MPAA: "democratizing culture is not in our interest"

The MPAA has been doing a full-court press in Brazil, a country where copyright infringement, Creative Commons, and poverty are all widespread. In a telling interview, he described the MPAA's differences with the Creative Commons movement:

"They [Creative Commons supporters] don't always agree with what we advocate," Frazier responded. "And you are talking about democratizing culture, this is not in our interests. It really isn't my interest."

Although this answer may not really come as a surprise, combined with his previous answers it shows how subjective the MPAA's view on creativity and culture is. According to the MPAA piracy is ruining culture, but at the same time they are not allowing others to use even tiny snippets of their works.

The MPAA is apparently only interested in creativity and culture when it applies to the works their studios produce. Needless to say, this isn't necessarily what's most beneficial to society. The MPAA is merely protecting their corporate interests.

MPAA: "Democratizing Culture Is Not In Our Interest"

• [jonr]

  An association of businesses whose objective is to turn a profit for themselves, looking after their own interests even to the detriment of others? I’m just shocked.

• [GreenJello]

  The MPAA is merely protecting their corporate interests.
  Which is fine, that’s what a company is supposed to do. It’s only when it overreaches the bounds of law, or abuses the legal system to make illicit gains that I have a problem with it.

  Q: What’s the difference between a large corporation and a sociopath?

  A: Sooner or later the sociopath grows old, and dies….. :)

  • [andrei.timoshenko]

    “Which is fine, that’s what a company is supposed to do. It’s only when it overreaches the bounds of law, or abuses the legal system to make illicit gains that I have a problem with it.”

    Dangerous when companies tend to be older, bigger, and therefore much more powerful than the average human actor, thus having heightened abilities to (legally) redraw “the bounds of the law” just as they are about to overreach them. Once again, the problem with Big Business and Big Government is one and the same – being “big” reduces accountability.

    • [non_papa]

      It’s true that the problem of Big Business rewriting rules in its favor and Big Government are intertwined, but the source of the problem is the latter. Corporate welfare and anti-competitive rent-seeking can only occur when government has the power (backed up by its monopoly on force) to implement them.

      Take the MPAA. The source of their interference in sharing is the government’s extensive police powers and its authority to regulate the Internet and other media. Without those, the industry (or any other manifestation of “Big Business”) would be without recourse.

      This is not to say that the government shouldn’t have a role in criminal justice. Still, it’s important to recognize that the authority of government, by the nature of politics, can be hijacked by the powerful. Thus, the more power allowed to politicians, the more reach a well-oiled team of lobbyists has into your hard drives and pocketbooks.

• [signsofrain]

  So, basically, they’re saying “We don’t give a shit about the cultural heritage of the human race, and we don’t give a shit about artists. We care about extracting as much cash from our dying market as possible before we go under, so we can all afford private islands to retire to once this newfangled technology inevitably overtakes our business and drives us under completely”

  And yet somehow the law is on their side.

  • [defenestron]

    And yet somehow the law is on their side.

    I suppose it should be. They bought it after all.

• [EH]

  According to the MPAA piracy is ruining culture, but at the same time they are not allowing others to use even tiny snippets of their works.

  Up is down.

  • [Aeiluindae]

    Drink up Me Hearties, Yo Ho!

• [Anonymous]

  “The MPAA is merely protecting their corporate interests.”

  Which is why every corporation should be turned into a collective governed by the principle that “Those most affected make the rules.” Which means usually the workers and the customers. Corporate managers should not even exist as a separate class. They should be treated the same as all other employees.

• [Anonymous]

  Hey, guys. I’m from Brazil and I think you really should read the original article: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/903278-democratizar-a-cultura-nao-e-nosso-interesse-diz-vice-presidente-da-mpaa.shtml (you can put on google translate or something like that)

  There are A LOT of other bizarre quotes from mr. Frazier. And I think the quote you used, translated from portuguese, is more like: “Culture is not in our agenda”. Still an awful quote, anyway…

  best regards, daniela jacob (São Paulo, Brazil)

• [ohgodwhat]

  Almost as if they’re lawyers who have a legal duty to defend their clients and their clients’ interests. Please be constructive and tell us how the government should prevent people you don’t like from defending themselves in court.

• [Anonymous]

  Well, that’s just awfu–ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

• [Erin W]

  And after clicking through, I’ve now been goatsed by the MPAA logo. I guess my life is complete.

• [jonw]

  You say the MPAA and then refer to “he” and “Frazier” — is he a lawyer? Spokesman? The incarnation of the MPAA in human form?

  • [noah django]

    exactly the point I was going to make, jonw. see me after class, Cory :)

• [Anonymous]

  Creative Commons isn’t about STEALING FROM THE MPAA. It’s about building a culture and corpus of content that is FREE to take. What is there problem, we all LEGALLY chose to release our content. They didn’t so be it. LEAVE CREATIVE COMMONS ALONE MPAA, DONT BAN OUR SHARING >:(