WRITING SAMPLE #2
Erickson, Mary. (2007). “Framing issues of piracy and copyright: The Motion Picture Association of America’s testimonies at Congressional hearings.” Poster presented at the International Communication Association conference, San Francisco, CA. May 2007.
Abstract
This paper examines the role of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in Congressional policymaking processes since 1976, specifically in terms of witness testimony delivered at Congressional committee hearings pertaining to piracy and copyright issues. The MPAA’s participation at these hearings can be understood within two frameworks: that the MPAA creates myths and rationales to justify dominance over others; and that the MPAA represents an empathic citizenry, serving to stimulate what it perceives as successful governance. Furthermore, the organization’s message consistency over the past thirty years has strengthened its framing of copyright and piracy issues within these two frameworks. This consistency has also reinforced the MPAA’s position as policy expert in Congressional hearings pertaining to these issues. Introduction
In 2004, the Motion Picture Association of America, the trade association that represents
six major American motion picture studios, began its search for its first new Chairman and CEO
in forty years. It was a crucial time for the MPAA as movie piracy and copyright infringement
rampantly plagues the industry. Although the association’s constituents are located primarily in
Hollywood, the search committee deemed it essential that the Chairman be “somebody who
knows their way around Washington” (Larsen, 2004). The MPAA’s presence on Capitol Hill had
been essential to the motion picture industry for decades and was only becoming increasingly
important. The MPAA finally settled on former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, someone
with no movie-related experience but plenty of ties in Washington.
The central reason why the MPAA insisted upon someone with an intimate familiarity
Capitol Hill is that the association is highly dependent upon its involvement with Congressional
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 1 of 1
hearings in order to influence media policy. A formidable American (and increasingly global)
industry, the film industry urges legislators to safeguard its economic health. Its uncontested
status as a powerful interest group lobbying in Washington (former Chairman Jack Valenti was
reportedly the highest-paid lobbyist in 1992) makes the MPAA an ideal case through which to
examine interest group involvement in Congressional committee hearings (Lee, 1992).
This paper examines the role of the Motion Picture Association of America in
Congressional policymaking processes since 1976. I will specifically focus on witness
testimonies of MPAA representatives at committee hearings in order to understand how the trade
association has framed its testimonies in order to influence policy, primarily looking at the
hearings that pertain to copyright and piracy issues. The broader goal of this project is to
understand how and why interest groups affect the legislative policymaking process through
witness testimony.
I will offer a brief history of movie piracy and the MPAA as a backdrop to thirty years of
witness testimony. An in-depth analysis will follow of witness testimonies, and of the MPAA’s
testimonies in particular. Here, I will examine how the MPAA utilizes certain messages to frame
the issues of piracy and copyright in order to justify the motion picture industry’s position of
economic and cultural privilege, as well as the industry’s self-imposed role as representative of
the public interest.
A Brief Survey of Relevant Literature
The impact of witness testimonies in Congressional committee hearings has only
received brief scholarly attention. Schneier and Gross (1993) touch on testimonies and witnesses
in their larger project of how policy is navigated through the legislative process and the power
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 2 of 2
struggle that emerges through that process. Leyden (1995) proposes that the kinds of groups who
give testimonies are generally those with large bases of organizational resources. Strine (2006)
finds that committee members treat celebrity witnesses more positively than their non-celebrity
counterparts. Burstein (2002) examines the role of information gathered via testimonies on
policy, concluding that witness testimonies do not influence policy as much as witnesses think.
National and global attention on piracy of copyrighted works has increased, scholarly
literature has begun to reflect that attention. Much of the work thus far is a concerted effort to
comprehend the complexity of the issue and to establish the parameters of the debate. Kerry
Segrave’s book, Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry (2003) contextualizes movie piracy in a
historical overview of the industry’s attempts to deal with the issue. Several country- or region-
specific case studies have been written pertaining to so-called hotbeds of movie piracy; Russia
(Beumers, 1999), China (Wang, 2003a), East Asia more generally (Pang, 2004; Wang, 2005),
and Nigeria (Larkin, 2004) are focal points of such case studies.
In a comparatively early work on movie piracy, D’Alessandro (1987) prescribes “creative
deal-making on the part of the motion picture industry and creative lawmaking on the part of the
government” to combat overseas movie piracy (464). The author does not, however, examine the
intersection of those two groups or how motion picture industry representatives might influence
legislation or policy through participation in Congressional activities. Wang (2003b)
hypothesizes a renewed state role in trade policy as it pertains to film piracy, even hinting at the
potentially sizeable role that the MPAA plays in policymaking, particularly in international
trade-related issues. That line of questioning does not develop further, however, as Wang’s
project is to examine the adequacy of existing theoretical frameworks to analyze global trade of
intellectual property.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 3 of 3
Indeed, the MPAA’s contemporary presence in Washington is still rarely examined;
accounts of the MPAA’s early days as forbearer of censorship are more common, such as
Bernstein’s Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era (1999) and
The Censorship Papers: Movie Censorship Letters From the Hays Office, 1934-1968 (Gardner,
1987). Miller et al (2001) examine briefly how the U.S. legislature supports the film industry in
anti-piracy efforts, noting that Hollywood actively supports trade policy that ensures copyright
protection. Yar’s (2005) work begins to unpack some of the assumptions of movie piracy in light
of several factors, including the increase in the number of consumed media goods, globalization
and technological change. Specifically, Yar points to the methodological problems of compiling
piracy data, which generally does not taken economic or political contexts into account.
Methods of Study
The MPAA produces its own press releases to announce its position on a given issue; PR
documents about piracy and copyright are abundant. One could undoubtedly arrive at many of
the same conclusions from an examination of press releases as when witness testimonies are
consulted. Witness testimonies are more valuable for the purposes of this paper, however,
because they address proposed legislation very specifically. As well, they cover concerns around
piracy and copyright with more candor than a press release could muster, particularly about the
realities of business operation.
