Slashdot Mirror


MPAA Threatens To Disconnect Google From Internet

An anonymous reader writes "Over the last few months, Google has received more than 100 copyright infringement warnings from MPAA-affiliated movies studios. Most are directed at users of Google's public Wi-Fi service, but others are meant for Google employees. The MPAA is thus warning the search giant that it might get disconnected from the Internet. Although the copyright holders use strong language, these notices are simply warnings, and typically do not lead to legal action."

468 comments

  1. Don't make me laugh! by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    That is all.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    1. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:Don't make me laugh! by ocdscouter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.

      It doesn't accomplish much, but boy can that yipping drive you crazy!

    3. Re:Don't make me laugh! by rwven · · Score: 1

      More like a teacup poodle...

    4. Re:Don't make me laugh! by rwven · · Score: 1

      ...barking at a Nazgul

    5. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...barking at a Ent

    6. Re:Don't make me laugh! by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.

      Much as I'd like to agree, the MPAA studios are not exactly small businesses. Based on a cursory look at their market caps, the 'big six' combined are on roughly equal footing with Google, with a significant part of that coming from Disney. I don't doubt that Google would win if the MPAA really tried to fight on this one, but it's not quite as clear-cut as one might think.

    7. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Smivs · · Score: 1

      ...barking at a Ent

      This thread is called 'Don't make me laugh!', but you just did, that was clever/funny.

    8. Re:Don't make me laugh! by EyelessFade · · Score: 1

      perhaps, but microsoft/bing might want to come out to play as well...

    9. Re:Don't make me laugh! by JackOfAllGeeks · · Score: 1

      Much as I'd like to agree, the MPAA studios are not exactly small businesses. Based on a cursory look at their market caps, the 'big six' combined are on roughly equal footing with Google, with a significant part of that coming from Disney. I don't doubt that Google would win if the MPAA really tried to fight on this one, but it's not quite as clear-cut as one might think.

      Except that you're now talking about 6 major competitors fronting money for a fight that they probably won't win and, even if they do, probably won't have any positive effect (and would definitely have the negative effect of being the guys who killed the Internet as we know it). So although a 6-on-1 fight between the MPAA and Google might be "roughly equal," I'd say it's still quite a stretch that it would ever go that far.

    10. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Well - there are more ways than one to figure the balance of a fight, as you have pointed out, yourself. Morally speaking - Google has this one beaten, without even responding. The information wants to be free - so fly free, little bits and bytes!! Free Willy! LMAO

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Don't make me laugh! by muindaur · · Score: 1

      Until the tiger decides it wants a snack. I imagine if Google directed it's lobbyists to fight against things the lobbyists at the MPAA want, and against it's power. Maybe their lawyers to seek an injunction from the MPAA bringing further lawsuits due to abuses or unreasonable requests.

    12. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      TLA turf war.

      CIA mind-control/propaganda proxy sends warning to NSA-affiliated surveillance operation.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    13. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Peach+Rings · · Score: 2

      More like a poodle yapping at the distant rural border of a sprawling empire. The seat of government is a thousand kilometers away, and the region around the dog is totally uninhabited.

      When night falls it's total darkness with no artificial lights. A farmer barely hears wolves howling in the distance. In the morning the poodle is mysteriously gone. Seriously, IT is way way bigger than the movie industry. They can't shut down the entire internet for their own business interests.

    14. Re:Don't make me laugh! by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      This could finally be the showdown that we've all been waiting for. I've been wondering when one of the *AAs would go after someone that has the time/resources/desire to go toe to toe with them.

      I wonder what Vegas would set the odds at?

    15. Re:Don't make me laugh! by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      too late, took a swig of coffee, clicked the and whammo, all over the keyboard!

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    16. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Firehed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google's response: removing all search results for MPAA-backed content. MPAA collapses. Job well done, boys. "Suicide by Google" is certainly an interesting way to finally snuff yourself out.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    17. Re:Don't make me laugh! by spun · · Score: 2

      On whose side, do you think?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    18. Re:Don't make me laugh! by ivoras · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately... probably not. As much as I'd like to see Google launch an "the end justifies the means" campaign and crush MPAA, after some thought I got pessimistic about the prospect. Though theoretically Google could maybe buy all MPAA members one by one, Google is "new money" compared to it and the battle would be far, far from easy and predictable. After some amount of $$ it matters who you know, not how much you have.

      --
      -- Sig down
    19. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first image I conjured up was some old fart, of his Alzheimer's meds for a few days,standing on my front lawn shouting at my front door.
      I think the time for drastic government intervention is fast approaching, for the MAFIAA...

    20. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Chas · · Score: 1

      More like J. Jonah Jameson trying to bushwhack the Juggernaut...bare-handed.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    21. Re:Don't make me laugh! by camperslo · · Score: 2

      And in other news, Google decides to disconnect the MPAA from the internet.

    22. Re:Don't make me laugh! by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 2

      You accidentally the noun.

    23. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And while the MPAA collapses, Microsoft and Yahoo form a partnership and launche an aggressive "We don't censor your search results!" campaign, and lots of people just start using Bing and Yahoo, rather than get embroiled in a pissing contest between two big drunks who are both upwind. Meanwhile, MPAA and their lackeys all stop using and dealing with people who advertise via Google (the movie & recording industries generally have pretty big marketing budgets, in case you didn't notice). Ad revenues plummet just as Google has to begin spending lots of money on developing automated methods to scrub search results of any "MPAA-backed" materials. Net result: Google has also committed "suicide by Google!"

      The government steps in, declares the movie studios AND Google to both be "too big to fail," and bails them out at taxpayer expense.

      Yeah, that would be an awesome scenario. Seriously, I can't wait to see them come to blows, rather than work out their issues like fucking adults.

    24. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      But Bing uses Google for results anyway, so Bing wouldn't show any MPAA/etc stuff either.

      I keed :p

    25. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine if Google directed it's lobbyists to fight against things the lobbyists at the MPAA want, and against it's power

      I imagine if Google directed it is lobbyists to fight against things the lobbyists at the MPAA want, and against it is power? WTF does that mean?

