Hubbry Logo
Motion Picture AssociationMotion Picture AssociationMain
Open search
Motion Picture Association
Community hub
Motion Picture Association
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Motion Picture Association
Motion Picture Association
Motion Picture Association
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Motion Picture Association (MPA)[1][2] is an American trade association representing the five major film studios of the United States, the mini-major Amazon MGM Studios, as well as the video streaming services Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Founded in 1922 as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) and known as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) from 1945 until September 2019,[3] its original goal was to ensure the viability of the American film industry. In addition, the MPA established guidelines for film content which resulted in the creation of the Motion Picture Production Code in 1930. This code, also known as the Hays Code, was replaced by a voluntary film rating system in 1968, which is managed by the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA).

Key Information

The MPA has advocated for the motion picture and television industry, with the goals of promoting effective copyright protection, expanding market access and has worked to curb copyright infringement, including attempts to limit the sharing of copyrighted works via peer-to-peer file sharing networks and by streaming from pirate sites. Former United States ambassador to France Charles Rivkin is the chairman and CEO.

History

[edit]

Foundation and early history: 1922–1929

[edit]
First meeting of the MPPDA on March 10, 1922.

The MPA was founded as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) in 1922 as a trade association of member motion picture companies. At its founding, MPPDA member companies produced approximately 70 to 80 percent of the films made in the United States.[4] Former postmaster general Will H. Hays was named the association's first president.[5]

The main focus of the MPPDA in its early years was on producing a strong public relations campaign to ensure that Hollywood remained financially stable and able to attract investment from Wall Street, while simultaneously ensuring that American films had a "clean moral tone".[4][6] The MPPDA also instituted a code of conduct for Hollywood's actors in an attempt to govern their behavior offscreen. Finally, the code sought to protect American film interests abroad by encouraging film studios to avoid racist portrayals of foreigners.[5][7]

From the early days of the association, Hays spoke out against public censorship,[7][8] and the MPPDA worked to raise support from the general public for the film industry's efforts against such censorship.[9] Large portions of the public opposed censorship, but also decried the lack of morals in movies.[10] The organisation also had formed a trust to block out Independents and enforce the monopolistic studio system.[11]

At the time of the MPPDA's founding, there was no national censorship, but some state and municipal laws required movies to be censored, a process usually overseen by a local censorship board.[10] As such, in certain locations in the U.S., films were often edited to comply with local laws regarding the onscreen portrayal of violence and sexuality, among other topics. This resulted in negative publicity for the studios and decreasing numbers of theater goers, who were uninterested in films that were sometimes so severely edited that they were incoherent.[5] In 1929, more than 50 percent of American moviegoers lived in a location overseen by such a board.[10]

In 1924, Hays instituted "The Formula", a loose set of guidelines for filmmakers, in an effort to get the movie industry to self-regulate the issues that the censorship boards had been created to address. "The Formula" requested that studios send synopses of films being considered to the MPPDA for review. This effort largely failed, however, as studios were under no obligation to send their scripts to Hays's office, nor to follow his recommendations.[10]

In 1927, Hays oversaw the creation of a code of "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" for the industry.[10] This list outlined the issues that movies could encounter in different localities. Hays also created a Studio Relations Department (SRD) with staff available to the studios for script reviews and advice regarding potential problems. Again, despite Hays' efforts, studios largely ignored the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls", and by the end of 1929, the MPPDA received only about 20 percent of Hollywood scripts prior to production,[5] and the number of regional and local censorship boards continued to increase.[10]

Production Code: 1930–1934

[edit]

In 1930, the MPPDA introduced the Motion Picture Production Code, commonly called the Hays Code. The Code consisted of moral guidelines regarding what was acceptable to include in films.[12] Unlike the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls", which the studios had ignored, the Production Code was endorsed by studio executives.[5] The Code incorporated many of the "Don'ts and Be Carefuls" as specific examples of what could not be portrayed. Among other rules, the code prohibited inclusion of "scenes of passion" unless they were essential to a film's plot; "pointed profanity" in either word or action; "sex perversion"; justification or explicit coverage of adultery; sympathetic treatment of crime or criminals; dancing with "indecent" moves; and white slavery.[13] Because studio executives had been involved in the decision to adopt the code, MPPDA-member studios were more willing to submit scripts for consideration. However, the growing economic impacts of the Great Depression of the early 1930s increased pressure on studios to make films that would draw the largest possible audiences, even if it meant taking their chances with local censorship boards by disobeying the Code.[5]

In 1933 and 1934, the Catholic Legion of Decency, along with a number of Protestant and women's groups, launched plans to boycott films that they deemed immoral.[14] In order to avert boycotts which might further harm the profitability of the film industry, the MPPDA created a new department, the Production Code Administration (PCA), with Joseph Breen as its head. Unlike previous attempts at self-censorship, PCA decisions were binding—no film could be exhibited in an American theater without a stamp of approval from the PCA,[10] and any producer attempting to do so faced a fine of $25,000.[5] After ten years of unsuccessful voluntary codes and expanding local censorship boards, the studio approved and agreed to enforce the codes, and the nationwide "Production Code" was enforced starting on July 1, 1934.[10]

War years: 1934–1945

[edit]

In the years that immediately followed the adoption of the Code, Breen often sent films back to Hollywood for additional edits, and in some cases, simply refused to issue PCA approval for a film to be shown.[5][15] At the same time, Hays promoted the industry's new focus on wholesome films[16] and continued promoting American films abroad.[17]

For nearly three years, studios complied with the Code. By 1938, however, as the threat of war in Europe loomed, movie producers began to worry about the possibility of decreased profits abroad. This led to a decreased investment in following the strictures of the code, and occasional refusals to comply with PCA demands.[5] That same year, responding to trends in European films in the run-up to the war, Hays spoke out against using movies as a vehicle for propaganda.[18] In 1945, after nearly 24 years as president, Hays stepped down from his position at the MPPDA, although he continued to act as an advisor for the Association for the next five years.[19]

Johnston era: 1945–1963

[edit]

In 1945 the MPPDA hired Eric Johnston, four-time president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, to replace Hays.[20] During his first year as president, Johnston rebranded the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).[5]

He also created the Motion Picture Export Association (MPEA) to promote American films abroad by opposing production company monopolies in other countries.[21][22] In 1947 the MPEA voted to discontinue film shipments to Britain after the British government imposed an import tax on American films.[23] Johnston negotiated with the British government to end the tax in 1948, and film shipments resumed.[24]

In 1956, Johnston oversaw the first major revision of the Production Code since it was created in 1930. This revision allowed the treatment of some subjects which had previously been forbidden, including abortion and the use of narcotics, so long as they were "within the limits of good taste". At the same time, the revisions added a number of new restrictions to the code, including outlawing the depiction of blasphemy and mercy killings in films.[25]

Johnston was well-liked by studio executives, and his political connections helped him function as an effective liaison between Hollywood and Washington.[26] In 1963, while still serving as president of the MPAA, Johnston died of a stroke.[27] For three years, the MPAA operated without a president while studio executives searched for a replacement.[28]

Valenti era: 1966–2004

[edit]
Jack Valenti was the president of Motion Picture Association of America for 38 years.
Former U.S. Ambassador to France and Assistant Secretary of State Charles Rivkin became the chairman and CEO of the MPAA in 2017

The MPAA appointed Jack Valenti, former aide to President Lyndon Johnson, as president of the MPAA in 1966.[29] In 1968, Valenti replaced the Production Code with a system of voluntary film ratings, in order to limit censorship of Hollywood films and provide parents with information about the appropriateness of films for children.[30] In addition to concerns about protecting children,[31] Valenti stated in his autobiography that he sought to ensure that American filmmakers could produce the films they wanted, without the censorship that existed under the Production Code that had been in effect since 1934.[30]

In 1975, Valenti established the Film Security Office, an anti-piracy division at the MPAA, which sought to recover unauthorized recordings of films to prevent duplication.[29][32] Valenti continued to fight piracy into the 1980s, asking Congress to install chips in VCRs that would prevent illegal reproduction of video cassettes,[33] and in the 1990s supported law enforcement efforts to stop bootleg distribution of video tapes.[34] Valenti also oversaw a major change in the ratings system that he had helped create—the removal of the "X" rating, which had come to be closely associated with pornography. It was replaced with a new rating, "NC-17", in 1990.[35][36]

In 1994, the Motion Picture Export Association of America changed its name to the Motion Picture Association to more accurately reflect the global nature of audiovisual entertainment in today's international marketplace.[37]

In 2001, Valenti established the Digital Strategy Department at the MPAA to specifically address issues surrounding digital film distribution and piracy.[29][38]

Modern era: 2004–present

[edit]

After serving as president of the MPAA for 38 years, Valenti announced that he would step down in 2004.[39] In September of that year, he was replaced by former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman.[29] During his tenure, Glickman focused on tax issues, content protection efforts, and increasing U.S. studios' access to international markets.[40] He led lobbying efforts that resulted in $400 million in federal tax incentives for the film industry, and also supported a law which created federal oversight of anti-piracy efforts.[41] Glickman stepped down in 2010.[40][42]