I have isolated my study to focus on prepared statements delivered via witness testimony.
This enables me to pinpoint exactly how the organization frames its perspective without clouding
that perspective with responses to questioning from committee members. This study is not
intended to be a systematic quantitative study of witness testimony; rather, it is a comprehensive
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 4 of 4
document analysis that will provide valuable insight into the processes by which Congress
gathers information with which to devise policy by examining who provides information and
how it is presented. It is useful to analyze these processes through the lens of a major trade
organization that represents an industry with unique goods and services such as the motion
picture industry. The MPAA’s visibility and consistent message delivery in Congressional
hearings over the course of three decades signals an ideal case study. I will select certain
passages from various testimonies that most adeptly illustrate how the MPAA frames its
arguments.
1976 is an appropriate date at which to begin examining MPAA witness testimonies
delivered at Congressional committee hearings. It was at this time that Congress debated and
finally enacted the Copyright Act of 1976, which sought to address technological development in
the evolution of the domain of copyright. The act’s narrowness of interpretation, however, meant
that inevitably it would be challenged and amendments would be proposed. Because the movie
industry hinges on the protection and enforcement of copyright for much of its survival, it is
logical that the MPAA would become much more aggressive with its lobbying efforts in
Washington during this time.
Piracy and the Motion Picture Association of America
Piracy as a term to describe the unauthorized use of motion pictures has been used since
the industry’s infancy. Reference to the act of film piracy showed up as early as 1907 in trade
magazine articles like Moving Picture World such as “Films Pirated and Duped” and “Who is
Pirating Films?” (Allen, 185). Early examples of piracy stemmed from what Jane M. Gaines
(2006) called “a solution to the problem of too little product to meet the demand for ‘moving
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 5 of 5
pictures’” (Gaines, 228). With the film industry still in its infancy, producers and exhibitors
looked to their competitors for material to offer eager audiences. A popular story could be
reproduced multiple times, as was Louis Lumière’s L’Arroseur arrosé (The Waterer Watered);
over the course of five years, duplicate prints of this film appeared from various French, English
and American production companies under different titles like Le jardinier (The Gardener),
Arroseur et arrosé (Waterer and Watered), Bad Boy and the Garden Hose, and Gardener with
Hose, or the Mischievous Boy (Gaines, 235).
The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (later to become the Motion
Picture Association of America) was created in 1922 as a trade organization to represent the
major film studios in the United States. Former Postmaster General Will Hays led the charge to
address the unique characteristics of the movie industry. The Hays Office, as the MPPDA was
informally known, has historically been recognized primarily for its implementation of a
production code to deal with censorship issues; after all, its creation was borne initially out of
criticisms that the movie industry was immoral and corrupt. However, the stated objective in its
Certificate of Incorporation encompassed a broader range of activities, including “reforming
abuses relative to the industry [and] securing freedom from unjust or unlawful exactions”
(Moley, 226). Essentially, the MPPDA’s creation was an effort for the industry to keep control
and regulation out of the hands of government because, primarily, “the arts, of which the motion
picture is one, demand autonomy within their own sphere” (Moley, 54).
One area that the MPPDA had trouble addressing, however, was the exploitation of
distribution exhibition contracts. One provision of the organization’s mission was that it “has no
jurisdiction or control over the internal affairs or business policies of its members” (quoted in
Moley, 227). Exhibitors often engaged in “bicycling” or “switching” practices, and the affected
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 6 of 6
distributors had no recourse through the MPPDA to stop the practice that was costing them an
estimated $10,000,000 every year (Moley, 191). The MPPDA facilitated industry conversations
to address the issue, but it was not until the Federal Trade Commission got involved that
distributors in the industry formed an organization to deal with issues of bicycling and switching.
The Copyright Protection Bureau was created in 1927 to “ferret out such abuses wherever they
appeared, to advocate the correction of unsatisfactory methods of booking, billing and the like
and to teach the trade the commercial value of honest dealings” (Moley, 196). Its job was
primarily to bring lawsuits against those violating exhibition contracts. “Apart from the legal and
practical necessity of keeping such activities outside the Hays Office, it also proved to be a
matter of sound public policy to separate them sharply” (Moley, 196).
A major shift at the MPPDA occurred in the 1960s when it appointed former presidential
aide Jack Valenti in 1966, the choice of whom reflected “the realities of power [that] still
required a man with influence in Washington” (Sklar, 296). The result was a transformation to
the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the beginning of a 38-year reign of
Valenti, a formidable and indefatigable proponent for the motion picture industry. This shift
would also soon herald the intensification of a cohesive Congressional lobbying concerning
legislation related to the movie industry, particularly around issues of copyright and piracy.
Most problematic for studios was the rapid advancement of technologies like cable
television, the videocassette recorder and, later, computers and the Internet. Home video changed
the landscape of movie piracy in profound ways. Early on, the MPAA recognized its potential
for illegal copying: “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the
American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone” (United States [U.S.],
1982). The Copyright Act of 1976, which substantively revised copyright legislation, was
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 7 of 7
designed to deal with these developing technologies in ways that its 1909 predecessor could not.
The act was, however, destined to fail in significant ways. “Most of the 1976 act’s limitations on
copyright owners’ expansive rights were cast in narrow, specific language. Yet, in order to
answer the questions that the future will present, a statute needs flexible language embodying
general principles” (Litman, 57). Thus, the MPAA and other interested parties lobbied for
proposed amendments to the Copyright Act of 1976 to address new technologies in ways that
would benefit them. This effectively heralded an era of increased participation in legislative
committee activity.
