13 ms·
New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
- nerdy 11y agoThe MPAA just might have picked on the wrong kid this time.
- balls187 11y agoHow so?
- saool 11y agoIt's probably not too wise to pick on the kids that made it and are swimming in money and power. It'll be The Revenge of the Nerds all over again. Not to mention Google is by now a pretty deft political player.
- balls187 11y agoSpecific to the US, who do you think people will side with? Movie stars or Google Lawyers? I don't see this as being slam-dunk for either side.
- Oletros 11y agoPeople will side with MPAA or RIAA?
- pyre 11y agoThe MPAA/RIAA are not "The Movie Stars" they are "The Movie Studios." It's not even that. The MPAA is an industry lobbying group that the studios are members of. There is no big name movie star that is the "face" of the MPAA.
- gcb0 11y agolobbying group that can order new presidential mandates and for Angelina Jolie to adopt a dozen new kids. you have no idea how PR works...
- pyre 11y agoI do know how PR works. I also know that the MPAA's sister organization's fight against music piracy had some big name stars from their industry side with them (e.g. Lars Ulrich), but at the same time many big name artists (Trent Reznor, Radiohead, etc) did not side with them. If the MPAA tries to put a "face" on this by pulling in celebrities, that could equally backfire if other celebrities come out against it. > for Angelina Jolie to adopt a dozen new kids So the MPAA tells Angelina Jolie how many kids to adopt now? Did the order come directly from the Illuminati or The Bilderberg Group?
- balls187 11y agoClearly MPAA aren't "Move Stars" but in this case, the MPAA interests are more clearly aligned with today's celebrities, then they are with Google. It's a stretch, but one could imagine google's competitors piling on as well.
- gliese1337 11y agoThe MPAA isn't made up of movie stars. So, will people side with Google Lawyers, or Notoriously-Shady-Film-Studio Lawyers?
- airza 11y agoUhhhh... I think the MPAA's popularity has basically been zero since the whole napster thing.
- nerdy 11y agoMust be an unsigned value.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoWho will they side with? Google or the people who keep killing their favourite movie streaming and Torrent sites?
- Mimu 11y agoWhich side, people bringing entertainment to them or the ones destroying any private life they have left?
- TeMPOraL 11y agoPeople bringing entertainment to them or the ones who don't hesitate to literally destroy someone's life over a bunch of copied pop songs or movies? Truth be told, it really depends on which side has more control over the narrative in the media.
- balls187 11y agoI expect the US population that cares about torrents is practially nil, though that is based personal bias.
- bediger4000 11y agoIf that population is practically nil, then what's the problem with torrents/pirating? Nobody doing it: no loss to the studios. Even without knowing exactly, precisely how many people int he USA are torrenting and pirating, the studios seem to think it's a Great Big Deal, and are willing to splash out a lot of cash, and a lot of good will to get torrenting stopped. That would seem to indicate that the US population that cares about torrents is actually pretty large.
- nerdy 11y agoBecause the MPAA is often the larger entity in court, and with leverage (copyright law). They have a long, litigious history from DMCA takedowns & expansion to SOPA. They don't mind suing individuals, wholesale [1]. In this particular case it's pretty clear the MPAA and the AG were both out of bounds. Why would the AG, the top lawyer for the state government (and supposedly for the people), need to help the MPAA with a smear campaign? According to Google, AG Hood's office supplied a proposal to the MPAA [2] with an editorial suggesting slumping stock prices, media segments in collaboration with the AG, regulatory lawsuits... This is a conscious, targeted attack against Google because Hollywood didn't get its way. The project was even codenamed "Project Goliath" (related to the MPAA & affiliates, not the AG) [3]. Google has the resources, capability and will to vigorously defend itself where others may have not. [1] https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/ https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/ [2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179099/gov-uscourts-nysd-442776-40-0.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath
- zamalek 11y ago> editorial suggesting slumping stock prices Is this not fraudulent?
- jacquesm 11y agoIt'd be very nice if the SEC jumped in.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoUS financial regulators usually have to be shoved in.
- onli 11y agoYeah, of course it is. That is the point.
- 11y ago
- jfoutz 11y agoRemember when the US sued ibm for 30 years and lost? Pretty much the same reason.
- venomsnake 11y agoIf I were google I would choose a big upcoming multi billion Hollywood film. And just return empty pages while the marketing campaign is roaring. For the star/cast/everything. I would call it piracy prevention program - that way no one will be able to find piracy content trough google.
- SaturateDK 11y agoThat would be lovely, however that probably won't happen. Seeing google might get sued for that.
- venomsnake 11y agoWhy? They are a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site (also known as the iOS censorship apologist argument)
- vidarh 11y agoThey make up a big enough proportion of the search market that whether or not they'd ultimately prevail, a move like that would tie them up in anti-trust battles for the next decade.