After a search which lasted over a year, the MPAA hired former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd to replace Glickman in March 2011.[43] In his role as president, Dodd focused on content protection, trade, and improving Hollywood's image.[44] He traveled to China in 2011 in an effort to encourage the Chinese government to both crack down on piracy and further open its film market.[45] A settlement of a long-argued World Trade Organization complaint, coupled with Dodd's efforts, contributed to the United States' agreement with China in 2012 to open China's film market to more Hollywood films and to increase U.S. studios' share of box-office revenues in China.[46] In addition to this agreement with China, the U.S. signed more than 20 memos of understanding with foreign governments regarding the enforcement of intellectual property rights during Dodd's tenure at the MPAA.[47]

In 2011, the MPAA supported the passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).[48] After the two bills were shelved in early 2012, Dodd indicated that Hollywood might cut off campaign contributions to politicians who failed to support anti-piracy efforts in the future.[49]

In 2012, the MPAA launched the Diversity and Multicultural Outreach program, as part of an effort to increase diversity in the television and film industry both through employment and representation on screen.[50] Since its inception, the Diversity and Multicultural and Outreach group has conducted outreach and partnered with more than 20 multicultural groups and national civil rights organizations in sponsoring film screenings, festivals, and other diversity-themed events.[51]

Throughout his tenure at the MPAA, Dodd also highlighted the need for film studios to embrace technology as a means of distributing content.[52]

In June 2017, the MPAA supported the launch of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), a coalition of entertainment companies, including the six major studios, Netflix and Amazon, that would draw on the MPAA's resources in an effort to reduce online piracy through research and legal efforts.[53]

Former U.S. diplomat and Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Charles Rivkin succeeded Chris Dodd as CEO on September 5, 2017, and as chairman effective December 6, 2017.[citation needed] On January 25, 2019, film streaming service Netflix announced that it had joined the MPAA in an effort to identify itself among the major studios.[54]

In September 2019, the association updated its branding to reflect the global nature of the film, television, and streaming industry, officially changing its name to the Motion Picture Association (MPA), a name which it has used internationally since 1994. An updated logo also went into effect at this time.[55]

In September 2024, it was announced Amazon MGM Studios would join the MPA, making the seventh member in the entertainment policy group.[56]

Film rating system

[edit]
Main article: Motion Picture Association film rating system

In 1968, the MPAA established the Code and Rating Administration, or CARA (later renamed the Classification and Rating Administration), which began issuing ratings for films exhibited and distributed commercially in the United States to help parents determine what films are appropriate for their children.

Since the rating system was first introduced in November 1968, it has gone through several changes, including the addition of a PG-13 rating.[57][58] The ratings system is completely voluntary, and ratings have no legal standing.[59][60] Instead, the American film industry enforces the MPAA film ratings after they have been assigned,[61] with many theaters refusing to exhibit non-rated films.[62] For example, it is against the American film industry's policy to admit unaccompanied children to an R-rated film. An unrated film is often denoted by "NR", such as in newspapers, although this is not a formal MPAA rating.[63]

In 2006, the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated alleged that the MPAA gave preferential treatment to member studios during the process of assigning ratings,[64] as well as criticizing the rating process for its lack of transparency. In response, the MPAA posted its ratings rules, policies, and procedures, as well as its appeals process, online.[65] According to the MPA, the ratings are made by an independent group of parents.[66]

According to a 2015 study commissioned by CARA, ninety-three percent of parents in the U.S. find the rating system to be a helpful tool.[67]

The ratings currently used by the MPA's voluntary system are:[66]

Rating block/symbol Meaning MPA's explanation
G rating symbol and block
G rating symbol and block
 G – General Audiences "Nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children."

On the box: "All ages admitted"

PG- rating symbol and block
PG- rating symbol and block
 PG – Parental Guidance Suggested "Parents urged to give 'parental guidance.' May contain some material parents might not like for their young children."

On the box: "Some material may not be suitable for children"

PG-13 rating symbol and block
PG-13 rating symbol and block
 PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned "Parents are urged to be cautious. Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers."

On the box: "Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13"

R rating symbol and block
R rating symbol and block
 R – Restricted "Contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their young children with them."

On the box: "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian"

NC-17 rating symbol and block
NC-17 rating symbol and block
 NC-17 – Adults Only "Clearly adult. Children are not admitted."

On the box: "No One 17 and Under Admitted"

Members

[edit]
Current members Year of induction
Paramount Pictures 1922
Universal Pictures
Warner Bros. 1923
Walt Disney Studios 1979
Sony Pictures 1989
Netflix 2019
Amazon MGM Studios and Amazon Prime Video 2024

The original MPAA members were the "Big Eight" film studios: Paramount Pictures, Fox Film, Loews, Universal Pictures, and United Artists, followed by Warner Bros. in 1923, Columbia Pictures in 1924, along with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer[68] (formed by the merger of Loews, Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures, and Louis B. Mayer Productions), and RKO Pictures in 1928. Next, there was the 1935 merger of Fox Film and 20th Century Pictures, which became 20th Century Fox.[69]

United Artists briefly resigned from the organization in 1956 when the film The Man With the Golden Arm was denied a Production Code seal.[70] United Artists rejoined the organization in June 1957.[71] In 1960, 20th Century Fox served a notice of resignation from the organization,[72] which was made effective a year later.[73]

In 1963, Walt Disney Productions resigned from the organization, with the studio president Roy O. Disney stating their interests "often do not seem to parallel those of other M.P.A.A. member companies."[74] By 1966, Allied Artists Pictures had joined the original members.[75] In the following decade, Avco Embassy became a new member in 1975 and Walt Disney Productions rejoined the organization in 1979.[76][77][78] The next year, Filmways became a MPAA member, but was later replaced in 1986 along with Avco Embassy when the De Laurentiis Entertainment Group and Orion Pictures joined the MPAA roster.[77]

As of 1995, the MPAA members were MGM—which included United Artists after their 1981 merger, Paramount, Sony Pictures—which included Columbia and TriStar Pictures after their 1989 acquisition, 20th Century Fox, Universal, Disney, and Warner Bros.[79][80] Turner Entertainment joined the MPAA in 1995, but was purchased in 1996 by Time Warner.[81][82] The number of members dropped to six in 2005, following Sony's failed attempt to acquire MGM.[83] The MPAA's member companies remained intact until the 2019 acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, including 20th Century Fox.[84][85]

Netflix was approved as a new member in January 2019, making it the first non-studio and the first streaming service to be part of the organization. The addition of Netflix also helped to maintain the number of members after the acquisition of 20th Century Fox by Disney. The MPA aims to recruit additional members.[86]

In September 2024, it was announced that Amazon MGM Studios and Prime Video would join the MPA as its seventh member starting October 1, the second non-studio to do so after Netflix in 2019; this would also mark a return to the MPA for MGM, currently a division of Amazon MGM Studios, after it lost membership in 2005 following a buyout led by Sony.[87]

Content protection efforts

[edit]

The MPA's concerted efforts at fighting copyright infringement began in 1975 with the establishment of the Film Security Office, which sought to recover unauthorized recordings of films in order to prevent duplication.[29][32] The MPA has continued to pursue a number of initiatives to combat illegal distribution of films and TV shows, especially in response to new technologies. In the 1980s, it spoke out against VCRs and the threat that the MPA believed they represented to the movie industry,[88] with MPAA president Jack Valenti drawing a parallel between the threat of the VCR and that of the Boston Strangler.[89] In 1986, the MPAA asked Congress to pass a law that would require VCRs to come equipped with a chip to prevent them from making copies.[33] Legal efforts at stopping homemade copies of broadcast television largely ended, however, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that such copying constituted fair use.[90]

The MPA continued to support law enforcement efforts to stop bootleg production and distribution of videotapes and laserdiscs into the 1990s,[34][91] and in 2000 took successful legal action against individuals posting DVD decryption software on the Internet in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes.[92] Following the release of RealDVD—an application that enabled users to make copies of DVDs—RealNetworks sued the DVD Copy Control Association and the major studios in 2008 over the legality of the software, accusing them of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.[93] The judgment found there were no grounds for the antitrust claim and dismissed the suit.[94] The court later found that the RealNetworks product violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).[95]

The MPA has continued to support law enforcement efforts to prevent illegal distribution of copyrighted materials online.[96] The MPA and its British counterpart, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), also funded the training of Lucky and Flo, a pair of Labrador Retrievers, to detect polycarbonates used in the manufacturing of DVDs.[97]

The MPA strives to protect the creative rights of the large corporate film makers. Its counterpart has come up with infamous slogans such as "Who Makes Movies?" and "You can click, but you can't hide".[98]

Online file sharing

[edit]

In the early 2000s, the MPAA began focusing its efforts to curb copyright infringement specifically on peer-to-peer file sharing, initially using a combination of educational campaigns[99] and cease and desist letters to discourage such activity. In the first six months of 2002, the MPAA sent more than 18,000 such letters to internet service providers to forward to users engaged in copyright infringement.[100]

In late 2004, the MPAA changed course and filed lawsuits in a concerted effort to address copyright infringement on a number of large online file-sharing services, including BitTorrent and eDonkey.[101] The following year, the MPAA expanded its legal actions to include lawsuits against individuals who downloaded and distributed copyrighted material via peer-to-peer networks.[102]

The MPAA also played a role in encouraging the Swedish government to conduct a raid of the Pirate Bay file-sharing website in May 2006.[103] Swedish officials have acknowledged that part of the motivation for the raid was the threat of sanctions from the World Trade Organization, along with a letter from the MPAA.[104][105]

