There are few things that stink worse than someone who has a conflict of interest and doesn’t disclose it. This normally happens when a person lets their ego and position go to their head. They forget who they represent and what they are obligated to report. The best thing about freedom of expression and freedom of the press is that scandals, corruption, kick-backs, and insider trading, etc., can be publicly exposed. In virtually all of these cases, the inappropriate act occurred because the person had a conflict of interest, failed to disclose it, and then used their position for their own best interest at the expense of the people he or she represented.
Now consider Chris Dodd and the MPAA. Part of their mandate, is to help find a solution to movie piracy, and bring it to their members. The MPAA was made aware that someone has a solution to movie piracy, and wanted to do a presentation to the CEO’s of their member studios. They were also informed that the solution was completely different than what is presently being done, and contrary to their present course. Since the present course is what the MPAA is promoting. Any alternative approach puts them in a conflict of interest. They should have informed their members of their conflict of interest, so that the members could decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to hear an alternative.
Let’s be clear, the MPAA is not in a position to objectively evaluate other alternatives. It is clearly biased, and asserts itself as being the expert and solely promoting its own agenda.
Did Chris Dodd inform the MPAA member studios of their conflict of interest. Who knows? The MPAA make it very clear that they have no interest in being involved in alternative workable solutions to stopping movie piracy . I believe that if people like Michael Lynton from Sony Pictures, knew that the MPAA are holding back knowledge that other people with workable alternatives to stopping movie piracy are available, and had contacted the MPAA for help, they would be seriously pissed!
The best that the MPAA can be is a facilitator. Does the MPAA really believe that it knows what is best for its members? Has the MPAA been authorized to sign agreements on behalf of all of its member studios?
As for Motion Picture Laboratories Inc. (Movie Labs), they also have the same conflicts of interest, and because of this, the best that they can be is also, act as a facilitator. Both Steve Weinstein & John Carney (Previous presidents) were directly informed that a workable alternative solution to movie piracy was available. However, they also expressed no interest in being involved, didn’t want to understand how things had to be done and were not even curious to ask any questions!
Too many peoples personal needs and egos are in conflict with the needs of the industry.
© 2015, Glenn Stencell. All rights reserved. 2015