- venomsnake 11y agoBut search is only metadata. Metadata is not important ...
- ascagnel_ 11y agoThey can choose to not deliver "enhanced" search results -- showtimes, links to buy tickets, links to IMDB/RT/etc., that appear outside of the "native" search results. As long as they don't mess around with the native search results, they'll be safer from an anti-trust perspective.
- vidarh 11y ago
- curiousjorge 11y agoHollywood is slowly decaying into irrelevance. This is a sign that they know their days are numbered. People are not going stop pirating, hell the whining and draconian measures to get people to stop pirating their movies makes me want to pirate the shit out of it even more. Plenty of video services like netflix, amazon prime are producing their own quality tv shows that exceed most of the crap movies we get. Everything is CG or some dumb plotline about sex. I'm sure films & tv shows will turn out from tech giants. I think if Google jumped in and began paying celebrities to star in their movies it could do well. I've always thought Hollywood to be a propaganda machine.
- te_chris 11y agoWhat? This is bullshit. Where does the most popular television abd film content come from? Hollywood - including the Netflix only stuff.
- tomjen3 11y agoCan we consider Game of Thrones to be the most popular tv show currently? From the wiki: >Filmed in a Belfast studio and on location elsewhere in Northern Ireland, Croatia, Iceland, Morocco, Spain, Malta, Scotland, and the United States, So it does not come from Hollywood. HBO is owned by Time Werner, but operate independently. So neither the physical production place nor the company that made it screams hollywood. As for the Netflix only stuff, it is owned by Netflix.
- gcb0 11y agothe hobbit was filmed on new Zealand... by Hollywood. who gave NZ a new thematic airport (it's like entering the shire) and in exchange for the airport and the movie production taxes got the head of kim dotcom on a tray.
- ucaetano 11y agoFilmed on location doesn't mean not from Hollywood. Hollywood isn't just the actual physical sets in LA, it's the entire industry. HoC, GoT, all come from Hollywood. Heck, even GRRM was a screenwriter for Hollywood. The creators of GoT are also from Hollywood (Troy, Kite Runner, the awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine, etc.) and the show is run by Warner-owned HBO.
- CmonDev 11y agoCan you really smear a company who's reputation is already beyond repair?
- Oletros 11y agoNot sure if serious
- CmonDev 11y agoTax dodging, conspiracy to suppress salaries, non-meritocratic compensation policies - the list goes on.
- Oletros 11y agoApart that the only illegal thing is the second, do you really think that people is aware of this or that they give a shit?
- ionised 11y agoPlenty of people do give a shit.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> non-meritocratic compensation policies I'm yet to find a company which you couldn't accuse of that. The truth about humans is, no matter what your way of determining rewards are, there will always be someone to complain that they deserve more and is being treated unjustly.
- zxcvcxz 11y agoAs far as I'm concerned google is just an NSA data collection hub.
- Oletros 11y agoLike every other American company?
- nness 11y agoI wonder if the threat of continuous attack and litigation could hurt shareholders of the MPAA's partners more than Google itself. Particularly since the last decade of investment into anti-piracy campaigns and measures has not curved piracy.
- sklogic 11y agoI would not mind if the entire entertainment industry just die. Some (likely, the only worthy) part of it will adapt, and the rest is totally worthless.
- NicoJuicy 11y agoI'm actually wondering how illegal this is? This is trying to influence the stock market and attacking 1 company without "legal" jurification. They are trying to hurt Google's through stock, this IS actually the same as stealing/taking away a billion $ (stockvalue) ... (that should be illegal, isn't it?) They obviously failed before execution, but that shouldn't matter... Does anyone know if Google can use this information in court for a lawsuit against MPAA?
- JupiterMoon 11y agoIt is probably covered by defamation of character law (it would be in the UK at least) or by malicious litigation law.
- pascalmemories 11y agoDespite Tony Blair pushing through changes to allow corporate bodies to use defamation laws, it's still pretty rare and an uphill struggle. The McLibel case showed how dangerous it is for a company to resort to that sort of litigation. They spent millions, had an array of hilarious 'mom & apple pie' witnesses flown in from the US and managed to lose on many points (but not all) and were left with a useless judgment which they can never collect on as they were stupid enough to sue two people with no assets or any prospect of having any. They did however, become a laughing stock in the legal world and have an array of TV programs and plays, mocking them mercilessly. Plus some of the, till then, unproven, claims of disgusting practice ended up being proven and therefore repeatable without risk - which was not the case beforehand. Defamation actions are never a good way to go. Even winning one does not generally help you much.