In 2013, the Center for Copyright Information unveiled the Copyright Alert System, a system established through an agreement between the MPAA, the Recording Industry Association of America, and five of the US's largest internet service providers.[106] The system used a third-party service to identify content being distributed illegally. Users were then informed that their accounts were being used for possible copyright infringement and were provided with information about ways to get authorized content online.[107] Users who received multiple notices of infringement faced "mitigations measures", such as temporary slowing of their Internet service, but the system did not include termination of subscriber accounts. Subscribers facing such action had a right to appeal to the American Arbitration Association.[108] In January 2017, the Copyright Alert System was discontinued. While no official reason was given, the MPAA's general counsel stated that the system had not been equipped to stop repeat infringers.[109]

On December 24, 2014, the Sony Pictures hack revealed that following a lawsuit in which the MPAA won a multimillion judgment against Hotfile, a file hosting website, the MPAA colluded with Hotfile to misrepresent the settlement so that the case would serve as a deterrent. The settlement was previously believed to be $80 million and was widely reported; however, Hotfile only paid the studios $4 million and agreed to have the $80 million figure recorded as the judgment and the website shut down.[110][111][112]

In a case resolved in 2015, the MPAA and others supported the United States International Trade Commission (ITC)'s decision to consider electronic transmissions to the U.S. as "articles" so that it could prevent the importation of digital files of counterfeit goods. While the case being considered by the ITC involved dental appliances, the ITC could have also used such authority to bar the importation of pirated movies and TV shows from rogue foreign websites that traffic in infringing content.[113] The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals took up the matter, and ultimately ruled against the ITC.[114]

In 2016, the MPAA reported Putlocker as one of the "top 5 rogue cyberlocker services" to the Office of the United States Trade Representative as a major piracy threat; the website was then blocked in the United Kingdom.[115][116][117]

In 2019, the MPA released an overview of the piracy markets in contravention of the US Government. Added to the list were Chinese hosting service Baidu, and Russian gambling firm 1xBet.[118]

Criticism and controversies

[edit]
See also: Motion Picture Association film rating system § Criticisms

Publicity campaigns

[edit]

The MPAA has also produced publicity campaigns to discourage piracy. The Who Makes Movies? advertising campaign in 2003 highlighted workers in the film industry describing how piracy affected them. The video spots ran as trailers before films, and as television advertisements.[119] In 2004, the MPAA began using the slogan "You can click, but you can't hide". This slogan appeared in messages that replaced file-sharing websites after they had been shut down through MPAA legal action.[120] It also appeared in posters and videos distributed to video stores by the MPAA.[121] Also in 2004, the MPAA partnered with the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore to release "You Wouldn’t Steal A Car", a trailer that was shown before films in theaters equating piracy with car theft.[122] The trailer was later placed at the beginning of the video on many DVDs in many cases as an unskippable clip (not being able to skip or fast-forward), which triggered criticism and a number of parodies.[123]

In 2005, the MPAA commissioned a study to examine the effects of file sharing on film industry profitability. The study concluded that the industry lost $6.1 billion per year to piracy, and that up to 44 percent of domestic losses were due to file sharing by college students. In 2008, the MPAA revised the percentage of loss due to college students down to 15 percent, citing human error in the initial calculations of this figure. Beyond the percentage of the loss that was attributable to college students, however, no other errors were found in the study.[124]

In 2015, theaters began airing the MPAA's "I Make Movies" series, an ad campaign intended to combat piracy by highlighting the stories of behind-the-scenes employees in the film and television industry.[125] The series pointed audiences to the MPAA's "WhereToWatch" website (later dubbed "The Credits")[126] which provides attention to the behind-the-scenes creativity involved in filmmaking.

[edit]

The MPAA itself has been accused of copyright infringement on multiple occasions. In 2007, the creator of a blogging platform called Forest Blog accused the MPAA of violating the license for the platform, which required that users link back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA had used the platform for its own blog, but without linking back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA subsequently took the blog offline, and explained that the software had been used on a test basis and the blog had never been publicized.[127][128]

Also in 2007, the MPAA released a software toolkit for universities to help identify cases of file sharing on campus. The software used parts of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, released under the General Public License, which stipulates that the source code of any projects using the distribution be made available to third parties. The source code for the MPAA's toolkit, however, was not made available. When the MPAA was made aware of the violation, the software toolkit was removed from their website.[129]

In 2006, the MPAA admitted having made illegal copies of This Film Is Not Yet Rated (a documentary exploring the MPAA itself and the history of its rating system)[130] — an act which Ars Technica explicitly described as hypocrisy[131] and which Roger Ebert called "rich irony".[132] The MPAA subsequently claimed that it had the legal right to copy the film despite this being counter to the filmmaker's explicit request, because the documentary's exploration of the MPAA's ratings board was potentially a violation of the board members' privacy.[130]

International activities

[edit]

Around the world, the MPA helps with local law enforcement to combat piracy.

The MPA offices in the world are:

  • Motion Picture Association – Canada
  • MPA EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), which has anti-piracy programs in 17 European countries[133]
  • MPA Asia and Pacific, which has anti-piracy programs in 14 Asian countries[134]
  • MPA Latin America, which has anti-piracy programs in two Latin-American countries[135]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Motion Picture Association

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Motion Picture Association (MPA) is an American founded in 1922 as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) to represent , promote industry standards, and address early challenges such as and labor disputes. Renamed the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in 1945 and rebranded as the MPA in 2019 to reflect its expanded role in television and streaming, the organization advocates for its members—including , , Paramount, , Universal, and —in areas such as protection, global market access, and policy influence. Under influential leaders like , who served as president from 1966 to 2004, the MPA established the voluntary Classification and Rating Administration (CARMPA) in 1968, introducing the iconic G, PG, PG-13, , and NC-17 ratings to guide parental discretion amid shifting cultural norms on content. This system has rated tens of thousands of films, though it has faced criticism for inconsistent application and low appeal success rates, with only about 0.6% of challenges overturned. The MPA's advocacy extends to combating digital piracy through initiatives like the (ACE), formed in 2017, and efforts that have shaped on and , contributing to the industry's economic footprint of over 2 million jobs and $229 billion in wages. Controversies include accusations of undue political influence, such as support for anti-piracy measures perceived as overreaching, and tensions with independent filmmakers over rating criteria favoring commercial interests. Currently led by Chairman and CEO since 2019, the MPA operates internationally to expand content distribution while navigating geopolitical and technological disruptions.

History

Formation as MPPDA (1922–1929)

The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) was established in early 1922 by major Hollywood studio executives to unify the industry against mounting threats of government censorship and to rehabilitate its public image amid a series of high-profile scandals. These scandals, including the 1921 manslaughter trials of comedian Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle over the death of Virginia Rappe and the January 1922 murder of director William Desmond Taylor, fueled outrage from moral reformers, women's groups, and politicians who decried Hollywood's perceived immorality and demanded regulatory intervention. The industry's leaders, fearing restrictive legislation at federal or state levels, opted for self-regulation through a trade association that could lobby effectively and enforce internal standards. On March 10, 1922, representatives from key studios—including of Famous Players-Lasky, of Loew's Inc., , William Fox, and of Universal—held the MPPDA's inaugural meeting in , where a charter of incorporation was formalized. To head the organization, the studios recruited William H. Hays, a Presbyterian elder and former U.S. under President , who had resigned his cabinet post on January 14, 1922, specifically to assume the role; Hays' political experience and reputation for rectitude were seen as assets for negotiating with lawmakers and assuaging public concerns. Under Hays' leadership, the MPPDA prioritized campaigns to portray the industry as responsible, standardized distribution practices such as , and opposed specific censorship proposals, including those from New York and other states. From 1922 to 1929, the MPPDA focused on voluntary content guidelines to preempt external oversight, adopting in 1924 an expanded "" of principles that built on earlier 1921 producer resolutions by prohibiting depictions of illicit sex, ridicule of , and other potentially objectionable elements, though enforcement remained advisory rather than mandatory during this period. The association also arbitrated trade disputes, protected copyrights internationally, and coordinated responses to economic challenges like theater competition, thereby consolidating and interests while staving off immediate regulatory threats. These efforts laid the groundwork for more stringent mechanisms in the ensuing decade, reflecting the industry's pragmatic recognition that unchecked content risked its commercial viability.