The association’s attention to the issue of piracy in the 1980s is evident in their financial
investment in tackling the problem; the MPAA’s budget for anti-piracy activities, at $1.5 million
in 1980, rose to $20 million in 1988 (Segrave, 116). It supported various governmental measures
to address piracy, including President Reagan’s Omnibus Trade Act in 1988, which restricted
U.S. market access for those countries that violated U.S. intellectual property rights. While the
MPAA needed the assistance of the federal government to combat international copyright
violations, it relied on states and law enforcement agencies to combat domestic piracy through
litigation and FBI raids, among other tactics. But just when the MPAA began to hone its process
for combating piracy, the digital video disc (DVD) was introduced, again changing the
technological landscape of movies, and the MPAA renewed legislative efforts to influence
policy.
This process has intensified in the past decade with computer and Internet technology.
Internet-related Congressional proposals with which the MPAA has been involved have ranged
from issues like imposing taxes on the Internet in 1997 and webcast programming in 2000 to file
sharing on peer-to-peer networks in 2003 and rights of digital media consumers in 2004 (U.S.,
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 8 of 8
1997, 2000b, 2003b, and 2004b). The MPAA’s involvement with these issues denotes its
commitment to combating piracy and controlling how the film industry’s goods and services are
used. As will be discussed in this paper, they have reinforced this commitment through
Congressional hearing testimony over the past thirty years.
Today the MPAA represents six major American film studios: Warner Brothers, Disney,
Sony Pictures, Paramount, Universal, and Twentieth Century Fox. These studios control 94
percent of the American film industry market share (“SIC 78 – Motion Pictures,” 2005, 3460). It
must be noted, however, that the MPAA does not represent the entire film industry in the U.S.;
there are several fairly significant independent studios that are not represented, such as Lionsgate
Films. The trade organization has taken a conspicuous position within legal and legislative
debates over piracy and copyright infringement; however, although policy is intended to apply to
all film studios, the MPAA only lobbies in the interests of its member studios.
A Four-Pronged Approach to Combating Piracy
There are three main forms of movie piracy as identified by the MPAA today; these
include Internet piracy (movies downloaded primarily from peer-to-peer networks), optical disc
piracy (illegally copied DVDs), and camcorder piracy (recording movies with camcorders in
theaters). DVD piracy is by far the most problematic, particularly internationally, with losses to
the movie industry estimated at $3.8 billion in 2005 (MPAA, 2006a). According to the MPAA,
Internet piracy is quickly joining DVD piracy in its prevalence, and an estimated $2.3 billion was
lost in 2005.
The MPAA proposes a four-pronged approach to combating a problem that has plagued
the industry since its inception, which include: enforcement, technology, education, and
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 9 of 9
litigation and legislation (MPAA, 2006a). The MPAA, working with law enforcement, have shut
down numerous Internet file-sharing sites and confiscated counterfeit DVDs. The MPAA’s
technology efforts pursue alternative ways of offering downloadable content online through
sanctioned websites like iTunes and CinemaNow. Educational efforts, particularly those in
recent years, have focused on preventative measures aimed at the average movie audience
member who may not be aware of the illegalities of movie piracy; piracy awareness campaigns
areas or groups most prone to committing piracy.
Litigation and legislation are the fourth component of the MPAA’s anti-piracy strategy.
The MPAA directly sues individuals and businesses involved with piracy; a landmark suit was
resolved in January 2006 when “international motion picture pirate leader Randolph Hobson
Guthrie III plead guilty in a Mississippi federal court to conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods,
forfeiting $800,000 to the U.S. government” (MPAA, 2006a, 7). In addition to cases such as this,
the MPAA relies on a continued and visible presence in Congressional committee hearings in
order to safeguard its interests when issues of copyright and piracy are discussed. Witness
testimonies at these hearings are central to the MPAA’s anti-piracy strategy.
Legislative Committee Hearings and Witness Testimonies
The legislative committee represents a division of labor in Congress, in which members
ideally have some level of expertise with the subject matter over which their committee holds
jurisdiction. In further division of labor, committees oversee subcommittees, both of which may
emerge from not only the efforts of pressure groups but also the personal and electoral goals of
Congressional members. The committee gathers information regarding a particular policy area
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 10 of 10
in hearings and is even authorized to make substantive policy decisions in committee meetings
(Schneier and Gross, 49-50).
Within these hearings, witness testimonies are opportunities for interested parties
(interest groups or state or local governments, for example) to convey their views regarding the
policy area; they are also often viewed as a chance to frame a given debate in terms that benefit
their own constituents or clients. As Burstein (2002) points out, testimonies also “provide
information that may be seen as relevant to members of Congress trying to estimate how their
actions on the proposal would affect their electoral chances” (Burstein, 12). Burstein finds,
however, that there is little statistical evidence to support the hypothesis that witness testimony
information has much bearing on Congressional action in policy-making. Despite this finding,
key interest groups still participate in the hearing process because “there is little doubt that
committees wield enormous influence at the margins of legislation in their domains” (Schneier
and Gross, 181). The hearing process operates as a “crucial point of direct contact with members
of Congress” (Schneier and Gross, 171).
Therefore, those that are afforded direct contact are the ones framing the hearing debate
in their favor; those excluded from the hearing are left to deliver their messages in other forums.
It is important to recognize how and why certain groups are selected over others to deliver
testimony. Leyden (1995) believes that organizational resources determine involvement; if an
organization can establish a steady presence in Washington, often determined by financial
resources, it will most likely be afforded access to hearings. Schneier and Gross write that the
same people or groups are included in hearings on similar issues, partly because they build their
reputation through hearings as that issue’s ‘expert’. These same people are invited also in part
because they are most familiar with the legislative hearing process. It follows then that certain
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 11 of 11
groups tend to be excluded more often; grass roots witnesses are called in on occasion, but they
often serve as token witnesses, coached and humored in their participation. Certain viewpoints
also have the potential of being excluded or marginalized from hearings concerning particularly
contentious issues in order to stack the hearing in one direction. Indeed, “stacking is a common
practice to allow the committee to control the hearings and to encourage a particular definition of
the problem” (Talbert, Jones, and Baumgartner, 1995, p. 389).