    26. Re:Don't make me laugh! by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      ach! and to think i squandered all my modpoints in that stupid e-democracy thread!

      very interesting point. they're not called the MAFIAA for nothing...

    27. Re:Don't make me laugh! by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      if they lose google, bing will stop working.

    28. Re:Don't make me laugh! by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      unfortunately said alzheimer's old guy is still built like schwarzenegger and your front door is starting to lose integrity.

      and if my wife's mum is anything to go by, a day off the meds will drive them crazier than you could imagine.

    29. Re:Don't make me laugh! by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      It's not the search engine they are suing. Public Wi-Fi and some of the employees are mentioned.

    30. Re:Don't make me laugh! by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know...imagine if Google, MSFT, and Apple got together and decided to kill them bastards dead and split the media access evenly amongst themselves? Google might not be able to do it solo, but you put those three together? They could do it. Apple could load iTunes to the brim, Google TV wouldn't have anymore BS, and MSFT would make the X360 a hell of an entertainment center. And all three in the past have been pissed off or pissed on by the MPAA or its members.

      So I'd say its doable, but you'd really need Gates and Jobs back at the helm, because I don't see Ballmer and Cook having the stones. Page and Brin probably do though.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    31. Re:Don't make me laugh! by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      And in other news, Google decides to disconnect the MPAA from the internet.

      A far more possible scenario - unless the MPAA are that far in bed with DHS.

    32. Re:Don't make me laugh! by mallyn · · Score: 1

      No, you have it wrong. He will wonder around the neighborhood late at night muttering MPAA MPAA MPAA. He will then wander into your house thinking that it is his. Then he will wander into your bedroom and try to crawl into bed. He sees this pervert in 'his' bedroom and call the police and tell them that that Google (you) are in the MPAA's (his) bed.

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    33. Re:Don't make me laugh! by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      In the historical progression of wealth the internet's wealth is derived from Hollywood's wealth. Well, okay, arguably the internet's wealth is derived from the US gov't but, quite obviously, the wealth of the US gov't is derived from the same people who are likely a large cross section of Hollywood's wealth. Especially since the mid nineties when the global internet moved from a scientific endeavor to a business, advertising, and media venture, the wealth that resulted from global recreational computing is derived from Hollywood.

      So, more than any real legal battle, this news is likely a dog vs. pony show to give the legal field a chance to dip its fat fingers into the financial pie.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    34. Re:Don't make me laugh! by couchslug · · Score: 2

      Google could divide and conquer by buying a considerable chunk of the entertainment industry.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    35. Re:Don't make me laugh! by AlamedaStone · · Score: 2

      And in other news, Google decides to disconnect the MPAA from the internet.

      A far more possible scenario - unless the MPAA are that far in bed with DHS.

      I don't know about 'in bed', but they're certainly in the same room at the orgy party.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    36. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      I just hope the tiger doesn't back down.

    37. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google could buy the influence needed to stack the MPAA's board, and this would certainly be much cheaper than trying to influence Congress or courts.

    38. Re:Don't make me laugh! by rwven · · Score: 1

      Hah!

    39. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately said alzheimer's old guy is still built like schwarzenegger...

      LOL. You really need to update your mental image of Schwarzenegger, dude...

    40. Re:Don't make me laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no reason to go after the MPAA's content...people searching for that, for some bizarre reason, legitimately want to find it.

      The angle to take is to go after the MPAA's hired representatives pushing their agenda in Congress. Once it's clear that candidates opposing Google's political agenda or supporting Google's enemies face an uphill battle to get re-elected, Google shouldn't have to worry about being bothered like this anymore.

    41. Re:Don't make me laugh! by hitmark · · Score: 1

      And the world would gain nothing...

      The problem is not who owns what, but that the very concept of copyright (and related) needs a complete rethink now that to copy takes basically zero effort once something has been digitized.

      Things have gone from scarcity or abundance.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    42. Re:Don't make me laugh! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.

      It doesn't accomplish much, but boy can that yipping drive you crazy!

      And hopefully the tiger gets pissed off enough to bite the chihuahua's head off.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. I think it's time by hypergreatthing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That Google disconnects the MPAA from existence.

    1. Re:I think it's time by iONiUM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, they could do this. They could just stop indexing everything MPAA related (i.e. their homepage). That's more or less a death sentence on the internet these days.

    2. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard some folks were DDOSing the MPAA's website, and decided to go to it to see if it was up. Strangely, my google search was unable to find it...

    3. Re:I think it's time by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't even imagine how comical this would be, because the next step would be MPAA suing google alleging something like trademark infringement or felony interference of a business model or something else made up, along the lines of "it was illegal to de-index us".

    4. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Like.. :D

    5. Re:I think it's time by click2005 · · Score: 2

      Didn't they do this to Cnet for a year after they published images of the CEO's house?

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    6. Re:I think it's time by Plekto · · Score: 2

      "In other news, Google removes all links to the MPAA and everything related to their clients and supporters."

      They could yank these fools chain so hard. I don't think even Apple has the balls to go against Google in any serious way.

    7. Re:I think it's time by nametaken · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't happen. Google can't delist swaths of multi-billion dollar entertainment companies responsible for generating the bulk of popular culture. They'd sink their own battleship.

      Google is strong because their search engine is strong. Take that away and they're not the Google we know today.

      That's not to say it wouldn't be awesome to see, though. :)

    8. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can see it now:

      "No results found for 'MPAA'. Did you mean 'NAMBLA'?"

    9. Re:I think it's time by rhook · · Score: 2

      I doubt anyone would miss the MPAA.

    10. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one who wins this battle is the one who built the bi-directional medium. MPAA has the oneway broadcasting from radio, tv, and movies. But Google already has infrastructure for two-way commnication.

      Guess who wins:
      The culture where the information flows one way?
      Or the culture where anybody can add to the information?

    11. Re:I think it's time by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      They could do that, but it would be an amazingly stupid move, I think.