Implementation of the Production Code (1930–1967)

The Motion Picture Production Code, formally adopted by the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) on March 31, 1930, under president , served as voluntary self-regulatory guidelines aimed at curbing perceived moral excesses in films following the scandals of the and rising calls for from religious and civic groups. Initially, compliance remained lax during the early "pre-Code" era, with many productions featuring suggestive content, violence, and sexual innuendo that skirted or ignored the Code's prohibitions on topics like , , and sympathetic portrayals of criminals. This non-enforcement stemmed from studios' prioritization of box-office appeal amid the , but it provoked backlash, including boycotts threatened by Protestant and women's organizations. Enforcement intensified in 1934 amid mounting pressure from the newly formed , a Catholic-led initiative launched in April 1934 that mobilized over 11 million pledges to shun "immoral" films, threatening widespread theater boycotts and revenue losses estimated in the millions. To avert federal intervention and preserve self-regulation, the MPPDA established the Production Code Administration (PCA) on June 13, 1934, appointing Joseph I. Breen, a devout Catholic journalist with ties to moral reform networks, as its director. The PCA operated as an MPPDA department, reviewing scripts in advance and final cuts, issuing detailed "cut sheets" mandating deletions or alterations to align with Code tenets, such as banning nudity, ridicule of religion, and "sex perversion." Non-compliant films were denied a Certificate of Approval—a seal affixed to prints signaling adherence—which major theater chains, controlled by the studios, refused to exhibit, creating a monopoly on distribution. Violators faced $25,000 fines per offense, though these were rarely imposed, as preemptive compliance became the norm. Under Breen's tenure (1934–1954), the PCA exercised stringent oversight, approving approximately 98% of submitted films by the late after revisions, while rejecting or forcing major changes in others, such as excising interracial romance or explicit drug use depictions. Breen's approach emphasized "compensating moral values," requiring narratives to punish vice and affirm virtues like marriage and lawfulness, influencing genres from comedies to by necessitating indirect storytelling techniques, such as fade-outs for implied intimacy or voiceovers for taboo subjects. The Code amendments, prompted by producer demands for flexibility, permitted "suggestion" over explicitness in crime and sex scenes and allowed limited like "damn," reflecting partial accommodations to commercial pressures without diluting core restrictions. By the 1950s, the Code's rigidity clashed with evolving legal and cultural landscapes. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1952 Burstyn v. Wilson decision overturned prior bans on sacrilegious films like The Miracle (1948), affirming movies as protected speech under the First Amendment and eroding state-level censorship boards' authority. This enabled imports of unapproved foreign films and domestic challenges, such as Otto Preminger's The Moon Is Blue (1953), which succeeded without a seal by targeting art-house audiences, exposing enforcement gaps. Further 1956 revisions relaxed rules on divorce, miscegenation, and abortion mentions, acknowledging postwar social shifts, but failed to stem dissent amid television's rise and youth-driven demand for realism. In the 1960s, landmark releases like The Pawnbroker (1964), granted a seal despite nudity via special dispensation, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), approved only after profanity edits but highlighting the Code's obsolescence, accelerated its decline as studios prioritized artistic freedom over uniform self-censorship. By 1967, with box-office losses to uncensored alternatives and internal MPPDA debates, the system proved unsustainable, paving the way for its replacement by a voluntary ratings regime.

Transition to Rating System (1968)

By the late 1960s, the Motion Picture Production Code, administered by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), had become increasingly obsolete amid evolving social norms and legal challenges, including rulings that undermined prior efforts. The code's strict moral guidelines, enforced since the 1930s, struggled to address boundary-pushing films like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), which prompted the MPAA to issue public warnings suggesting mature audiences. In response to these pressures and to avert potential federal government intervention in content regulation, MPAA President , who assumed the role in 1966, developed a new voluntary classification system focused on audience guidance rather than prescriptive content bans. On November 1, 1968, the MPAA officially launched its , effectively replacing the Production Code with the Code and Rating Administration (CARA) to oversee classifications. The initial categories included G for general audiences, M (suggested for mature audiences, later revised to PG in ), R (restricted, requiring those under 16 to be accompanied by an adult), and X (no one under 17 admitted). This shift marked a departure from outright to a self-regulatory framework, empowering parents with informational labels while preserving creative freedom for filmmakers and shielding the industry from legislative overreach. The transition was driven by practical necessities: the Production Code's declining enforceability, as evidenced by minimal adherence in recent years, and the need for a flexible mechanism adaptable to cultural changes without inviting external mandates. Valenti's system debuted with immediate application to new releases, such as rating Funny Girl (1968) as G, demonstrating its role in categorizing content based on themes like , , and sensuality rather than prohibiting them outright. While praised for innovating industry , the ratings faced early critiques for subjectivity in application, though they successfully forestalled proposals at the time.

Valenti Administration (1966–2004)

Jack Valenti assumed the presidency of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) on June 1, 1966, following his role as a special assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Recruited by studio executives including Lew Wasserman and Arthur Krim amid industry challenges from shifting social norms and eroding self-censorship under the Hays Code, Valenti prioritized voluntary industry standards over potential government intervention. His tenure, spanning nearly 38 years until 2004, focused on ratings, copyright enforcement, and global market access, transforming the MPAA into a formidable lobbying entity. A cornerstone achievement was the establishment of the voluntary film rating system on November 1, 1968, which replaced the restrictive Production Code to provide parental guidance while averting federal censorship. The initial categories—G (general audiences), M (suggested for mature audiences), R (restricted), and X (no one under 17 admitted)—aimed to inform viewers about content suitability without prohibiting exhibition. Over time, refinements included renaming M to GP in 1970 and then PG in 1972 for broader family appeal; introducing PG-13 in 1984 after parental concerns over films like Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom; and replacing X with NC-17 in 1990 to distinguish artistic adult content from pornography, reducing stigma for mainstream releases. These changes, administered by the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), processed thousands of films annually and maintained industry self-regulation. Valenti aggressively lobbied on , particularly combating emerging threats like . In the 1976-1984 Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case ( litigation), the MPAA, representing studios, sued over VCR time-shifting, arguing it enabled widespread unauthorized copying akin to "the ...." The U.S. ruled 5-4 in Sony's favor in 1984, establishing time-shifting as and legitimizing consumer recording devices, though Valenti persisted in anti-piracy campaigns as videocassettes later generated billions in ancillary revenue. Domestically, production and marketing costs escalated under his watch, averaging $50.4 million per major film by 1995, reflecting blockbuster ambitions amid rising competition. Internationally, Valenti championed trade liberalization to counter and abroad, leveraging U.S. Section 301 mechanisms to open markets in countries restricting imports or enforcing high tariffs. His efforts facilitated growth, with global revenues expanding from approximately $1.5 billion in 1966 to $38 billion by 2004, driven by multiplex proliferation and foreign theatrical dominance. Valenti retired in 2004, succeeded by , leaving a legacy of industry expansion despite criticisms of overzealous advocacy that sometimes clashed with .

Glickman and Subsequent Eras (2004–2010s)

, a former U.S. Congressman from and Secretary of Agriculture under President , succeeded as president and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) on September 1, 2004. His leadership emphasized aggressive measures against digital piracy, which the industry estimated was costing billions in lost revenue annually through illegal file-sharing and recordings in theaters. Under Glickman, the MPAA shifted toward civil litigation against individual uploaders, announcing plans for such suits in November 2004 and filing the first wave on November 16, 2004, in federal courts including those in and , targeting dozens of defendants for distributing copyrighted films via networks. These actions sought statutory damages up to $150,000 per willful infringement, complementing prior efforts focused on distributors and servers. Glickman's anti-piracy campaign extended internationally, including partnerships with governments like Mexico's to curb cross-border distribution of pirated DVDs and digital copies, and collaborations with that resulted in seizures of millions of counterfeit discs worldwide. Domestically, he advocated for technological aids like broadcast flags to prevent unauthorized copying and opposed regulations that he argued would hinder internet service providers' ability to block pirated content. Glickman also pushed for global enforcement, testifying before and joining lawmakers in calls for stricter protections amid rising online threats. By the end of his tenure, these initiatives had contributed to reported reductions in theater camcording incidents, though persisted as a core challenge. Glickman stepped down effective April 1, 2010, after over five years in the role. Following a prolonged search, former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut was appointed MPAA chairman and CEO on March 17, 2011, bringing his legislative experience to continue the organization's lobbying on piracy and trade. Dodd intensified efforts against online infringement, identifying it as the industry's "single biggest threat," and supported proposals for voluntary agreements with ISPs to warn and penalize repeat infringers. A key initiative was advocacy for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in 2011–2012, which aimed to enable courts to block access to foreign rogue sites hosting pirated content but stalled after widespread protests from tech firms and activists decrying potential overreach on free speech and innovation. Dodd defended the bills as targeted job-saving measures, dismissing censorship critiques as "outrageous and false," though their defeat marked an early setback. Dodd's era also advanced market access abroad, particularly in China, where a 2012 U.S.-China agreement—brokered with Joe Biden's involvement—expanded the revenue-sharing to include more 3D and films, followed by a 2015 deal further opening distribution channels and addressing payment disputes. These pacts aimed to boost Hollywood exports amid China's growing , though enforcement challenges like hikes persisted. Domestically, the MPAA under Dodd restructured its operations in 2013 by ending contracts with several firms to streamline on content and incentives. Dodd served until 2017, leaving a legacy of persistent anti-piracy pushes amid evolving digital threats and uneven legislative successes.

Rivkin Leadership and Contemporary Developments (2020s–present)

Charles H. Rivkin has led the Motion Picture Association as Chairman and CEO since January 2018, guiding the organization through the economic disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the dominance of streaming platforms in the early 2020s. During theater closures, the MPA partnered with the National Association of Theatre Owners to establish global COVID-19 safety protocols, enabling safer reopenings, while advocating for enhanced production incentives to preserve jobs and local economies. The pandemic also triggered a spike in online piracy, prompting the MPA to intensify enforcement collaborations with federal agencies to curb unauthorized distribution. To address the shift in viewer habits, Rivkin's tenure saw the MPA expand its membership to encompass key streaming entities, including in 2019 and with in September 2024, thereby broadening representation of models. This adaptation reflected empirical growth in streaming's economic footprint, with MPA research highlighting its contributions to U.S. GDP and employment. Leveraging Rivkin's prior diplomatic roles in and enforcement, the MPA prioritized global advocacy for robust IP protections, including support for U.S. trade negotiations and domestic legislation like the BLOCK BEARD Act introduced in 2025 to target facilitators. In 2025, partnerships such as Operation Intangibles with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement yielded arrests and seizures aimed at transnational networks. Amid emerging threats from , Rivkin pressed AI developers, including , to adopt measures preventing unauthorized use of copyrighted material for training models. Rivkin also championed policies to revitalize theatrical , urging federal production incentives at CinemaCon in 2025 to counter state-level competition and sustain industry output. The MPA board extended his contract for a third term in January 2024, citing achievements in policy advocacy and organizational resilience.