The Motion Picture Association of America participates in Senate and House hearings
because its industry is often quite dependent upon policy developed through committee work.
Most frequently, MPAA representatives have appeared before the Committee of the Judiciary
(both House and Senate), while maintaining also active involvement in commerce-related
committees. The most pertinent area to the MPAA over which the Committee of the Judiciary
has jurisdiction is “patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and trademarks”
(Committee on the Judiciary, 2006). The survival of the motion picture industry principally relies
on guarantee of copyright, particularly because, as deemed by the Copyright Office, “in the case
of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author” (U.S.
Copyright Office, 2006). Therefore, movie studios are the entities that profit from copyright
registration and enforcement, rather than individual artists like novelists or even musicians. Their
interests are most at stake when copyright debates enter Congress, and so they rely on the MPAA
to defend their interests on Capitol Hill.
In light of research around celebrity appearances in committee hearings, one wonders if
perhaps the MPAA has a special advantage in its lobbying efforts. Strine (2006) finds that
celebrity witnesses attract a lot of attention and tend to be treated almost adoringly by committee
members. Former MPAA Chairman and CEO Jack Valenti, while not a celebrity in the same
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 12 of 12
sense as Hollywood actors, is weighted by association; he has been intimately involved with the
goings-on in Hollywood in order to understand the economic and political climate of his
constituency. He has presented Oscars at several Academy Awards ceremonies, a task usually
given to top stars in Hollywood, and counts many of those stars as his close friends (Larsen,
2004). Valenti regularly extended this Hollywood access to Congressional members by inviting
them to “view a new film in the screening room of the motion picture association's headquarters
near the White House” (Stevenson, 1990).
Yet Jack Valenti, and thus the MPAA, has been arguably much more effective than
celebrity witnesses because he is a life-long Washington insider. Strine concludes that celebrity
witnesses “provide information that will ultimately not be helpful in drafting public policy”
(Strine, 21). Valenti, a tireless advocate of the motion picture industry, started in Washington as
an aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson and has developed a reputation as one of the top
lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Indeed, his status as the highest-paid lobbyist in Washington during at
least one point in his career announces the level of support that his trade association has given
him (Lee, 1992). Although he has not been the exclusive MPAA representative at hearings,
Valenti has been instrumental in pushing legislation, and his dedicated involvement over the
course of his career signals that he is more than a mere celebrity witness. The appointment of
former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in 2004 to replace Valenti as Chairman and CEO
indicates that the MPAA regards itself as a force in Washington and wants to continue to be so.
It is dependent on insider knowledge and connections that will potentially produce more results
than any preferential treatment of a celebrity chairman could provide.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 13 of 13
Framing the Problem: Examining the MPAA’s Strategy
Problem definition is a central component of policymaking. Stokey and Zeckhauser
(1978) note that “establishing the context” is the first in a set of five steps to proper and effective
policy analysis (Stokey and Zeckhauser, 5). These authors are, however, less interested in
examining the subjectivity and bias that one brings to the process of establishing the context;
they assume that the problem will be approached objectively and rationally. Stone (2002)
acknowledges the improbability of objective problem definition, instead foregrounding
subjectivity and framing as central to policy analysis and policymaking. Issue framing is, to
Stone, one of the devices used to tip the decision making process in one group’s favor over
another’s. “A frame is a boundary that cuts off parts of something from our vision,” eliminating
other alternatives so that only one remains as a sort of Hobson’s choice (Stone, 248). The issue
framer develops the only possible solution to a given problem and that solution most likely
favors the framer.
Framing creates categories within which a proposed policy’s interested parties are cast.
Ingram and Schneider (2005) discuss how privilege often determines these categories: “Groups
and societies create myths and rationales that justify the dominance of some groups over others”
(Ingram and Schneider, 3). Their argument is rooted primarily in social constructions that favor
certain publics over others, particularly with regards to race, gender and ethnicity. Constructions
are used to achieve ends that serve one group at the expense of another, a practice often
facilitated by political processes. We can extend similar ideas to the MPAA’s framing of issues
related to copyright and piracy. This trade organization is just as adept at creating categories that
privilege certain groups over others; these categories serve its overall objective of sustaining a
successful and profitable industry, often at the expense of the general public.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 14 of 14
To Ingram and Schneider, “successful governance also requires an empathic citizenry
that is capable of understanding and pursuing its own interests, but that also acknowledges and
respects the interests of others” (26). Furthermore, it is this acknowledgement and respect that
provides a “sense of belonging to the broader society” (27). One could imagine that the MPAA
considers itself to be this empathic citizenry of which Ingram and Schneider speak; it is certainly
capable of understanding and pursuing its own interests, while purporting to acknowledge and
respect the interests of others, positioning itself within a broader scope of society. Indeed, it
would contend that its own interests are the public’s interests.
The MPAA’s participation in Congressional committee hearings can be understood
within the two frameworks mentioned above: that the MPAA creates myths and rationales to
justify dominance over others, and that the MPAA represents Ingram and Schneider’s empathic
citizenry as discussed above, serving to stimulate what it perceives as successful governance.
Furthermore, the MPAA’s message consistency over the years has strengthened its framing of
copyright and piracy issues within these two frameworks.
Three Decades of Messages
The MPAA has participated in a range of committee hearings. In the late 1970s and
1980s, it submitted witness testimony to hearings regarding the cable and satellite television
industries, the potential (both positive and negative) of home video, and revisions of
international copyright policies. Scattered throughout the past thirty years are a handful of other
non-copyright-related issues, touching on the film industry’s role in society, including issues
around drug abuse education, violent programming and television ratings (see, for example, U.S.,
1977, 1985, 1992, and 2000a). Only roughly 17 of the 126 hearings at which the MPAA testified
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 15 of 15
between 1976 and 2006 were not copyright-related in some respect. This provides further
evidence that the MPAA has long been primarily concerned with influencing legislative action
pertaining to copyright and piracy.