      Google gained traction in the search engine world largely because they have an algorithm which ranks sites such that—theoretically, at least—the top listing is, by some measure, the best. Sites stand or fall on their own merits, which means that users (who have the eyeballs which are looking at Google's ads) can trust Google to give them relevant sites. If Google were to stop indexing a site—even somebody like the MPAA—that destroys that trust.

    12. Re:I think it's time by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was going to make the joke "Who's MPAA? Google search turns up nothing."

      Then I could say "Bing doesn't have anything either. WTF?"

      But it's just too easy.

    13. Re:I think it's time by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually no. It's a mutated urban legend based on the truth that they did refuse to speak to CNET's reporters for a year after CNET published an article containing a number of personal facts about Eric that they 'discovered' using Google.

    14. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You purport to presume that it is 'multi-billion dollar entertainment companies' that are responsible for generating culture of any type? Mother of God...

    15. Re:I think it's time by oGMo · · Score: 1

      Google is strong because their search engine is strong. Take that away and they're not the Google we know today.

      This may be true, but the original approach doesn't really take advantage of this strength. You're a search engine. You're the most popular search engine. Don't delist. Simply make some "Movie execs eat your children" site the #1 hit for any MPAA-related search. (That's any MPAA-backed movie, studio, etc.)

      Yeah it's never going to happen either, but you know it'd be awesome if it did.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    16. Re:I think it's time by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      This is full of WIN!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:I think it's time by Stregano · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are talking like Google is still a small time shop here. You are also talking like Google has never de-indexed a site before.
      Site removed from the Google index

      Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for other reasons, such as if the sites detract from users' ability to locate relevant information. We cannot comment on the individual reasons a page may be removed. However, certain actions such as cloaking, writing text in such a way that it can be seen by search engines but not by users, or setting up pages/links with the sole purpose of fooling search engines may result in removal from our index. Please read our Webmaster Guidelines for more information.

      If your site is blocked from our index because it violates our quality guidelines, we may alert you about this using Webmaster Tools. Simply sign in to our Webmaster Tools, add your site URL, and verify site ownership. The Overview page provides information about the indexing of your site.

      If you receive a notification that your site violates our quality guidelines, you can modify your site so that it meets these guidelines, then submit your site for reconsideration.

      --
      The world is how you make it
    18. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't so much the MPAA, but those that back them. Almost every media source in existence. Google would have more to lose by de-indexing the MPAA and those that form it, than they have from losing Google (remember, Bing and other alternatives do exist).

      I would look forward to a legal battle that would reinforce the idea that the carrier is not liable (assuming Google is acting as an ISP in this case). If it was against an access point supplier like Starbucks or what not, they wouldn't be able to put up as much of a battle as Google, but would be forced to.

    19. Re:I think it's time by lgw · · Score: 1

      Google has de-indexed plenty of sites (on particular keywords) for the crime of annoying Google. I rememeber from slashdot a few years back that BMW got de-indexed for some term, "speed" maybe?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:I think it's time by blair1q · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google is several times larger than Hollywood.

      Remember, Hollywood is the land of hype. It makes itself look more profitable and important than it is, because that helps it sell itself and its products.

      The entire annual gross revenue of movies from the MPAA member studios (about $10 billion) is only a little bigger than Google's annual profit (about $7 billion).

      I'll say that again: Google's PROFIT is almost as big as Hollywood's REVENUE.

      Now, that doesn't include TV, home-video, and merchandising. But it should indicate that Google has a lot more say in how a head-to-head fight would go.

      Think of it this way. If Hollywood decided to start a software company and search engine and ad reseller and hire away Google's talent to do it, how would it do? And if Google decided to start a movie studio and hire away Hollywood's talent to do it, how would it do? Google's people are all salaried and sinecured. Hollywood's are a ravenous band of nomadic, mercenary contractors who go to the highest bidder without any concern for loyalty or decorum. And, once you've got the talent in place, good movies make themselves better without corporate involvement, since they make money by pulling in small but distinct segments of the overall market. But a Google-alike has to be able to please the entire planet all at once, something no Hollywood suit has ever accomplished and never will.

      Google would win, and end up owning both industries.

    21. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      When it comes to Hollywood, I'm cheering for the fault line.

    22. Re:I think it's time by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      If the MPAA is dragging Google to court, in an attempt to yank google.com off the web, then I think google.com has every right to respond in kind.

      And here's a message for MPAA, RIAA from a lawyer ~200 years ago:

      "Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of Natural Right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If Nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

      "Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

      "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by Nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, by Natural Right, be a subject of property."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    23. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Google is strong because their search engine is strong. Take that away and they're not the Google we know today.

      If you take away Google's search engine, not only would Google not be what we know today, but either would Microsoft's Bing (http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914).

    24. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but Google could buy out most members of the MPAA and thus control how they deal with copyright ^.^

    25. Re:I think it's time by rwven · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that roughly cut Google's index in half?

    26. Re:I think it's time by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      But the real Question is... Who's lobby group is lining the pockets of the correct politicians.. Thats how the biggest battles are won these days... in the pockets of politicians..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    27. Re:I think it's time by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      They could do that, but it would be an amazingly stupid move, I think.

      I agree entirely. The Bing team would be dancing in the streets if Google decided it was going to cut off a sizeable sector of industry. Hell, they'd probably pay Google to make it happen if they thought it could work.

      "Internet death sentence", indeed.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    28. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well remember Google can't make to much of a habit of delisting people they don't like or else they destroy their own vaule. Remember Googles customers are not you and I but advertizers to whom they must deliver eyeballs, they do that by getting us to go to their site, we do that because their search tool makes it easy to find what we want. If things we are searching for stop being eaisly found on Google people will stop Googling and start er maybe Binging.

      Also keep in mind that Hollywood throws lots of ad money around. The people who are customers of the MPAA are probably also Google's customers. Chances are the MPPA customers (the ones the actually care about) know how to find the MPAA with or without Google's help so the amount harm Google can actualyl do to the MPPA by delisting them is well minimal, unlike Cnet which needed page hits. On the other hand if the MPAA tells their clients to stop using adwords and adsense, and take their business elsewhere Google loses revenu. Don't get me wrong Google has a stong position but they are not free from consequenses here.