Organizational Structure and Membership

Governance and Leadership

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) is governed by a comprising representatives exclusively from its voting member companies, which oversee strategic decisions and organizational policy. As of 2024, voting members include , , Paramount Pictures Corporation, , Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., and , the latter having joined on September 19, 2024. The board appoints the Chairman and CEO, who directs daily operations, efforts, and implementation of member priorities in areas such as content protection and market access. Charles H. Rivkin has served as the MPA's Chairman and CEO since January 2018, following his appointment as CEO in September 2017. Prior to this role, Rivkin held diplomatic positions, including U.S. Ambassador to France and Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs. Under his leadership, the MPA has expanded its focus to include streaming services as members and intensified global anti-piracy and policy advocacy initiatives. In January 2024, the board extended Rivkin's contract for an additional three years, affirming his role through at least 2027.

Member Studios and Affiliates

The Motion Picture Association's membership comprises major studios that dominate theatrical film production, distribution, and streaming services, representing a substantial share of the global entertainment market. As of 2025, the primary members include , , , , Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., and Prime Video & Amazon MGM Studios. These studios fund the MPA's operations through dues scaled to revenue, enabling collective advocacy on issues like intellectual property and content ratings. Affiliates, distinct from full members, typically encompass subsidiary distributors or international partners aligned with member interests, though specific lists are not publicly detailed beyond core memberships.

Film Rating System

Origins and Evolution

The origins of the Motion Picture Association's film rating system trace back to the late , amid growing challenges to the industry's self-imposed Production Code, which had enforced content restrictions since 1930 but faced legal erosion from rulings and increasing demands for artistic freedom. In 1966, assumed the presidency of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), succeeding Eric Johnston, and began developing a voluntary ratings mechanism to preempt government intervention while empowering parental choice. The system launched on November 1, 1968, replacing prescriptive censorship with age-based advisories, initially comprising four categories: G (general audiences, all ages admitted), M (suggested for mature audiences, parental discretion advised), (restricted, children under 16 not admitted without parent), and X (no one under 17 admitted). Early evolution addressed ambiguities in audience interpretation, with the M rating—intended for mature but not necessarily restricted content—causing confusion and reclassified as GP (general audiences with parental guidance) in 1970 before becoming PG in 1972. By the 1980s, parental complaints about violent content in PG films, exemplified by releases like Gremlins (1984) and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), prompted the introduction of PG-13 on July 1, 1984, signaling stronger caution for parents while falling short of R restrictions. The X category, increasingly stigmatized by its association with pornography, was supplanted by NC-17 in September 1990 to allow theaters to exhibit non-pornographic adult-oriented films without conflation, though adoption remained limited due to commercial risks. Subsequent refinements included the addition of content descriptors (e.g., for intense violence, drug use, or ) starting in the , enhancing transparency without altering core categories, and periodic reviews to align with shifting societal tolerances, such as relaxed attitudes toward language but heightened sensitivity to depictions of youth peril. The system remains voluntary, administered by the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), with no legal enforcement but widespread adherence by exhibitors to avoid unrated status, which often precludes major releases. Over five decades, these evolutions have balanced industry self-regulation with public demands, though critiques persist regarding subjective application and inconsistencies across eras.

Rating Categories and Criteria

The Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA), an independent board composed of parents from diverse backgrounds, assigns ratings to motion pictures submitted by MPA member companies, reflecting the perspectives of the majority of American parents on content suitability for children. Ratings emphasize context, intensity, and cumulative impact of elements such as , , sex or nudity, drug use, and , rather than rigid prohibitions, to inform parental decisions without censoring artistic expression. Descriptors specifying content (e.g., "intense ," "") accompany PG, PG-13, , and NC-17 ratings to provide further guidance. G (General Audiences) designates films suitable for all ages, with nothing that most parents would find offensive or unsuitable for viewing by children. Content typically avoids strong language, , sexual situations, or use, permitting only minimal, non-intense and very mild . PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) indicates that parents should consider guiding younger viewers, as some material may not align with all parental preferences for children. This category allows moderate , brief , suggestive dialogue, infrequent , or fantasy/ , but excludes hard use or sustained intense peril. PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned) warns that material exceeds PG levels and may be inappropriate for children under 13, often due to more , heightened , sensuality, or . Drug use, including marijuana, mandates this rating; violence is permitted but generally avoids extreme gore or persistence, with context determining suitability. R (Restricted) signifies adult-oriented content requiring those under 17 to be accompanied by a parent or guardian, encompassing strong or frequent , intense , , , or drug abuse. Criteria focus on elements where context does not mitigate impact, such as graphic depictions or pervasive themes unsuitable for . NC-17 (No One 17 and Under Admitted) applies to patently , barring admission to minors due to explicit , , or other content deemed unsuitable regardless of . This rating addresses cumulative or intense elements like aberrant sexual behavior or hard drug abuse, distinguishing from but prioritizing parental consensus on age restrictions.

Appeals and Administration

The appeals process for ratings assigned by the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA) permits producers or distributors to challenge a within 25 business days, provided the appeal is filed at least 25 business days before public exhibition or distribution, accompanied by a non-refundable equivalent to 10% of the initial rating (minimum $250). Only one is allowed per film version, with a maximum of two appeals for substantially different versions, each seeking the next less restrictive rating category. The Classification and Rating Appeals Board, which adjudicates challenges, is chaired by the MPA's CEO or designee and comprises representatives from key industry stakeholders for balance: up to three per MPA member studio, the president plus up to three from eight member theaters, the IFTA CEO plus up to two from four independent producers, and up to two from four non-affiliated entities. Board members serve three-year terms, renewable for one additional consecutive term. Proceedings occur in a confidential hearing, typically in at least 10 business days after filing, featuring a screening of the film, 15-minute opening statements from the appellant and CARA chair, 10-minute rebuttals, and optional questions from the board; no recordings are permitted. A successful appeal requires a two-thirds majority vote by secret ballot deeming the original rating "clearly erroneous," meaning it deviates from CARA's standards reflecting the opinion of the majority of American parents on age-appropriateness for the sought less restrictive category; a quorum of nine members is needed, including at least three each from MPA and representatives. Appeals are infrequent and rarely overturned: from 1968 to 2018, only 1.4% of 29,791 rated films (428) were appealed, with 0.6% (165) resulting in changes, such as the 2017 shift of 15:17 to Paris from to PG-13. CARA administers the overall and facilitates appeals logistics, including scheduling and notifications, while the Appeals Board operates independently in its deliberations to ensure decisions align with empirical parental consensus rather than subjective overrides. The MPA CEO may waive procedural rules with appellant consent or address quorum shortfalls via written agreement, with unresolved disputes subject to or . This structure maintains the voluntary system's integrity by prioritizing consensus-driven outcomes over frequent revisions.

Empirical Effectiveness and Parental Utility

A 2023 survey commissioned by the , involving 1,500 U.S. parents of children aged 2–17, found that 87% of respondents believed the film ratings accurately reflect movie content, with 82% reporting that the system helps them make informed viewing decisions for their children. However, this self-reported data originates from an industry-funded study, potentially inflating positive perceptions due to respondent bias or selection effects, as independent analyses of similar surveys indicate lower consistent usage rates. For instance, a survey from the early 2000s reported that only 24–28% of parents "often" rely on ratings to guide children's media choices, with many citing insufficient detail on specific content like or language. Empirical assessments of the rating system's ability to differentiate content reveal partial effectiveness, particularly in screening explicit sexual material, but notable shortcomings in handling . A 2010 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health analyzed top-grossing films from 1950 to 2006 and determined that the system reliably separates explicit across categories, with PG-13 and films containing significantly more sexual content than G or PG equivalents; however, violence levels in PG-13 films increased markedly over time, blurring distinctions from -rated content and exposing adolescents to intensified depictions without stricter classification. This "ratings creep" phenomenon, corroborated by a 2004 analysis of films from 1992–2003, showed average increases of 60–90% in , , and per rating category, undermining the system's consistency as content thresholds erode without formal enforcement mechanisms. Regarding parental utility in curbing underage exposure, longitudinal research links rating adherence to reduced risk behaviors but highlights enforcement gaps. A study of over 6,000 U.S. adolescents found that parental restriction of R-rated movie viewing prospectively lowered alcohol initiation odds by 46% and by 35%, suggesting ratings serve as a useful when actively enforced by parents. Yet, actual prevention remains limited: surveys indicate 40–50% of youth aged 10–14 report seeing recent R-rated films in theaters despite age policies, often due to lax theater or home access via streaming, with no mandatory verification like ID checks. Independent content audits further reveal inconsistencies, such as animated G-rated films averaging higher violence scores than non-animated counterparts, potentially misleading parents relying on the G label for family suitability. Overall, while the system provides parents with a standardized framework—used by a majority in per industry data—its empirical effectiveness is constrained by voluntary compliance, evolving content norms, and uneven correlation with harmful elements like violence, which studies attribute to prioritizing market access over rigorous harm-based thresholds. Causal analyses emphasize that without external oversight, ratings function more as advisory tools than barriers, with utility hinging on proactive parental monitoring rather than inherent restrictiveness.