The MPAA’s feelings toward technology has always been mixed. On the one hand, it has
great potential to increase capacity and quality for the industry as it improves filmmaking
methods and offers new avenues through which to release films. On the other hand, however, the
accessibility and availability of these technologies to new industries like cable or satellite
television and to ordinary citizens means that the industry has more competitors than just within
the MPAA’s member studios. These competitors are often described in terms that equate them
with enemy status, untrustworthy and potentially damaging to the industry’s welfare.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the “enemies” were the cable and satellite television industries,
along with governmental regulation that hindered film industry profits. In Congressional
hearings, the MPAA insisted primarily on proper acknowledgement and monetary compensation
of copyright more so than addressing piracy as such, because while these industries did not
always agree, they still dealt with similar objectives of profit and growth.
The mid-1990s saw a shift in enemy definition; no longer was it just other media
industries with similar profit-making goals as the film industry. While the MPAA still needed to
safeguard potential new markets for entry and expansion, the main “enemy” shifted to ordinary
citizens and even organized crime with the proliferation of DVDs and the Internet. Because these
groups were fundamentally different from the film industry, the MPAA (and Congress) had to
rethink tactics once employed to combat problems with cable and satellite. The MPAA focused
more insistently on making criminals accountable for their actions, using scare tactics that
threatened legal recourse and even citizen responsibility for national economic ruin.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 16 of 16
Although the debates have altered to encompass new technologies and market conditions,
the MPAA has remained unendingly consistent with its message about the value of movies to the
U.S. and to the world, economically and culturally. In a particularly ostentatious comment that
encapsulates the MPAA’s stance in this regard, Jack Valenti cheered, “American creative
material is joyously received by every country, creed and culture on this planet” (U.S., 2001).
Myths and Rationales Created to Justify Dominance Over Others
The rationales most central to the MPAA’s framing of the issues in order to justify
dominance or privilege are those of the economic and cultural impacts of movies, which have
remained constant over the past thirty years. It also uses particular rhetoric regarding pirates to
shape the entire debate.
Economic
Economically, the film industry is one that consistently produces a “surplus balance of
trade,” a fact to which the MPAA continually refers (for example, U.S., 1982, 1995, 1997, and
2004c). The copyright industries, which include “movies, TV programs, home videos, books,
music, computer games and software,” account for five percent of the U.S. gross domestic
product, “creating new jobs at three times the rate of the rest of the economy” (U.S., 2001 and
2003a, for example). These economic statistics are verifiable facts and are impressive ones at
that. But it is precisely this consistent emphasis on the film industry’s economic performance
that allows the MPAA to justify its dominance over other interests in the piracy debate. With
estimated economic losses of pirated goods in the billions of dollars, the MPAA presents a strong
case to Congress to act in the economic interest of the country. After all, the film industry
“represents an economic engine of growth that is the envy of the known world” (U.S., 2001).
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 17 of 17
Committee members are urged to recall that their own constituents are part of this economic
engine; after all, the film industry creates jobs not just in Hollywood but also across the entire
country (U.S., 1982, 1983a).
The MPAA uses its economic strength in attempts to influence foreign trade policy and
economic aid. It requested, for example, in 1983 that copyright protection be tied to such policies
as the Foreign Assistance Act, and in 2004 that Russia’s accession to the World Trade
Organization be contingent upon its observance of copyright standards (U.S., 1983b and 2004c).
It has also recommended “the strategic deployment of high-level advocacy and diplomacy” on
the part of the State Department and other agencies to gain the cooperation of foreign
governments (U.S., 2004c).
Cultural
The cultural value of movies and intellectual property more broadly, like their economic
value, is a message that is continually pounded in MPAA witness testimonies. “Movies have a
timeless quality…. There is magic about movies that gives them long life and continuous
attraction to the movie-going public” (U.S., 1976, 648). Furthermore, the U.S. is the “confirmed
world leader” in intellectual property (U.S., 1997), and “people throughout the world want to see
and enjoy American films and television programs more than any other country’s similar
creative material” (U.S., 1986a). The focus on cultural value is important because it
communicates a quality about film that transcends simple economic considerations. They are
“intangibles that no one can put a value on” (U.S., 1999). (It is interesting to note, however, that
the next sentence reads: “Motion pictures are…intangibles that we can – and do – assign a value
to” because, despite its best efforts to convince the public otherwise, the film industry can only
conceive of movies as economic goods (U.S., 1999).) The country exports a sense of itself to
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 18 of 18
other countries that are actively seeking American content (American films are “most sought
after” by global audiences; (U.S, 1995)). Film’s ideological function is not explicitly indicated in
the testimonies, but every mention of cultural value suggests that American films are superior to
those of any other country and thus policy should be designed to maintain that superiority.
Proper Copyright Recognition and The Pirate
The MPAA’s description of the movie pirate is one component of the piracy debate that
has altered somewhat over the past thirty years. This is particularly useful to the MPAA in
justifying privilege over others; once couched in terms of fair business practices, it now emerges
in terms of safety. When competition from the cable and satellite television industries became a
real concern for the film industry, the MPAA demanded that it be treated justly with “a system of
fair compensation to the copyright holder in audiovisual works for the unauthorized copying of
his work” (U.S., 1983a, 283). This particularly surfaced in calls for deregulation of the cable
industry, which was transmitting content without acknowledging copyright (see, for example,
U.S., 1979, 1981a). The copyright violator was often called a “dishonest retailer” (U.S., 1981b,
38). Only when videocassette recording threatened the film industry with more prevalent
copyright violation did the MPAA begin to change its tune, equating some operations of VHS
piracy with organized crime (U.S., 1981b). But it still remained primarily a business-related
issue, rather than one of national safety: “lack of copyright protection is our number one
international trade problem” (U.S., 1986b, 33).