    29. Re:I think it's time by treeves · · Score: 1

      Another way to look at it is: those who create content vs those who let us see the content, and in this case, Google is the latter, not the MPAA.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    30. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than "Movie execs eat your children" they could put results to the most recent torrent file of the most popular movie in the moment... That would be funny!

    31. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has de-indexed plenty of sites (on particular keywords) for the crime of annoying Google.

      [citation needed]

    32. Re:I think it's time by lgw · · Score: 1
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:I think it's time by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      Do it for 24 hours and see how they take it.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    34. Re:I think it's time by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      ...at least until the MPAA goes after Bing...

      Besides, I would consider an MPAA-free search engine a feature, and I suspect a lot of others would too.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    35. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful here. I'm doing the AC devil's advocate, and your options might be:

      The culture where the information flows one way, but has over a century to become entrenches in US culture, politician campaign warchests, and viewed as a pillar for national security.

      The culture of anyone adding to information, which the Powers That Be dislike, and distrust because it is relatively new and can't be roped down as one-way media is.

      If it came down to a knock down, drag out pissing contest, Google would lose, for the simple reason that Murdoch and other media empires own this country, and whatever they want, they get without exception.

      Have you ever seen Big Media not get what it wants? If a true battle started between Google/Microsoft/Apple and companies of the computer industry versus the established media industry, it would almost be certain that in a few years, that Fox News would have a few more computer related subsidiaries, similar to how NBC has Comcast.

    36. Re:I think it's time by praxis · · Score: 1

      Perhaps AC was asking for a citation indicating the removal of BMW's sites from the index because they annoyed Google? I'd be curious to see that citation. Boilerplate catch-all policy is not nearly as interesting.

    37. Re:I think it's time by lgw · · Score: 2

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/06/02/05/235218/Google-Delists-BMW-Germany

      Did you know this forum has a search function? Strange but true.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:I think it's time by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Then simply preface MPAA results with a little warning text, stating that the following website is run by double-talking profiteering thugs and should not be visited by anyone.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    39. Re:I think it's time by Byzantine · · Score: 2

      It's all about context. Sure, Google delists sites all the time—for trying to game its algorithm. De-indexing a site in retaliation for some unrelated action is a different ball of wax.

    40. Re:I think it's time by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Do ya really think so? I'm really not interested enough to go googling for the answer, but it seems to me that warez and games probably rival all the content that the MPAA puts out, then there is music which probably exceeds the MPAA. Then, there is all the porn produced by people other than the MPAA. De-indexing the MPAA would put a hole in Google's indexing, for sure, but I don't think it would be half. Again, I'm to lazy to research. My own off-the-cuff estimate says 15% minimum, 30% maximum.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    41. Re:I think it's time by jjinco33 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually according to http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html Google broke $10 billion in profit.

      --
      Meh.
    42. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say you make lame and redundant jokes, but that would be rude and redundant, so I won't.

    43. Re:I think it's time by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      I was going to mention aphophasis, but that'd just be silly; so I won't.

    44. Re:I think it's time by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      There are lot of popular cultures. Swine flu, for instance. Asian flu. Bird flu. Cultures come and go, and I think Hollywood is past due for some antibiotics.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    45. Re:I think it's time by praxis · · Score: 1

      Did you know that when one cites something, one generally specifies the source of their information? Strange but true.

      Yes, I saw the page you linked above, but I had no idea if that was your citation. For one, I was not sure what "annoyed Google" meant to you and had no way to determine if that incident was the one you wished to cite or if there had been another one. In my book, if the true reasons were attempted PageRank manipulation, it would fall under a different category than "annoying", but everyone's interpretation is different. Which is why it's best to say what you mean, and not expect people to infer it.

    46. Re:I think it's time by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      Just a nitpick, but it is not NBC that has Comcast, but Comcast that has NBC.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBCUniversal#Sale_to_Comcast

    47. Re:I think it's time by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/06/02/05/235218/Google-Delists-BMW-Germany

      Did you know this forum has a search function? Strange but true.

      GP's key phrase was "because they annoyed Google." The stated reason for BMW's de-listing was because they were trying to game PageRank and Google caught wind of it.

    48. Re:I think it's time by sjames · · Score: 1

      They should redirect all queries for the latest "blockbuster" to the Barney and Friends fan page.

    49. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what this sounds like?

      AN EPIC MOVIE PLOT!

      Where's my popcorn?

    50. Re:I think it's time by conark · · Score: 1

      this is what i think. Google doesn't need the MPAA. the MPAA needs Google though. i've felt that considering the amount of content/money that Google possesses they could either simply just throw a kill switch against the studios or start buying them up one by one. hell, i blogged a while back that Google should simply create a larger VC type of fund for independent film makers and do more to help promote those people (and other independent artists for that matter).

    51. Re:I think it's time by Firehed · · Score: 1

      It's Google algorithm, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Hell, they might actually have to - the MPAA would probably try to get a gag order on anything that went to trial. And as noted above, "Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet..."

      It's not like we, as people connected to the internet, have an SLA from Google. Sure, we expect them to return the best results, and if they de-index all content relating to major motion pictures and that negatively impacts our browsing, we're free to Bing away. But unlike ISPs that are merely providing data, Google is providing a (free) service and have no legal obligations to keep it neutral (at least to my knowledge, IANAL)

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    52. Re:I think it's time by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      It certainly gets sticker where you start to muck with the results of MPAA members but you could mess with the search string "mpaa", let the first few results be the mpaa home page and then a couple hits that would have come up anyway after that. Have hits 4 through as many as you can identify be groups pushing copyright reform or something, the MPAA would hate.

      if you want to be really petty return the facebook profiles for children of their C-level execs, that might violate the whole do no evil thing though.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    53. Re:I think it's time by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The entire annual gross revenue of movies from the MPAA member studios (about $10 billion) is only a little bigger than Google's annual profit (about $7 billion).

      I'll say that again: Google's PROFIT is almost as big as Hollywood's REVENUE.