Advocacy and Content Protection

Anti-Piracy Initiatives

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) pursues anti-piracy efforts through a combination of legal actions, international collaborations, technological measures, and legislative to curb unauthorized distribution of motion pictures and television content. These initiatives address digital piracy, which the MPA estimates inflicts annual global losses exceeding $29 billion on the film and television industry by undermining revenue from legitimate distribution channels. The organization's strategy emphasizes civil lawsuits, criminal referrals to , and partnerships to disrupt pirate operations, including domain seizures and site-blocking orders. A cornerstone of the MPA's anti-piracy work is the (ACE), a global coalition it leads comprising over 50 major media and entertainment companies. Established to protect the legal content market, ACE conducts cross-border investigations, files civil suits against pirate site operators, and secures injunctions leading to the shutdown of thousands of infringing domains annually. For instance, ACE has targeted "zombie" pirate brands—persistent rebranded sites like and —through subpoenas and enforcement actions in multiple jurisdictions. In 2025, the MPA, via ACE, launched investigative measures against anime piracy platforms such as HiAnime and AnimeKai, aiming to dismantle their operations and deter similar sites. The MPA collaborates with U.S. government agencies, including signing a 2022 memorandum of understanding with the Rights Center (IPR Center)—a multi-agency initiative led by Homeland Security Investigations—to enhance digital piracy probes and transnational enforcement. This partnership supports operations targeting counterfeit and pirated content distribution, with the MPA providing industry expertise on infringement trends. Additionally, the MPA advocates for legislative tools like the proposed Block BEARD Act, a bipartisan measure introduced in 2025 to enable judicial site-blocking in the U.S., mirroring protections in over a dozen allied nations and addressing gaps exposed by failed prior bills such as SOPA. These efforts extend to partnerships with theater owners to combat in-theater recording and camcording, further integrating anti-piracy into supply chain protections.

Intellectual Property Enforcement

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) conducts enforcement primarily through civil lawsuits, domain seizures, and partnerships with agencies to target operators of commercial-scale operations that distribute unauthorized copies of films and television programs produced by its member studios. These efforts aim to disrupt revenue streams from infringing sites, which often monetize through or subscriptions while evading detection via mirror domains and proxy services. A key component involves litigation against persistent "zombie" and "hydra" brands that regenerate after initial takedowns. For example, in 2024, the MPA, via the (ACE)—a coalition it leads with over 50 media and technology partners—facilitated the shutdown of the network, described as the world's largest illegal streaming operation with more than 6.7 billion cumulative visits and access to thousands of pirated titles. Similarly, ACE actions have targeted brands like and Aniwave, resulting in domain blocks and financial penalties in multiple jurisdictions. In one U.S. federal case, MPA-affiliated plaintiffs obtained a $10.5 million damages award in 2016 against operators of sites infringing trademarks and copyrights for films including Avengers: . Domestically, the MPA leverages the (DMCA) for notice-and-takedown requests to hosting providers and search engines, removing infringing links from legitimate platforms while pursuing aggressive measures against rogue services. It also collaborates with entities like the Department of Homeland Security's Intellectual Property Rights Center (IPR Center) to refer cases for criminal prosecution, emphasizing the link between and , including funding for or . Internationally, the MPA submits annual input to the U.S. Trade Representative's Notorious Markets review, highlighting sites like those enabling access to over 5,600 films and 56,000 television episodes, and advocates for site-blocking orders in countries such as the , , and . Through ACE's expansion since 2017, these efforts have extended to partnerships and joint operations, such as the 2025 disruption of sports piracy rings receiving 1.4 billion annual visits. The organization further pushes for robust IP provisions in trade agreements to facilitate cross-border enforcement, arguing that weak protections undermine investment in content creation.

Domestic Policy Lobbying

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) conducts substantial federal to advance policies bolstering protections and domestic , with reported expenditures of $3.1 million in 2024 and $1.38 million in 2025 through mid-year. These efforts target legislation enhancing enforcement against digital , including proposals for site-blocking mechanisms to restrict access to infringing websites, akin to measures debated in prior anti-piracy bills but tailored to foreign-hosted threats. The MPA has endorsed bills like the Foreign Anti-Digital Act, which aims to enable targeted judicial orders against overseas sites while preserving for domestic platforms. In addition to piracy combat, the MPA advocates for incentives to stimulate U.S.-based , arguing that such measures retain jobs and economic activity amid international . It has lobbied intensively for extensions of federal provisions like Section 181 of the code, which provides credits for qualified film and television expenditures, warning of production outflows to foreign markets without renewal. At the state level, the MPA supported expansions to California's film and television credit program in 2024, influencing reforms that allocate credits based on in-state spending rather than tax liability to benefit high-volume producers. The MPA's positions extend to , opposing new standalone laws for artificial intelligence-generated content on grounds that existing frameworks suffice for protection and licensing. It collaborates with lawmakers and agencies, such as through partnerships with the Rights Coordination Center, to align policy with industry needs for secure content distribution. These lobbying activities prioritize empirical impacts on revenue losses from infringement—estimated in billions annually—and production economics over broader regulatory interventions like , which have not featured prominently in disclosed agendas.

International Operations

Market Access and Trade Negotiations

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) actively engages in policy to expand for U.S. , , and streaming content, collaborating with the Office of the Trade Representative (USTR) to address foreign barriers such as import quotas, local content mandates, revenue-sharing restrictions, and requirements. These efforts aim to reduce protectionist measures that limit the distribution and monetization of American audiovisual exports, which generated over $17 billion in U.S. exports in recent years, supporting domestic jobs and . MPA's advocacy prioritizes commitments in trade agreements for non-discriminatory treatment of digital deliveries, elimination of tariffs on , and minimization of cultural exemptions that favor domestic industries over foreign competition. A key mechanism is MPA's annual submissions to the USTR's National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, where it identifies specific obstacles in priority markets; for the 2025 report, MPA highlighted barriers in countries including (e.g., restrictive revenue caps and approval delays), (e.g., print-and-advertising mandates and dubbing restrictions), and the (e.g., quota requirements under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive). These inputs inform U.S. negotiating positions and potential Section 301 investigations. In multilateral and bilateral talks, MPA has supported frameworks like the (TPP), submitting comments in 2012 urging strong audiovisual services disciplines to enhance export opportunities for the industry. Similarly, in the U.S.-Mexico- Agreement (USMCA), MPA advocated against expansive cultural exemptions that could extend analog-era protections to digital platforms, though retained broad carve-outs allowing content quotas in streaming services. MPA also endorses bilateral initiatives, such as the U.S.- Initiative on 21st-Century , providing input in 2023 to secure commitments on cross-border flows and IP enforcement that facilitate content distribution without localization mandates. Post-Brexit, MPA expressed support for U.K. trade deals that lower barriers, emphasizing competition and reduced state subsidies for local production. Through these channels, MPA influences outcomes that align with empirical trade showing U.S. content's global dominance when barriers are lowered, as evidenced by increased exports following liberalization in markets like after quota reductions in the early .

Global Content Security Efforts

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) coordinates global content security through initiatives aimed at combating digital and enforcing rights across international borders. Central to these efforts is the (ACE), a coalition founded and led by the MPA that unites over 50 major entertainment companies to disrupt piracy operations worldwide. ACE employs investigative measures, legal actions, and collaborations with to target piracy sites and services, including recent operations against anime streaming platforms like HiAnime and AnimeKai in 2025. Complementing ACE, the MPA's Trusted Partner Network (TPN) serves as a global certification program for vendors handling film and television content, promoting standardized security best practices to prevent leaks and unauthorized distribution. TPN, wholly owned by the MPA, expanded its services in 2022 to address evolving threats and aligned studio controls with MPA guidelines in 2024 to enhance efficiency in security. The MPA's Global Content Security Program further disseminates best practices for physical and digital protection, including secure handling protocols for content creators and distributors operating internationally. These efforts involve strategic partnerships with international entities, such as a 2022 memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) to bolster cross-border investigations into piracy networks. In 2025, ACE extended its reach by partnering with UEFA to enhance anti-piracy strategies for live sports streaming, demonstrating adaptability to non-film content threats with global implications. Regionally, the MPA appointed a Vice President of Content Protection for Asia-Pacific in April 2025 to intensify enforcement against local piracy hotspots. Up to 100 MPA investigators actively pursue pirates across jurisdictions, focusing on third-party services that enable illicit distribution. The MPA advocates for policy measures supporting these operations, including calls for automated blocking systems to enable real-time intervention without prolonged court processes, as proposed in 2025 discussions targeting VPN circumvention. These initiatives collectively aim to safeguard the economic viability of the global creative industry by reducing revenue losses from , estimated in billions annually, though effectiveness varies by jurisdiction due to differing legal frameworks.