A recently study commissioned by the major studios examines their worldwide losses,
and describes the average pirate, who may live in the U.S., Korea, Hungary, or elsewhere: “The
average film copyright thief is male, between the ages of 16-24 and lives in an urban area….
Active pirates are more likely to be in college than non-pirates and general movie watchers,
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 19 of 19
especially download pirates” (MPAA, 2006a, 5). But the MPAA’s description of pirates in
witness testimonies does not focus on these details. Rather, it describes pirates in particular ways
in order to highlight their criminality as a security risk, even drawing ties to organized crime and
terrorism. Pirates are “business-minded thugs” (U.S., 2004c) and “invaders” (U.S., 2000b) who
“cheat consumers by giving them inferior products” (U.S., 1999), following “nefarious paths” to
realize profits (U.S., 2003a). The MPAA maintains that these criminals, “with rare exceptions,
[are] procuring, producing and distributing this pirated material are affiliated with large and
dangerous international crime syndicates and gangs” (U.S., 2004c). Indeed, piracy is “more
lucrative than selling drugs” (U.S., 2005). In several hearings, the MPAA witness gave testimony
about the violent nature of these groups:
“One of our investigators in Russia has been shot at; one of our investigators in Mexico had his wife kidnapped by pirates; one of our investigators in Malaysia, after being repeatedly threatened, had to move to a secure location after watching a pirate slash the face of her maid with a knife in a case of mistaken identity; and one of our investigators in Thailand had to escape from his car which had been forced off a bridge by pirates into a rushing river” (U.S., 2004c).
Valenti even linked intellectual property theft with terrorism in his citation of a U.S. Customs
Today article from 2002: September 11, 2001, “also changed the way American law enforcement
looks at intellectual property crimes” (U.S., 2003a).
The ways in which the MPAA uses key words and phrases to depict pirates shifts the
framing of piracy from a dishonest but strictly industry practice to that of criminality, bringing
up questions of physical safety. “The recasting of ‘piracy’ in a language of criminal violation,”
writes Yar, “amounts therefore to its ‘moralization’, an attempt to create a normative consensus
that it offends against the agreed standards of decent and acceptable behavior” (Yar, 687). The
issue of piracy becomes polarized in such a way that Congress would be hard-pressed to justify
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 20 of 20
passing legislation that does not privilege the MPAA over these pirates; after all, that would
condone criminal and immoral behavior and compromise the safety of American citizens.
MPAA as Representative of Empathic Citizenry
Successful governance in the areas of piracy and copyright resides in the MPAA as
representative of the citizenry, acting in ways that generate a sense of collectivity in the broader
scope of society by respecting interests of others. Focus rests primarily on the two main sets of
victims in the piracy debate: movie industry employees and movie audiences.
Protecting Its Own
The approach with which the MPAA tries to protect its employees has changed little over
the past thirty years. Movie industry workers have long formed the basis for the economic
vitality of the industry. “[T]he Hollywood hurt most dramatically [by piracy],” lamented Valenti,
“will not be the Hollywood of the stars. It will be the Hollywood of the stage hands, electricians,
grips, carpenters, seamstresses, film editors, and all other skilled workers involved in the film
production process” (U.S., 1982, 39). The MPAA reminds Congress that it is responsible for
these groups, of which their own constituents might be part. “They are ordinary, hard working
people who deserve the same consideration from Congress for their basic contribution to our
economy as is given steelworkers, autoworkers, coal miners, farmers, all Americans who work
for a living” (U.S., 1982, 39). But the primary message about who stands to lose most from
piracy is the one who produces creative works. Although the U.S. has a “system of financial
incentives provided by our copyright laws that has guaranteed a continued flow of creative works
on film to the marketplace,” this system is under constant threat (U.S., 1983a, 287).
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 21 of 21
Today, with increased potential for globalization and the loss of American jobs, the
MPAA is quick to reinforce messages that the motion picture industry, as discussed earlier, is
vital to the American economy and generates hundreds of thousands of jobs every year. The
MPAA has charged itself with safeguarding those jobs through legislative action, on behalf of
the “thousands of law-abiding people who work in the movie industry and whose livelihoods are
threatened by piracy” (U.S., 2004c). It is not hard to understand why the MPAA places such
importance on these groups; if those jobs are protected, their corporate employers are protected.
Congress would be remiss if it does not ensure a supportive working environment for the
continued success of the motion picture industry.
Protecting the Public
The public interest is, according to the MPAA, simply the public’s right to be consumers
and to have access to media content. Moreover, the public is entitled to quality media content
from a trustworthy source, and the MPAA has deemed itself responsible for guaranteeing that
quality content.
Proposals of industry deregulation in the late 1970s and 1980s protected what was
referred to as the public interest. The cable and satellite television industries used to rebroadcast
content owned by the movie studios without proper copyright attribution (monetarily, in
particular). The MPAA linked the lack of copyright protection with movie industry’s inability to
“profitably produce and market quality material,” which would then affect the public’s right to
quality content (U.S., 1976, 642). Only deregulation of the cable and satellite industries would
remedy the potential violation of the public’s right. “Restrictions should be placed on television
signal carriage which threatens the public interest, that is, the lack of a fair marketplace” (U.S.,
1977b, 102). All the motion picture industry wanted was to be able to continue making movies.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 22 of 22
But without protections that addressed piracy and, in a roundabout way, deregulation, “motion
picture studios…are forced to cut their losses by committing to fewer releases and concentrating
on known artists and materials” (U.S., 1981b, 33).