      It's obvious, the pirates are to blame.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    54. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That $10B number is way off - it's at least 3 times that much if not a magnitude higher (too lazy to get the numbers for just the Disney subsidiaries). Doesn't necessarily invalidate the point but still...

    55. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, somebody else would generate the pop culture. Like the people on Youtube who do it for free while generating revenue for Google.

    56. Re:I think it's time by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      The Bing team would be dancing in the streets

      Sure, until they figured out they couldn't use "signals" from Google anymore, and instead they'd have to work up their own algorithms.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    57. Re:I think it's time by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      All of the members of the MPAA combined have a market cap barely more than Google itself

      Disney - 82 billion
      Viacom - 26 billion
      News corp. - 44 billion
      Time Warner - 40 billion
      NBC Universal - 35 billion estimated
      --
      Total = 227 billion

      Google - 196 billion

    58. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google would win, and end up owning both industries.

      You're forgetting how much longer the MPAA has been at this game and how many friends they've made.

      Despite Google's wealth and size, I can't imagine them having the same legislator-on-a-leash power in DC as the MPAA.

    59. Re:I think it's time by Imrik · · Score: 2

      It's not an unrelated action, the MPAA complains about Google linking to/hosting copyrighted content so Google eliminates all links to the MPAA's copyrighted content, including their websites.

    60. Re:I think it's time by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Very interesting quote, but isn't copyright about specific expressions of ideas?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    61. Re:I think it's time by kthejoker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love how you blithely limit the MPAA-members' financial clout to just their movie revnenue.

      We're talking about Sony, Disney, GE, NBC Universal, Viacom, NewsCorp, and Time Warner here. They've got a lot more money than just the movie business, if they are so inclined to throw it around.

    62. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it this way. If Hollywood decided to start a software company and search engine and ad reseller and hire away Google's talent to do it, how would it do?

      Probably about as well as Bing ;)

    63. Re:I think it's time by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You don't think that popular support would sway the war? I can promise you, if a ware erupted between Google and allies against MPAA and it's allies, I would be on ALL my representative's asses, and I would be looking for ways in which to aid Google. Cash donations (however meager my cash might be), grassroots publicity, whatever might present itself. I'm not very imaginative in this area, but I would make a great grunt soldier, and I would fall in and follow someone with a plan!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    64. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem with your argument is that most movie studios are owned and financially backed by large conglomerates.

      Paramount by Viacom
      Columbia by Sony
      Universal by Comcast and GE
      etc.

      This reduces their risk by giving them deep pockets to absorb the ups and downs of the film industry. So while the movie industry's revenues may not be very large they have do have deep pockets backing them. So comparing balance sheets isn't every thing.

    65. Re:I think it's time by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Well, the smarter move would be to address the MPAA members one at a time. Make it clear to Universal, that they, and only they will be removed from the internet if they don't leave the MPAA and start making public statements condemning it. Then as they break each member, they move on to the next. Pick off the weakest of the heard one at a time.

    66. Re:I think it's time by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Can't happen. Google can't delist swaths of multi-billion dollar entertainment companies responsible for generating the bulk of popular culture. They'd sink their own battleship.

      Who needs to delist them? I'd be willing to bet that the only reason various torrent websites aren't the first hit for any given Hollywood film is that Google is munging the results to favor the studio's websites. I'm not aware of any law that says they have to do that.

    67. Re:I think it's time by SniperJoe · · Score: 1

      I was going to point out that that would be libel, but then I remembered that the truth is always a valid defense against a defamation lawsuit.

    68. Re:I think it's time by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Microsoft is unable to compete with Google. You think those guys have a chance?

    69. Re:I think it's time by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be too hard. They're already disconnected from reality.

    70. Re:I think it's time by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't even have to stop indexing the MPAA's website. They could simply move any MPAA-related page that come up to the bottom of page 35 of the search results. Same basic effect and they can say "but we still index your page!"

    71. Re:I think it's time by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Also, they have whats called a darknet, made of up of bought up fiber from backbone ISPs that went under....I think even if they were disconnected, they would still be connected, technically, although do not quote me on this, it is here say....maybe someone with networking wizardry can confirm?

    72. Re:I think it's time by bami · · Score: 1

      No, copyright is about getting paid for your ideas.

      Without copyright, there wouldn't be a commercial software, movie or music industry.

      I can think of both worlds being allright (free software land sounds great, and we've seen from FOSS that people can make things happen, but on the other hand, I get paid for doing what I like (program stuff), and couldn't think of working on something else.), but it's gone a bit too far with all the piracy lawsuits and patent wars and such.

    73. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "a lot of others," you mean "a fairly small group of FOSS advocates & the relatively small number of people who've been served with legal action by the MPAA," right?

    74. Re:I think it's time by Mitsoid · · Score: 1

      Remember, Hollywood is the land of hype. It makes itself look more profitable and important than it is, because that helps it sell itself and its products.

      I thought their goal was to make it look as though they are a non-profit business that never generates profits on anything but the biggest movies so they do not have to pay royalties or taxes on profits?

      (Unless its a court case where they want to generate money, in which case they use larger then the real numbers)

    75. Re:I think it's time by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Just making slight adjustments so that the first few pages have only hits like:

      MPAA sues granny and takes her house
      MPAA lawyer caught with underage prostitute
      MPAA obliterated in court by newbie lawyer
      MPAA suffers embarrassing defeat in court ... ....

    76. Re:I think it's time by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      It's all about context. Sure, Google delists sites all the time—for trying to game its algorithm. De-indexing a site in retaliation for some unrelated action is a different ball of wax.

      I think that google has enough clout that "losing" the MPAA and all related content would not result in any significant political damage.

      Would anyone, not financially benefiting from the MPAA directly, care if they didn't exist tomorrow? And I'm talking about people IN the ??AA and those who they pay off via lobbying.

      Most people know that the MPAA and RIAA are obsolete and resorting to shakedowns and thuggery, only surviving by lawsuit and lobbying.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    77. Re:I think it's time by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      and 2 weeks later the MPAA disappears from Bing.

