real hustle. I’m so happy that Factory 25 exists. If it didn’t exist, there would be so many movies that wouldn’t ever get distributed because Matt Grady is the only person who has seen the commercial potential in them. He’s preserving a very special moment in independent film history that the commercial system is not going to be preserving. He’s figuring out how to make enough money on it to save these films and get them onto people’s shelves.”
~ Homemakers‘ Colin Healey On Indie Distribution