Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection

from the is-that-real?-do-you-recall? dept

It's been said that Hollywood is completely out of ideas, and all it does these days is the same thing over and over again. That seems to be the case both on the policy front and with its movies. So how perfect is it that the MPAA's gift-of-the-month to Congress is a showing of the remake of the movie Total Recall? As we noted in our post about the MPAA's special showing of the latest Batman flick, to get around breaking gift giving guidelines, the MPAA includes a special "educational component," before its movies, which somehow makes it okay. We heard from attendees of the Batman showing that (amazingly) no mention of copyright or piracy issues was made in the "educational" component. Rather it was a presentation about the Natural History Museum and how it was doing things with IMAX, as well as a Time Warner presentation about its online offerings like HBO GO, TV Everywhere and Ultra Violet.

However, this month, the MPAA will more directly address the copyright issue, as you can see in the invite below, where they note the "educational" component will be about "the impact of film in the global economy and the benefit of IP protection to global trade."
As the tagline of the movie says, "Is it real? Is it recall?" One has to imagine that the "educational" content will be particularly one sided, and I'd question how "real" the lesson will be. The stats that the MPAA is fond of throwing out are rarely anywhere close to reality. The presentation almost certainly won't "recall" the fact that due to the MPAA's own ridiculously extreme position on "IP protection" in "global trade," the ACTA agreement has more or less killed the agreement (at least for the majority of Europe).

If Congress wants an educational lesson on the role of IP and international trade, they might want to "recall" that the MPAA is just about the last place to go to get any sense of "reality."

Filed Under: congress, education, ip, screenings, total recall, trade negotiations
Companies: mpaa

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 7:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    LMAO! Mr. Slimy is changing his tune.

    Let's compare!

    What you said two weeks ago:
    Sure it is. This is a clear gift to Leahy, who's a big fan of Batman and would like to be in those movies. He wasn't hired for his acting chops.

    It violates Senate ethics rules, in that they're providing him with something of value in order to curry favor:
    You unequivocally said that Senator Leahy had in fact violated Senate ethics rules (without, of course, identifying the actual rules that you think he violated--an analysis you couldn't possibly make without having more facts).

    And now? The tune has changed:
    What we said was that giving a Senator a *ROLE* in a movie that he's obsessed with and which he wants a role in, is giving him a gift, possibly in violation of Senate ethics rules.
    Hello, equivocation!

    Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

    You: "He definitely violated the rules!"
    Me: "Oh yeah, which ones? And isn't it completely douche-like to state definitively that a U.S. Senator has violated the ethics rules without even knowing which rules you're talking about and without having all the facts? Just sounds like your bitter and trying to discredit him."
    You: "I mean, I mean,,, He possibly violated the rules! That's it!"

    ROFLMAO! Classic yellow journalism, Pirate Mike. Classic. You don't have a fucking clue. It's just discredit, discredit, discredit. The facts and the law don't actually matter to you when you're making those uber-insightful legal analyses of yours.

    Tell us again how copyright law violates the limited times restriction, even though it's settled law that it doesn't! I want a bedtime story! Ooh--tell me the one about how SOPA/PIPA/Operation in our Sites/any enforcement of copyright law in general violates the First Amendment.

    Don't bother with looking at the actual law--we don't need that! Just find some book or article that some extremist wrote that says the same thing. As long as it agrees with you, we don't even need to consider the actual law, right?

    ROFLMAO! Ciao, chubby!

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.