    78. Re:I think it's time by mob)barley · · Score: 1

      Yeah people, if you had ever watched 30 Rock you'd know this. Alec Baldwin runs these companies and their subsidiaries.

    79. Re:I think it's time by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      +1 Too Easy

    80. Re:I think it's time by icebraining · · Score: 1

      free software land sounds great, and we've seen from FOSS that people can make things happen, but on the other hand, I get paid for doing what I like (program stuff), and couldn't think of working on something else.

      Yes, because no one gets paid to write FOSS, right?

      Besides, plenty of software is written "on demand" for companies who need an enterprise app, or to support services (Google, Facebook, etc).

      The software industry would still make big bucks without copyright.

    81. Re:I think it's time by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      "Don't Be Evil, except just this once?"
      That should go swimmingly!

    82. Re:I think it's time by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That's why GGP talked about trust, not legality. Google may have the legal right to de-list sites, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a major PR nightmare.

    83. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and plus remember no Hollywood movie has ever made a profit. Look up Hollywood accounting.

    84. Re:I think it's time by lgw · · Score: 1

      Which would be annoying Google, yes? Google de-lists people who make it harder for Google to make money. Most people are OK with this, as we just want search to work.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    85. Re:I think it's time by Rary · · Score: 2

      Actually no. It's a mutated urban legend based on the truth that they did refuse to speak to CNET's reporters for a year after CNET published an article containing a number of personal facts about Eric that they 'discovered' using Google.

      Actually, while the official response was to refuse to speak to CNET reporters for a year, they ended up dropping that ban after only a few months.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    86. Re:I think it's time by syousef · · Score: 1

      The entire annual gross revenue of movies from the MPAA member studios (about $10 billion) is only a little bigger than Google's annual profit (about $7 billion).

      Either qualify that with the a phrase like "percentage wise" buster or you can hand out $3B in chump change to every slashdot reader that comes across your post!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    87. Re:I think it's time by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

          They could be much worse than just that.

          Advertising for movies is a **HUGE** industry. It makes everyone involved a fortune (except for us end-users).

          Google could...

          1) Delist the MPAA's sites, related sites, and any links related to movies released by MPAA related studios.

          2) Refuse to accept any advertising from MPAA related studios, and sell advertising at discounted rates to Non-MPAA related studios.

          3) Refuse all movie trailers, fan-made trailers, and any other related materials on YouTube and give priority to Non-MPAA related studio materials.

          In addition to the Google and YouTube companies, Google has interest in quite a few others. They have 5% of AOL (no AOL ads for upcoming movies, or listings on their movie schedule site). They also have interest or total ownership of 7 advertising outlets. It's hard to advertise your product, if the advertising outlets refuse them.

          Refuse advertising to those studios is perfectly legal. They are under no obligation to services customers who are pursuing or threatening legal action. The economic result would be that other studios and independent filmmakers would have an extreme advantage in a marketplace where they are all but locked out. Hmmm, this may not be such a bad thing. Hey MPAA, do your worst! Maybe we'll be saved the horror of yet another sparkly vampire movie, or another formula driven teens slaughtered in the woods by [insert badguy] or the mockery of the same.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    88. Re:I think it's time by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      That could work. Nobody could find the websites of new movies. As a bonus, nobody would be able to find them on Bing either... (wait for it)

    89. Re:I think it's time by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      this is a better idea then completely delisting them, any Hollywood movie search would have "news" as a first section of work, linked to all the mpaa nastiness. actually, now that i think of it, this isn't a good idea. that would turn google into foxnews. it would work to "guide" public opinion though and would be much more effective then delisting.

    90. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire annual gross revenue of movies from the MPAA member studios (about $10 billion)...

      Those numbers are rigged, deliberately, to avoid paying royalties to actors, directors, etc. They include all the expenses and very few of the profits, most of which are funneled into different shell entities. Nor do they include DVD sales or merchandising tie-ins.

    91. Re:I think it's time by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which, chances are, they won't. The best thing about large multinationals such as Sony and Disney is the whole "left hand, right hand" business they've got going on internally.

      Sony's music and movie divisions have long complained about the ease of playing "pirated" music and movies on the PS3, PSP and portable media players, but the electronic division's response? fuck off, it's your problem not ours. I can't see the guys in charge of History Channel or ESPN reacting any different to the latest Hannah Montana album being copied online, either.

      So, unless they manage to convince the *real* head honchos of their respective corporations to throw the weight of the entire business group just to help a single division (ha!), their respective movie and music income is all they're gonna get for their little turf war.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    92. Re:I think it's time by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Sure, until they figured out they couldn't use "signals" from Google anymore, and instead they'd have to work up their own algorithms.

      Meh, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They don't care about offering a good service; they just want to dominate search.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    93. Re:I think it's time by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Besides, I would consider an MPAA-free search engine a feature, and I suspect a lot of others would too.

      So what are you saying here? That you don't use Google, but you'd start in an instant if they just got rid of those pesky MPAA search results?

      It'd be a funny old world if we were all the same, I suppose...

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    94. Re:I think it's time by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Exactly! And it seems like the best way they've figured out to accomplish that end is to copy the best.

      Were Google to suddenly take a nosedive it wouldn't take long for someone else to step up to the plate.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    95. Re:I think it's time by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Since when does MPAA and its members produce Internet porn?

    96. Re:I think it's time by scurvyj · · Score: 0

      That Google disconnects the MPAA from existence.

      Yeah I have to agree. Google would dwarf the MPAA by about a factor of 10 in every respect AND they have the ear of government.

    97. Re:I think it's time by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Without copyright, there wouldn't be a commercial software, movie or music industry.

      Actually, there would be commercial software, movie and music industry. The only thing that would be missing from the industry are huge useless corporations which rip off both authors and customers.

    98. Re:I think it's time by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>isn't copyright about specific expressions of ideas?

      Yes that's true but "No one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea, receives instruction himself without lessening [the originator's idea]; as he who lights his taper, receives light without darkening the original owner."