- JupiterMoon 11y agoI thought that companies were legal persons in English law? And if they can prove actual damages then they can sue for libel? As always IANAL I'd agree that McLibel didn't play out that well for them - however here we're talking one massive company vs another. McLibel was not even close to the same thing as e.g. Google vs. the MPAA would be. Anyway my main point was laws already exist to protect companies from malicious communications.
- tosseraccount 11y agoMaybe Google should do product placement in movies like Apple does: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-product-placements-in-tv-and-movies-2012-8?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-product-placements-in-t... * Apple's marketing chief, Phil Schiller, said that "One of Apple's employees works closely with Hollywood on so-called product placement so its gadgets are used in movies and television shows.
- WorldWideWayne 11y agoThey've done product placement and they've also done something that Apple never has - they got an entire movie about just their company. It's called The Internship.
- rwhitman 11y agoHollywood is an industry that should be very vulnerable to disruption. Even if we ignore the whole digital distribution aspect, there's so much bloat in the overhead cost of producing a film. Everything about the industry is based around croneyism, various inside deals made between established independent contractors on short term contracts with all sorts of padding. Plus overhead for safety & insurance, lots of manual union labor w/ exhausting overtime hours that cost $$, and big egos demanding everything under the sun. The thing is that when the level of CGI realism gets to the point that most blockbuster movies don't really need to shoot on location at all, there's no need for Hollywood production anymore. The Pixar office campus model starts to become the norm. You can produce movies from anywhere you can fit a server rack. The only films that will need Hollywood will be the ones that wouldn't work as CG - comedies, documentaries and dramas which don't make much money and will need to get cheaper and cheaper to be viable. Basically Hollywood as we know it will collapse eventually. The companies that will win at the filmmaking game are the ones with their fingers in digital distribution, a global marketing apparatus, cheap compute resources, and cheaper human talent. AKA Google / YouTube. So the MPAA needs to knock out Google for any hope of survival. Tactics like this will only accelerate the process. So Google wins.
- timjahn 11y agoYou could say the same about television. I don't buy it. I don't see us all watching cartoons only in the future.
- bediger4000 11y agoWhadda ya mean "in the future"? After documentaries on Netflix and Hulu, cartoons are already all that I watch, except maybe local news.
- olavk 11y agoYour point about "shooting on location" versus CGI seem absurd to me. A Hollywood production is so much more that just the logistics to shoot on location. It is actors, directors, casting, production design, production management, music, manuscripts, editing etc. All of these things requires a specialized skillset. None of these can be replaces with a server rack. Animation is somewhat different production-wise, but still need the same kind of talent, just not as many trucks. Hollywood accounting is infamous, but it seems Hollywood actually know what they are doing business-wise. They pay stars a lot of money because it translates into ticket sales, not because they are idiots. Many movies are made outside of Hollywood (so-called independent movies) with cheaper talent (sometimes working for free), but only rarely are they as financially successful as Hollywood movies.
- sandworm101 11y agoThe MPAA is not "Hollywood" and had not been so for a long time. MPAA current members: Sony, Disney, Fox, Universal, Warner and Paramount. Netflix is not a member. Lionsgate is not a member. You tube is certainly not a member. The MPAA therefore doesn't represent the content industry let alone all of Hollywood. Those writing about the MPAA (Wired) should not take its word as representative of anyone other than its FIVE backers. And some of those (Sony) aren't exactly happy with them these days.
- ajross 11y agoUh... Under whose definition are Netflix or Youtube (Google) part of "Hollywood"? The term has always been used to refer to the industry formed by the big traditional studios which were founded in the early part of the century in the Hollywood/Burbank area. Lionsgate might qualify (and I don't know why they aren't in the MPAA), but then they haven't even been around for two decades yet. The MPAA is "Hollywood" for sure, inasmuch as that term has any meaning at all. I simply don't understand what point you're trying to make.
- sandworm101 11y agoI'd say that Hollywood is the north-American content industry focused around Hollywood California, but including New York, Vancouver and anywhere else where movies and TV is produced. Netflix is a major content producer who uses the same people as the MPAA backers. Youtube doesn't produce content in the same way, but they are very influential having stolen things like Music Videos from the likes of MTV. These non-MPAA entities compete in the same space but have very different opinions than those who support the MPAA. My point is that the MPAA does not represent these other "Hollywood" content producers and shouldn't be described a representing any content producers beyond the five members.
- ajross 11y agoSome advice on argumentation: don't make a point by subverting well-established jargon unless you're really explicit about it. You just confuse everyone involved. I actually don't disagree with your point exactly (though it's a little spun: original content on Netflix and Youtube represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the eyeball-minutes of the movie industry -- it might get there some day but it's not remotely there yet). But what you were trying to say was completely obscured by your insane-seeming attempt to say that the MPAA doesn't represent the interests of "Hollywood".