Controversies and Debates

Rating System Criticisms and Defenses

Critics have argued that the Motion Picture Association's (MPA) rating system exhibits inconsistencies in applying ratings to similar content across , with variations in the treatment of , sex, and language leading to unpredictable outcomes for filmmakers and parents alike. A 2013 study by the found minimal differences in levels between PG-13 and R-rated from 1950 to 2012, suggesting the system fails to reliably distinguish intensity across categories. This subjectivity is compounded by the anonymous composition of the Classification and Rating Administration (CAR A) board, which lacks public and transparency in processes. A prominent criticism centers on the system's perceived leniency toward violence compared to sexual content or profanity, allowing escalating levels of graphic depictions in PG-13 films while imposing stricter penalties on nudity or expletives. Research analyzing top-grossing films from 1950 to 2006 concluded that while the ratings effectively screen explicit sex, they permit increasing violent content in PG-13 releases, potentially undermining parental guidance on age-appropriate exposure. For instance, films like Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) received an R rating despite intense sexual themes, whereas others with comparable or lesser violence faced NC-17 initially, prompting cuts to secure wider distribution. The NC-17 rating, introduced in 1990 to replace the porn-associated X rating, carries a commercial stigma that discourages theatrical releases, as evidenced by controversies surrounding films such as Henry & June (1990) and Showgirls (1995), which suffered box-office limitations due to the label. Defenders of the system, including the MPA itself, emphasize its voluntary nature as a self-regulatory mechanism that averts government censorship while providing parents with basic advisories on content suitability. A MPA-commissioned survey revealed that a majority of parents viewed the handling of in ratings as adequate and preferred it over stricter controls on , aligning with the system's observed tolerances. The low success rate of appeals—only 0.6% of over 30,000 rated films since inception—indicates broad acceptance of initial determinations, with the process enabling filmmakers to challenge and occasionally overturn decisions through evidentiary review. Proponents argue that the ratings' empirical utility lies in their widespread recognition, facilitating informed choices without mandating detailed content descriptors, though ongoing refinements address parental feedback on emerging concerns like depictions announced in 2007. The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has pursued aggressive litigation against file-sharing services accused of facilitating widespread of motion pictures. In the early 2000s, the MPA, following the model of the , initiated hundreds of lawsuits against individual users for downloading and sharing copyrighted films via platforms like and , aiming to deter through financial penalties. These actions, which sought statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed work under the U.S. Act, drew for targeting end-users rather than providers, with some cases resulting in settlements averaging $3,000–$4,000 per . High-profile suits against file-hosting and cyberlocker sites marked escalation in enforcement. In 2013, a U.S. federal court in ruled in favor of the MPA against Hotfile.com, finding the service and its operator liable for inducing and materially contributing to users' infringement of over 200,000 copyrighted films, leading to the site's shutdown after damages exceeding $80 million were sought. Similarly, in 2007, the MPA prevailed against TorrentSpy, a indexing site, securing a permanent and $250,000 in attorney's fees after the court determined the service evaded discovery by relocating servers offshore. Critics, including advocates, argued these victories relied on broad interpretations of secondary liability under doctrines like contributory and vicarious infringement, potentially stifling legitimate file-sharing innovations. Disputes extended to DMCA processes and takedown notices, where enforcement tactics faced legal pushback. In Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America (2004), the Ninth Circuit upheld the MPA's use of pseudonymous notices to remove allegedly infringing links from a website, but the case highlighted tensions over the accuracy of infringement claims, with the defendant alleging overreach in identifying non-infringing content. The MPA's 2014 civil suit against sought billions in damages for hosting pirated films, complementing U.S. criminal charges, but protracted proceedings underscored challenges in extraterritorial enforcement against international operators. More recently, the MPA has clashed with emerging technologies over infringement risks. In October 2025, the association demanded address flaws in its Sora 2 video generation model's opt-out system, citing instances where users generated clips replicating protected motion pictures without consent, prompting calls for stricter safeguards to prevent AI-driven . for legislative tools, such as site-blocking akin to failed 2011 SOPA/PIPA bills, reignited debates in 2024, with the MPA estimating costs the industry $29.2 billion annually in the U.S. alone, while opponents warned of and barriers. These efforts reflect ongoing friction between content protection imperatives and tech sector resistance, with empirical data from MPA-commissioned studies linking to reduced infringement rates, though causal attribution remains contested amid evolving distribution models.

Allegations of Bias and Industry Influence

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has faced allegations of in its rating process, particularly favoring content from its member studios over independent productions. A 2011 study analyzing over 6,000 films from 1992 to 2009 found that movies distributed by MPA member companies were approximately 7% less likely to receive an R rating compared to non-member films with similar content, even after controlling for variables like and , suggesting preferential treatment that disadvantages smaller producers. Critics, including independent filmmakers, argue this reflects the MPA's structure, where raters are drawn from the industry and the appeals board includes studio representatives, creating conflicts of interest that prioritize major studio output. Further claims of content-specific bias center on of sexual versus violent material, with accusations of puritanical standards that disproportionately penalize depictions of sexuality, especially involving women or LGBTQ+ themes. For instance, the 2014 film Love Is Strange, featuring no explicit sex, nudity, or violence but portraying an elderly couple's relationship, received an R rating, prompting homophobia allegations from filmmakers and advocates who contrasted it with PG-13 ratings for heterosexual content or intense violence in blockbusters. Academic analyses have documented gender disparities, noting that female sexual agency often triggers harsher ratings than equivalent male portrayals or gore, a pattern traced back to historical codes like the Hays Office and persisting in MPA guidelines. While the MPA defends its criteria as consistent and parent-focused, detractors contend these reflect amid Hollywood's broader left-leaning output, potentially self-censoring to avoid federal regulation. On industry influence, the MPA's expenditures—totaling $1.38 million in 2025 alone—have drawn scrutiny for advancing policies that entrench major studios' dominance, such as aggressive copyright enforcement and opposition to measures expanding . The organization contributed predominantly to Democrats in recent cycles, with 88% of industry funds supporting that party, aligning with Hollywood's political donations but criticized for using this leverage to secure $400 million in federal incentives and shape trade deals prioritizing U.S. exports over local industries abroad. groups like the accuse the MPA of pushing for website-blocking mechanisms akin to those in authoritarian regimes, as seen in support for bills like the failed SOPA/ in 2011-2012, which would have empowered private entities to censor online content preemptively. These efforts, while framed as anti-piracy, are alleged to suppress competition and innovation, with the MPA's influence extending to international negotiations where U.S. trade policy has historically subordinated foreign cultural protections to Hollywood's market access. The MPA counters that such protects economic contributions, employing over 2.7 million Americans, but skeptics highlight how member studios' oligopolistic control—representing the top five U.S. entities—distorts market dynamics.