      Lack of copyright could present a problem as far as author's earning money to pay their bills, but then that problem exists NOW with corporations taking authors works & then never paying them for it. Authors would be MUCH better off to give-away their work for free and say, "If you enjoy this, please donate $20 to my paypal account so I can pay my rent. Thank you."

      Under the current corporate regime, they don't even get that. According to SAG the typical television writer earns less than $5000 a year - below minimum wage. Novelists get even less.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    99. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To avoid infringing on the MPAA's intellectual property, Google removes all links to the MPAA and everything related to their clients and supporters."

      ftfy

    100. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lets get real here and stop the delusions. Grassroots support does next to nothing. The true entity that elected reps answer to is not the people; it is the people who drop the "anonymous" multi-million sums in the coffers. Think a bunch of yahoos dropping $10 in a bucket would do more? Same thinking is like heading up to a forest fire with a keg of Bud and some diuretic pills.

      Think people would get to the streets to support Google? Sorry, won't happen. If someone cannot click to sign a petition here in the US, they won't be doing much else.

      History lesson 101: Whomever controls the press, the images on the TV, and the yammering on the radio controls the people's hearts and minds. This happened with the yellow papers, the Nazi propaganda, and the Communist propaganda machine. History has proven this out.

      Look at US culture. If it wasn't for the press, Jason Beiber would still be in high school. Palin would be quietly forgotten as a governor that nobody knew about.

      If push came to shove, allegations would appear against Google, no matter how false or far-fetched, and you will see Americans want to see the now-evil Google removed from the Internet. Of course, the legal system, at behest of "the protectors of US business" would step in, and Google would suffer the same fate as the old mp3.com which happened to make the mistake of offering a music locker, and was promptly torn apart and forgotten about.

    101. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google stops indexing the MPAA them you know in a few weeks you won't be able to find MPAA on that bing-go search site either.

      Wonder what the industry search experts will say to that.

    102. Re:I think it's time by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Their home page, and every page for every new movie coming out. Of course, that might just increase BIng's usage rates, unless they copy Google and don't index those pages either.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    103. Re:I think it's time by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has 2 things that make a real profit: Windows and Office.
      Google has 1 thing that really makes a profit: Search, (maybe YouTube?)

      (I mean contributing more than a Billion to their profits, not counting something that might make them a dime somewhere)

      Google is sitting on a chair with one leg and is in a war of attrition with Microsoft already. If they next big thing comes along they can be toast pretty fast, why do you think they're doing this Android stuff? They would love to diversify to increase their odds of long term survival.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    104. Re:I think it's time by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      It's high time that the ideas of "producer" and "consumer" get turned around anyway.

      We don't have enough creative people, creating. Too many people are satisfied being consumers of whatever media some corporation tells them to consume.

      We should celebrate the independent, individual work far more than we worship the blockbuster or the mainstream hit. This is backwards, and ends up being way outside of appropriate human proportions.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    105. Re:I think it's time by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Google undoubtedly has assets diversified among all of those companies and more.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    106. Re:I think it's time by rwven · · Score: 1

      Oh i was just being bitter and sarcastic. It would probably make about 5% I'd guess. But honestly I have no freaking idea.

    107. Re:I think it's time by russotto · · Score: 1

      I'll say that again: Google's PROFIT is almost as big as Hollywood's REVENUE.

      Perhaps, but you have to account for Hollywood accounting.

    108. Re:I think it's time by brendan.hill · · Score: 1

      Hm, thank you for getting NAMBLA listed in my workstation's search history....

    109. Re:I think it's time by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      I thought their goal was to make it look as though they are a non-profit business that never generates profits on anything but the biggest movies so they do not have to pay royalties or taxes on profits?

      (Unless its a court case where they want to generate money, in which case they use larger then the real numbers)

      it is, but we're not talking about profit - we're talking revenue - which includes any money they might want to write off.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    110. Re:I think it's time by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      easy yes, but you just made my day :)

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    111. Re:I think it's time by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      The problem with this whole line of thinking (and I like the idea of one giant taking down another one for being "bad"), is that the MPAA would probably then try to get racketeering charges filed against Google... when, of course, they are the ones that started it with their own racketeering efforts, but I digress...

    112. Re:I think it's time by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      A NSFW post would have been helpful there

    113. Re:I think it's time by vrythmax · · Score: 0

      And we know Bing would follow suit immediately.

    114. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise, a million businesses around the world would be lining up for a class-action lawsuit against the state claiming loss of business or felony interference of a business model because of google's disconnection.

    115. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The added bonus being that Bing would also remove the MAFIAA too, given the way they copy Google's serch results...

    116. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rebuttal 1: Don't just focus on market cap - that is nothing more than the market value of all outstanding shares of a corporation. Basically, it is nothing more than the stock markets' collective opinion on the value of a company, with no other bearing. It's an interesting metric, to be fair, but there are additional metrics to look at, such as revenue, profits, and growth. I'd suggest looking into those. But if you only want to focus on market cap, then Apple beats all companies you listed at 300 billion, yet I wouldn't suggest that Apple has more clout than all the companies you mentioned.

      Rebuttal 2: Don't forget Sony, a major player in not just movies, but many other industries.

      If you only focus on what you want, and ignore other things, I suppose you can believe anything you want. I'm not saying Google isn't successful, mind you - I'd argue that they are one of the most successful tech companies of all time. However, their actual dollars and cents don't add up against the other companies, yet. They may have a huge future in ad revenues on the mobile platform, however they do have to contend with JavaME (which they are crushing right now, minus the lawsuit vs Oracle), Blackberry, and iOS for that.

    117. Re:I think it's time by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Just redirect all movie title searches away from legitimate result pages and all to torrent search engines.

      That ought to get some blood boiling.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    118. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem remains... you did just make that joke, but ruined it

    119. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The entire annual gross revenue of movies from the MPAA member studios (about $10 billion) is only a little bigger than Google's annual profit (about $7 billion).

      I'll say that again: Google's PROFIT is almost as big as Hollywood's REVENUE.

      Well one of us can actually read. According to their unaudited 2010 results, Google Net income was $8.505 billion for 2010.