In vocalizing similar concerns regarding VCR technology, the MPAA implored Congress
to recognize that:
“[T]he public interest is at stake. It is that public interest you have sworn to serve and it is that public interest which cries out for clear markings of ownership and incentive… Is it in the public interest that a new technology suddenly thwarts the creative community of this country in its efforts to bring enjoyable entertainment to American homes? The answer, of course, must be NO” (U.S., 1982, 66). The MPAA has not changed this tune much in the past three decades. Today, it still
hammers home the point that making a movie is such a risky endeavor that, if “the risk becomes
too large, the capital becomes cautious, and the works dry up” (U.S., 2000b).
But there is an additional message that the MPAA includes in testimonies of the past five
years; the public interest is also synonymous with national security. Not only are movie pirates
bad people, as discussed above, but they will also spend profits from pirated goods “in a way
which is not consonant with our safety and security” (U.S., 2004c). Pirates have a “brazen
disdain for laws and rules which guide and govern the daily labors of Americans” (U.S., 2000b).
No longer is piracy simply an economic problem. It challenges the basis of American society, the
laws to which we adhere. It threatens our very lives.
Conclusion
The Motion Picture Association of America has remained a formidable force in lobbying
over the past thirty years. The consistency of its messages regarding piracy and copyright
enforcement has served to reinforce its position of expertise in Congressional hearings.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 23 of 23
Assessing whether or not the MPAA testimonies have much actual influence over Congressional
decisions is a matter for another research study. Would Burstein’s analysis, which points to a
lack of tangible influence of witness testimony in Congressional decisions, yield contradictions
when applied to the case of MPAA witness testimony? The fact remains that the MPAA is
continuously included in Congressional debates over new technologies that facilitate piracy as a
voice of expertise. The MPAA even suggests, at times, that its expertise is better equipped to
design policy than legislators: “We would be happy to work on language with the Subcommittee
and with others concerned, to ensure the courts will interpret this provision appropriately” (U.S.,
2004a).
Copyright protection remains a valid concern for one of the most economically healthy
industries in the U.S. precisely because of the ways in which the motion picture industry frames
the issue. Some scholars, including Yar, posit that this framing aggravates the extent to which the
motion picture industry allows piracy to affect it. Regardless, the essential content of its
messages has never really changed. The motion picture industry is a vital force that ensures both
economic and cultural impact domestically and internationally. Globalization and rapid
technological advancement have changed the entire landscape in which American industry
operates; no longer is cultural and economic dominance a given. But the motion picture industry
is consistent with its message that its formula of success can be preserved simply through
copyright protection and enforcement ensured by legislative policy.
When the MPAA does change its messages, it does so to reflect the most prominent
concerns of the day. In this way, the association stands the greatest chance of influencing
Congress, as it hints at the concerns of average citizens, also Congress’ constituents. In the late
1970s and 1980s, the MPAA focused on industry deregulation in order to provide diversity and
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 24 of 24
abundance of content choice to moviegoers. Today, the MPAA shifts attention to personal and
national security, precisely because of the increasingly fragile position that the U.S. occupies on
the global stage. If the most endeared industry in the world, that of the film industry, cannot be
protected, then the U.S. economy is sure to fail in competition with the rest of the world.
And so the MPAA insists that Congress keep the issue of piracy at the fore of all debates,
particularly those relating to international trade. So far, “piracy remains at the top of our bilateral
commercial agenda with key countries,” but continued diplomacy, combined with enforcement,
educational measures, and legislative action, are necessary to guarantee that American copyright
is respected, both domestically and overseas (U.S., 2004c). After all, as Valenti says over and
over, “if you can’t protect what you own, you don’t own anything” (U.S., 2003a).
The MPAA is an ideal organization through which to examine how interest groups frame
issues of concern in Congressional hearing witness testimony. The MPAA intends to shape
policy as much as possible in terms that benefit the industry first and foremost. But it shrewdly
phrases those terms as unwavering concern for the public interest. It is up to Congress in these
instances to discern where the public interest ends and where the MPAA’s interest begins.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 25 of 25
Works Cited Allen, Jeanne Thomas. (1983). “Copyright and Early Theater, Vaudeville, and Film
Competition.” Film Before Griffith, edited by John L. Fell. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bernstein, Matthew. (1999). Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio
Era. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Beumers, Birgit. (1999). “Cinemarket, or the Russian Film Industry in ‘Mission Possible’.”
Europe-Asia Studies. 51(5), pp. 871-896. Burstein, Paul. (2002). “Interest Organizations, Information, and Policy Innovation in the U.S.
Congress.” Paper prepared for the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 29-September 1, 2002.
Committee on the Judiciary. (2006). “About the Committee: Committee Jurisdiction.” Retrieved
on June 3, 2006 from http://judiciary.house.gov/about.aspx?Section=18. D’Alessandro, Jan. (1987). “A Trade-Based Response to Intellectual Property Piracy: A
Comprehensive Plan to Aid the Motion Picture Industry.” The Georgetown Law Journal. 76(417), pp. 417-465.
Gaines, Jane M. (2006). “Early Cinema’s Heyday of Copying.” Cultural Studies. 20(2-3), pp.
227-244. Gardner, Gerald C. (1987). The Censorship Papers: Movie Censorship Letters From the Hays
Office, 1934-1968. New York: Dodd, Mead. Ingram, Helen M. and Anne L. Schneider. “Introduction: Public Policy and the Social
Construction of Deservedness.” Deserving and Entitled. New York: SUNY, 2005, pp. 1- 28.
Larkin, Brian. (2004). “Degraded Images, Distorted Sounds: Nigerian Video and the
Infrastructure of Piracy.” Public Culture. 16(2), pp. 289-314. Larsen, Peter Thal. (2004, February 27). “Hollywood searchlights seek new face for lead role.”
