Tag: blockheaded

Maybe we need “rated P for pot”

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

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

Quoting the story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photojournalism mistaken for terrorism, yet again

I rarely blog from a press release like this one but the subject matter is too important to quietly let go and it’s no stranger to regular readers of my blog.

A Bindmans press release details the plight of Ms. Jess Hurd, a photojournalist in the UK; it does not say what city she calls home, though this incident occurred in London.

According to the press release, Jess was covering a wedding in the London Docklands area when officers questioned her as to what she was doing. Even after offering her press card to confirm she was a legitimate journalist, Jess saw no immediate relief from the harassment.

As part of their interrogation, the officers viewed all of Jess’s footage and she was in fear that the officers might even decide to erase (“wipe” in British English) all of it. And I might add, quite rightfully so; even though even in the UK the officers do not have the authority to do this, this has happened elsewhere, particularly in parts of the US, and the UK’s “counterterrorism” laws are draconian by comparison.

In fact, Jess was told she would not be able to use some of her footage (perhaps even all of it) due to a copyright claim by either the officer individually or by the Metropolitan Police press office. This has to be one of the most ludicrous things I have ever run across, even by UK standards. (For the new people, I’m no huge fan of the UK government, and the archives on past rants of UK government misdeeds demonstrate that quite well.)

As for the resolution, I quote part of the press release, dealing with the remedies sought, and a quote from the National Union of Journalists legal officer who has some choice words about the officers involved:

What Ms Hurd seeks

Ms Hurd is seeking a full apology, confirmation that the officers involved have received training in relation to the appropriate use of S44 of the Terrorism Act and the responsibilities set out in the Association of Chief Police Officers (‘ACPO’) Police Media Guidelines (‘the Guidelines’), which are in force nationally, as well as any other measures considered appropriate given the many breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 arising from the treatment she has received.

Ms Hurd’s lawyer, instructed by the NUJ, Ms Chez Cotton, Head of the Police Misconduct Department at leading London law firm Bindmans LLP said:

“The police appear to have been interested in Ms Hurd only because she was filming and used S44 of the Terrorism Act where suspicion is not necessary to stop and search her, in full knowledge that she was a photojournalist. Ms Hurd had voluntarily explained her presence and provided identification that only accredited members of the press carry, which it is agreed that police forces nationally will recognise. Despite this, her footage was viewed for the most spurious of reasons and counter to basic principles of a free press. A Joint Committee for Human Rights report of July 2009 stated, ‘…we deplore the obvious overuse of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in recent years’. The treatment of Ms Hurd is a stark example of such misuse of S44 and made all the more serious because officers were fully aware of the status of Ms Hurd as an accredited photojournalist professionally engaged at the time of the use of the controversial provision.”

NUJ Legal Officer, Roy Mincoff said:

“It appears that for no good reason Jess Hurd was treated, and continued to be treated, as if she were a suspected terrorist. The NUJ considers The Police’s apparent failure to recognise the PressCard, and ignorance of ACPO Guidelines and lack of knowledge of the law to be unacceptable. We welcome more recent ACPO advice as to the role of the media and how legislation should be applied, and Ministerial assurances that anti-terrorism legislation must only be used for that purpose, given after considerable and continuous efforts by the NUJ to achieve that progress.

Now these issues must be addressed in practice by the Police.

We will be keeping very close sight of this and take such action as necessary should further breaches occur.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. This is a flagrant mockery of justice and fairness. I have said this before, but I’ll say it again: a terrorist will not use the same types of video or photo gear that a professional journalist would use. A point-and-shoot similar to my Nikon Coolpix L18 (which is maybe a tad bigger than my wallet) would definitely get “surveillance quality” pictures and draw less attention than even an entry-level DSLR. Heck, the Coolpix L18 and most similar compact cameras technically do video as well (that’s not their primarily designed purpose of course, but the feature is present).

Who does the MPAA think they are, really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case of the clueless insurance adjuster

A psychcentral.com blog entry details the plight of Nathalie Blanchard, a 29-year-old IBM employee from Quebec.

As the story goes, Nathalie took a long-term sick leave from her job due to depression. Following the advice of her doctor, she took a vacation to get away from her problems. Then one day, her monthly sick-leave benefits quit coming in. Nathalie’s call to Manulife, the insurance company which handles her benefits, had the most surprising of answers: based upon pictures posted to Facebook, the company had reached a conclusion that she was once again fit to work.

Well, not surprisingly, Manulife’s version, filtered through their PR department, is different:

According to CBC news, the insurer has confirmed that they do indeed use Facebook to investigate their clients, but the company claims that it wouldn’t “deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on websites such as Facebook”.

It is obvious to me that whoever made this decision is at best uneducated about depression. I have had friends who suffer from depression and the appearance of happiness in one moment is far from any indication that one is “cured” of depression. It’s not that simple. Notwithstanding the fact that the photographs document that Nathalie followed the doctors orders, I have to wonder what the heck the people at Manulife could have been thinking here.

Indeed, it makes no more sense to make this judgment than it does to take a picture of an insomniac appearing to be sleeping and present that as evidence the person is “cured,” as alluded to later in the article. Whoever said “common sense isn’t so common anymore” was definitely on to something.

The Dallas experiment

The New York Times reports on a rather disturbing development at the Dallas Morning News.

Some of the senior news editors, specifically the sports and entertainment segment editors, are being asked to report directly to the general manager in addition to maintaining a relationship to the editor and managing editor.

[Bob Mong, the editor of the Dallas Morning News,] said the announcement caused some unease among reporters and editors, and “they had all the questions I would hope they would have, and believe me, they’ll be very vigilant.” He said editors were told explicitly to fight back if they were told to do anything unethical.

Another quote further down the article states that the change grew out of a situation where no advertising employees focused on an online section added by the sports department. While this is certainly one way to keep the problem from recurring, in general I have to question the prima facie connotations of news people reporting to those in charge of advertising sales. It definitely gives the implication that ethics are being set aside even if in reality the ethical issues are being addressed adequately.

I can only imagine how fast the FCC would swoop down on a TV or radio station that did something like this. I wish I had more time to keep an eye on the Dallas Morning News over the coming months to see just what becomes of these changes. Or maybe I won’t have to, and those asked to compromise ethics in reporting the news wind up being part of the news instead. It is understandable that reporters don’t want to wind up being the subject of reports themselves, but should this become a trend it has the potential to trigger the downfall of news reporting as we know it today. And that would be a shame.

Apologies for the slightly glitched version that was posted earlier. I am in the middle of testing some new blog editing software that did not function as well as I had hoped.