References

  1. https://www.motionpictures.org/about/
  2. https://www.mpa100.org/
  3. https://www.motionpictures.org/press-kit/
  4. https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/mpaa-ratings-controversies-50-anniversary-1202016148/
  5. https://www.uscspotlight.com/successful-appeals-and-surviving-the-mpa-rating-system
  6. https://www.motionpictures.org/research/
  7. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/mpa-doesnt-get-decide-who-first-amendment-protects
  8. https://thegreatmoviedebates.wordpress.com/2017/09/03/motion-picture-association-of-america-history-and-controversy/
  9. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14640719
  10. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/100-years-ago-how-hollywoods-early-self-censorship-battles-shaped-the-mpa-1235210771/
  11. https://www.americanheritage.com/hollywood-cleans-its-act
  12. https://walkoffame.com/will-h-hays/
  13. https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/will-h-hays
  14. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-the-hays-code-1934/
  15. https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/hays-code-rules-history-77748/
  16. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/historyonline/film_censorship.cfm
  17. https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/hays-code.htm
  18. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/sisterrosemovies/2016/02/censoring-the-silver-screen-a-history-of-the-legion-of-decency/
  19. https://starsandletters.blogspot.com/2015/06/joseph-breen-and-production-code.html
  20. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/hays-code-explained
  21. https://www.productioncode.dhwritings.com/
  22. https://selfstyledsiren.substack.com/p/hollywoods-censor-joseph-i-breen-and
  23. https://www.productioncode.dhwritings.com/multipleframes_productioncode.php
  24. https://daily.jstor.org/end-american-film-censorship/
  25. https://www.austinfilm.org/2016/06/50-years-ago-today-hollywoods-production-code-fell/
  26. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-the-mpaa/
  27. https://observer.com/2018/11/mpaa-50-years-movie-ratings-system-changed-film-forever/
  28. https://www.filmratings.com/History
  29. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G-is-for-Golden.pdf
  30. https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/130208_ratings-timeline.final.pdf
  31. https://www.motionpictures.org/2018/11/a-brief-history-of-rating-movies-for-50-years/
  32. https://uhsystem.edu/board-of-regents/historical/former-regents/regents/jackvalenti/index.php
  33. https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/valenti-jack-1921-2007-jack-joseph-valenti
  34. https://variety.com/2004/legit/news/jack-valenti-1117902222/
  35. https://www.motionpictures.org/film-ratings/
  36. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/01/18/thirty-years-before-sopa-mpaa-feared-the-vcr/
  37. https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/17
  38. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-03-08-fi-40252-story.html
  39. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1671&context=njilb
  40. https://variety.com/2007/film/markets-festivals/movies-were-valenti-s-mission-1117963872/
  41. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/jul/05/news1
  42. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/film-studios-sue-file-pirates/
  43. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-nov-04-fi-mpaa4-story.html
  44. https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/mpaa-launches-lawsuits-against-p2p-pirates-1424861/
  45. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6402656
  46. https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/mpaas-glickman-in-mexico-to-fight-piracy-1415801/
  47. https://www.loeb.com/-/media/files/publications/2007/11/the-antipiracy-landscape-in-the-motion-picture-i__/files/click-here-to-download-a-pdf-of-the-article/fileattachment/me_insights_article_thorland.pdf
  48. https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/mpaa-chief-net-neutrality-just-a-clever-name-008998
  49. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/glickman-calls-stricter-ip-protection-84358/
  50. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/exiting-mpaa-chief-reflects-film-21695/
  51. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mpaas-glickman-adios-hollywood/
  52. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/dodd-to-lead-mpaa-050438
  53. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/mpaas-chris-dodd-piracy-is-172346/
  54. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/mpaa-chief-chris-dodd-leaves-complicated-legacy-as-hollywoods-top-lobbyist-998841/
  55. https://deadline.com/2011/12/mpaas-chris-dodd-critics-view-of-sopa-as-censorship-outrageous-and-false-204801/
  56. https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2012/02/biden-announces-china-us-film-agreement-114922
  57. https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-dodd-mpaa-exit-20170428-story.html
  58. https://variety.com/2013/film/news/update-mpaa-china-resolve-payment-dispute-1200577596/
  59. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-chriss-dodd-mpaa-movie-studios-20150317-story.html
  60. https://deadline.com/2024/01/mpa-charles-rivkin-contract-1235795088/
  61. https://www.thewrap.com/mpa-nato-chiefs-vow-theaters-will-return-we-all-love-a-comeback-story/
  62. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/motion-picture-association-renews-charles-rivkin-contract-2-1235790874/
  63. https://www.thewrap.com/cinemacon-warning-movie-piracy/
  64. https://www.mpa-emea.org/press/motion-picture-association-adds-prime-video-amazon-mgm-studios-as-newest-member/
  65. https://deadline.com/2022/03/streaming-services-mpa-1234977814/
  66. https://www.motionpictures.org/people/charles-h-rivkin/
  67. https://www.motionpictures.org/2025/09/2025-mpa-industry-champion-award-senator-chris-coons-on-the-real-cost-of-piracy/
  68. https://www.ice.gov/features/OperationIntangibles
  69. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/mpa-chief-open-ai-1236394475/
  70. https://deadline.com/2025/03/mpa-ceo-charlie-rivkin-say-copyright-law-key-in-ai-actoion-plan-1236355369/
  71. https://variety.com/2025/biz/news/cinemacon-mpa-charles-rivkin-federal-film-incentive-longer-windows-1236352087/
  72. https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/aa/36/396058/Motion-Picture-Association-Inc_2023_990-PIC_Final-TP-11-10-2024.pdf
  73. https://www.motionpictures.org/about/our-people/
  74. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/business/amazon-joins-motion-picture-association.html
  75. https://variety.com/2024/biz/news/motion-picture-association-charles-rivkin-contract-ceo-1235875897/
  76. https://www.linkedin.com/company/motionpictureassociation
  77. https://www.motionpictures.org/
  78. https://www.filmratings.com/content/downloads/rating_rules.pdf
  79. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/American-Parents-Views-on-Movie-Ratings.pdf
  80. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542901.pdf
  81. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2810%2900079-0/fulltext
  82. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2004/07/study-finds-ratings-creep/
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6952530/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3408681/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1435631/
  86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20970078/
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47532877_The_Effectiveness_of_the_Motion_Picture_Association_of_America%27s_Rating_System_in_Screening_Explicit_Violence_and_Sex_in_Top-ranked_Movies_From_1950_to_2006
  88. https://www.motionpictures.org/content-protection/
  89. https://www.motionpictures.org/advocacy/defending-creators/
  90. https://www.alliance4creativity.com/
  91. https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-targets-zombie-pirate-brands-including-fmovies-cuevana-and-aniwave/
  92. https://www.facebook.com/CBROfficialPage/posts/the-motion-picture-association-mpa-launches-new-investigative-measures-against-w/1405075214314641/
  93. https://www.iprcenter.gov/news/motion-picture-association-signs-up-to-assist-the-ipr-center-with-anti-piracy-efforts
  94. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/motion-picture-association-alliance-creativity-and-entertainment-and-ipr-center
  95. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/theater-owners-mpaa-ipr-center-partner-combat-movie-piracy
  96. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/MPA-Notorious-Markets-2025-Submission-.pdf
  97. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/movie-industry-touts-takedown-of-worlds-largest-pirate-streaming-ring/
  98. https://www.swensonlawfirm.com/motion-picture-association-of-america-wins-10-5-million-lawsuit
  99. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/12.13.23-MPA-Karyn-Temple-Testimony.pdf
  100. https://www.motionpictures.org/2025/09/mpa-creative-protector-award-recipient-ivan-j-arvelo-the-federal-agent-protecting-your-favorite-movies-from-piracy/
  101. https://www.alliance4creativity.com/news/alliance-for-creativity-and-entertainment-ace-continues-global-expansion-adding-first-members-in-asia-pacific-region/
  102. https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-highlights-rapidly-expanding-hydra-sites-as-an-emerging-piracy-problem/
  103. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023_NTE_MPAComments.pdf
  104. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000027729
  105. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/studios-antipiracy-bill-legislation-1235871278/
  106. https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/9/24125560/mpa-block-piracy-websites-cinemacon
  107. http://lofgren.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-lofgren-introduces-targeted-legislation-combat-foreign-online-piracy
  108. https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5551471-protect-american-film-jobs/
  109. https://variety.com/2024/biz/news/motion-picture-association-california-tax-credits-1236253797/
  110. https://deadline.com/2023/10/ai-hollywood-studios-copyright-mpa-1235588715/
  111. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/motion-picture-association-signs-assist-ipr-center-anti-piracy-efforts
  112. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2025-NTE-Report.pdf
  113. https://www.motionpictures.org/research-docs/the-american-motion-picture-and-television-industry-creating-jobs-trading-around-the-world-6/
  114. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2023-NTE-Report-MPA-Comments.pdf
  115. https://www.motionpictures.org/policy-statement/mpa-comments-regarding-the-2025-national-trade-estimate-report-on-foreign-trade-barriers/
  116. https://downloads.regulations.gov/USTR-2012-0014-0047/attachment_1.pdf
  117. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/MPA-comments-on-US-Taiwan-Initiative.pdf
  118. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/99469/pdf/
  119. https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Parc-Messerlin-2018-Trade-Policy.pdf
  120. https://www.motionpictures.org/advocacy/defending-creators/additional-resources/
  121. https://variety.com/2022/film/news/motion-picture-association-content-security-tpn-1235407033/
  122. https://www.ttpn.org/2025/01/2024-year-in-review-strengthening-content-security-together/
  123. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sup_english.pdf
  124. https://healtheducationservices.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MPAA-Best-Practices-Common-Guidelines-V4.06-Final-2.pdf
  125. https://www.mpa-emea.org/press/uefa-partners-with-alliance-for-creativity-and-entertainment-to-enhance-global-anti-piracy-strategy/
  126. https://www.prnewswire.com/apac/news-releases/mpa-hires-vice-president-of-content-protection-to-amplify-anti-piracy-efforts-in-asia-pacific-region-302416396.html
  127. https://variety.com/2022/biz/news/motion-picture-association-antipiracy-1235199141/
  128. https://deadline.com/2024/05/jesse-martin-mpa-piracy-1235918774/
  129. https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vpns/the-mpa-becomes-the-latest-body-to-target-vpns-in-a-bid-to-combat-piracy
  130. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/dec/09/study-mpaa-ratings-films-violence-sex-drugs
  131. https://ncac.org/update/mpaa-ratings-still-stoke-controversy-documentary-spurs-ratings-reform
  132. https://www.parentstv.org/blog/little-boy-fifty-shades-and-the-mpaas-inconsistent-ratings-standards
  133. https://collider.com/history-of-nc-17-rating/
  134. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-6-biggest-nc-17-and-r-rated-controversies-in-film-history-2012-3
  135. https://files.kff.org/attachment/Rating-Sex-and-Violence-in-the-Media-i-Media-Ratings-and-Proposals-for-Reform.pdf
  136. https://www.reviewed.com/televisions/features/mpaa-study-parents-prefer-violence-to-sex
  137. https://www.sj-r.com/story/entertainment/movies/2013/11/13/motion-picture-group-defends-movie/41793642007/
  138. https://www.eff.org/cases/mpaa-v-people
  139. https://www.muddlawoffices.com/RIAA/RIAA_MPAA.htm
  140. https://deadline.com/2013/08/mpaa-wins-hotfile-copyright-infringement-suit-573949/
  141. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/mpaa-wins-file-sharing-case-62181/
  142. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/judge-mpaa-cant-call-hotfile-founders-pirates-or-thieves-at-trial/
  143. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1308565.html
  144. https://www.techdirt.com/2014/04/09/mpaas-lawsuit-against-megaupload-is-yet-another-broadside-attack-internet/
  145. https://variety.com/2025/film/news/motion-picture-association-openai-sora-2-copyright-1236541775/
  146. https://slate.com/business/2011/02/mpaa-ratings-and-independents-bias-proved.html
  147. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/aug/22/mpaa-love-is-strange-r-rated-gay-romance-no-sex
  148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331048812_50_shades_of_Film_Censorship_Gender_bias_from_the_Hays_Code_to_MPAA_ratings
  149. https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2448557&page=1
  150. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background?cycle=2024&ind=C2400
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.