Financial Times. Retrieved on June 3, 2006 from Lexis-Nexis Academic database. Lee, Gary. (1992, September 23). “Zero-Based Lobbyists With Big Names.” The Washington
Post. Retrieved on June 3, 2006 from Lexis-Nexis Academic database. Leyden, Kevin M. (1995). “Interest Group Resources and Testimony at Congressional
Hearings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly. 20(3), pp. 431-439. Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital Copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 26 of 26
“SIC 78 – Motion Pictures.” (2005). Market Share Reporter, 2005. Detroit, MI : Gale Research. Miller, Toby, Nitin Govil, John McMurria and Richard Maxwell. (2001). Global Hollywood.
London: BFI Publishing. Moley, Raymond. (1945). The Hays Office. Cornwall, NY: The Cornwall Press, Inc. MPAA. (2006a). “Worldwide Study of Losses to the Film Industry & International Economies
Due to Film Piracy; Pirate Profiles.” Los Angeles: Motion Picture Association of America.
Pang, Laikwan. (2004). “Mediating the Ethics of Technology: Hollywood and Movie Piracy.”
Culture, Theory & Critique. 45(1), pp. 19-32. Schneier, Edward V. and Bertram Gross. (1993). Legislative Strategy: Shaping Public Policy.
New York: St. Martin’s Press. Segrave, Kerry. (2003). Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry. Jefferson, NC and London:
McFarland and Company, Inc. Sklar, Robert. (1994). Movie-Made America. New York: Vintage Books. Stevenson, Richard W. (1990, December 9). “The Spirited and Erudite Oration That Could Fail.”
The New York Times. Section 3, p. 8. Retrieved on June 3, 2006 from Lexis-Nexis Academic database.
Stokey, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser. (1978). A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company. Stone, Deborah. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Revised
Edition). New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Strine, Harry C. (2006). “Your Testimony was Splendid: The Treatment of Celebrities and Non-
Celebrities in Congressional Hearings.” Paper prepared for the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, January 5-7, 2006.
Talbert, Jeffery C., Bryan D. Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner. (1995). “Nonlegislative Hearings
and Policy Change in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science. 39(2), pp. 383- 406.
United States. (1976). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce. Cable Television Regulation Oversight, Part 2. Hearing. 27-29 July; 3, 5 August; 22 September 1976. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1977a). Cong. Senate. Committee on Human Resources. Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 27 of 27
Education Programs, 1977. Hearing. 24-25 March 1977. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1977b). Cong. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Cable Television. Hearing. 7 June 1977. Washington: Government Printing Office. United States. (1979). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. Copyright
Issues: Cable Television and Performance Rights. Hearing. 15, 26, 27 November 1979. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1981a). Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Oversight of the Copyright
Act of 1976 (Cable Television). Hearing. 29 April; 29 July 1981.Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1981b). Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. The Piracy and
Counterfeiting Amendments Act of 1981 – S. 691. Hearing. 19 June 1981. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1982). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. Home
Recording of Copyrighted Works, Part 1. Hearing. 12 Apr. 1982. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. October 25, (1983a). Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Video and Audio
Home Taping. Hearing. 25 October 1983. Washington: Government Printing Office. United States. (1983b). Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. International Copyright/
Communication Policies. Hearing. 15 November 1983. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1985). Cong. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Role of the Feature
Film Industry in a National Effort to Diminish Drug Use Among Young People. Hearing. 24 October 1985. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1986a). Cong. Senate. Committee on Finance. Intellectual Property Rights.
Hearing. 14 May 1986. Washington: Government Printing Office. United States. (1986b). Cong. Joint Economic Committee. International Piracy Involving
Intellectual Property. Hearing. 31 March 1986. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (1992). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. Violence on
Television. Hearing. 15 December 1992. Washington: Government Printing Office. United States. (1995). Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Copyright Term Extension Act
of 1995. Hearing. 20 September 1995. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 28 of 28
United States. (1997). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. Internet Tax
Freedom Act. Hearing. 17 July 1997. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (1999). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary.
Implementation of the “Net” Act and Enforcement Against Internet Piracy. Hearing. 12 May 1999. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2000a). Cong. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Marketing Violence to Children. 13 September 2000. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2000b). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on Commerce. Video on the
Internet: iCraveTV.com and Other Recent Developments in Webcasting. Hearing. 16 February 2000. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2001). Cong. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Online Entertainment and
Copyright Law: Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You. Hearing. 3 April 2001. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2003a). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary.
International Copyright Piracy: A Growing Problem with Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism. Hearing. 13 March 2003. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2003b). Cong. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Privacy and Piracy:
The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry. Hearing. 30 September 2003. Washington: Government Printing Office.
United States. (2004a). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. Anti-
Counterfeiting Amendments of 2003. Hearing. 12 February 2004. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2004b). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Digital Media Consumer Rights Act of 2003. Hearing. 12 May 2004. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2004c). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Reform.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 29 of 29
Intellectual Property Piracy: Are We Doing Enough to Protect U.S. Innovation Abroad? Hearing. 23 September 2004. Washington: Government Printing Office. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
United States. (2005). Cong. House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. Content
Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole. Hearing. 3 November 2005. Accessed online from the Lexis-Nexis Congressional database.
U.S. Copyright Office. (2006). “Copyright Basics: Who Can Claim Copyright?” Copyright
Basics – Circular 1. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html.
Wang, Chih-Chien. (2005). “Factors that Influence the Piracy of DVD/VCD Motion Pictures.”
The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge. May, pp 231-237. Wang, Shujen. (2003a). Framing Piracy: Globalization and Film Distribution in Greater China.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Wang, Shujen. (2003b). “Recontextualizing Copyright: Piracy, Hollywood, the State, and
Globalization.” Cinema Journal. 43(1), pp. 25-43. Yar, Majid. (2005). “The Global ‘Epidemic’ of Movie ‘Piracy’: Crime-Wave or Social
Construction?” Media, Culture and Society. 27(5), pp. 677-696.
Mary Erickson Writing Sample #2
Page 30 of 30