      The revenue for just Time Warner (just one of the major studio members of the MPAA) was $26.89 billion. So you were only off by a factor of about 3 for just one studio, an order of magnitude if you include the rest.

      Incidently, US only box office (just a fraction of the overall intake from movies) is the $10 Billion number you quoted (2009 was $10.5B). So the total revenue from US based major studio releases, released during 2009 in theaters where the revenue was accounted properly, where prepayment was discounted, and bartered advertising was discounted, and everything else I'm not immediately thinking of income was in deed $10B. Of course that's only about 10% of the income from each of those movies.

      Like I said, you're only off by an order of magnitude.

    120. Re:I think it's time by other-different-nick · · Score: 1

      Along similar lines, google is a big part of the internet, and the MPAA isn't: if an ISP simply de-peers google, will they suddenly have to pay for all their youtube traffic?

    121. Re:I think it's time by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Fine then, just put that malware interstitial they stick on nasty sites.

      Warning: this site may harm your computer, bank accounts, civil rights, freedoms and/or ability to think rationally. Viewer discretion is advised.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    122. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google could accidentally buy the entire MPAA and fire their whole executive gaggle, if they wanted...

    123. Re:I think it's time by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Exactly! And it seems like the best way they've figured out to accomplish that end is to copy the best.

      No argument there.

      Were Google to suddenly take a nosedive it wouldn't take long for someone else to step up to the plate.

      None of which would help Google, however. Which brings me back to my point - handing out "internet death sentences" would be a stupid thing for Google to do...

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    124. Re:I think it's time by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      If I were Google I'd just start buying up these media companies every time they go bankrupt. Soon enough the problem is fixed.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    125. Re:I think it's time by xtracto · · Score: 2

      Nah... it would be better to remove all MPAA (Disney, Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios, Warner Bros.) related sites from their suggestions and automatic search (just as they have already done with other search terms).

      That would be sweet.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    126. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed out Sony. $34.8b march last year.

    127. Re:I think it's time by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      After all, threathening to disconnect Google from internet in order to advance a political agenda is the closest I have seen from "cyberterrorism" in my book.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    128. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're thinking too small, and about the wrong things. MPAA is only dangerous because they have a voice, and make themselves known. But why bother messing with their homepage, who no one knows what it is, let alone visit? No, they would simply not index stories regarding MPAA, all those suits and scandals, are publicity for them, it's the reason they do everything, it's their only weapon. If Google, takes their voice away, then they would have lost millions of dollars worth.

      Internet is the only thing that provides persistence to news, a story on TV, they play it a few days, bye bye, you want to see it again, you need access to their archive, or a video on youtube recorded by someone.

    129. Re:I think it's time by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      What's so office-unsafe about Marlon Brando look-alikes?

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    130. Re:I think it's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you blithely limit the MPAA-members' financial clout to just their movie revnenue.

      We're talking about Sony, Disney, GE, NBC Universal, Viacom, NewsCorp, and Time Warner here. They've got a lot more money than just the movie business, if they are so inclined to throw it around.

      I bet if google just singled out MPAA members one by one, they could get some serious help from microsoft/nintendo (kill the playstation!) and LG (those Motherfuckers sued us first!)

      And apple might watch the battle with newscorp/viacom/time warner with interest, with all the ipad news stuff going on...

    131. Re:I think it's time by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      or just a small redirect page, like firefox/chrome does for possible malicious sites.

      I bet google has the server capacity to do that for all requests, taking it out of the browser and making it universal

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    132. Re:I think it's time by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Maybe Google should just buy one of them, get a seat at the MPAA's table and then change it from the inside. At the very least they could stop the lawsuits and maybe make themselves really popular by bringing back a few cancelled sci-fi series and release them on YouTube.

      I can dream....

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    133. Re:I think it's time by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Completely legal, but it would be, you know... Evil.

    134. Re:I think it's time by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      Google already did that, and not just once.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    135. Re:I think it's time by Deefburger · · Score: 1

      But they have more lawyers in the White House than Google.....And nothing about doing or not doing evil in their mission statements...

      --
      Most people are mostly good most of the time.
    136. Re:I think it's time by Golddess · · Score: 1

      $5000 a year - below minimum wage.

      Wouldn't that only be true if they are working more than 689.66 hours per year? That's about 13.26 hours per week. Not in the industry, I cannot say if that is above or below the typical hours that they work. But it is not immediately apparent that $5000 a year is below minimum wage, since as far as I am aware, minimum wage is only specified by dollars per hour worked.

      It's certainly below the poverty line though.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    137. Re:I think it's time by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Google has a lot of peering agreements because they own A LOT of their own infrastructure. They need lots of bandwidth between their own datacenters. This allow them to strike up deals and let other large Google customers to use Google's network to get cheaper internet and faster connections to others. Essentially, any customer that has a peering agreement with Google can use Google's network to talk to other Google peering customers for free. Peering customer would havee to be careful still since most peering agreements are based on strict upload/download ratios.

      In a way, Google works like a pseudo-Teir1 just because of their size. Now, if Google really wants to get their foot in the door and not get disconnected, they need to start acting as a Teir1 and an ISP. They're already doing the ISP thing with the fiber testing, but if they start whole-sale selling internet access, they could really use that as a bargaining point.

      Google is more of an end point than routing. If they started doing lots of routing, taking down Google would hurt the internet as they would become part of it.

    138. Re:I think it's time by P.+Legba · · Score: 1

      Wait until Apple's cloud initiatives firm up...then we'll see, I guess.

    139. Re:I think it's time by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > So what are you saying here? That you don't use Google, but you'd start in an instant if they just got rid of those pesky MPAA search results?

      That's actually true (I use Yahoo currently for my search needs) but it's not the point I was trying to make.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    140. Re:I think it's time by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      I'll stipulate for the purpose of this discussion that, of the people who know what the MPAA and RIAA are and what they've done, most believe those organization to be (at least on their way to becoming) obsolete. You can infer my argument from my caveat.

    141. Re:I think it's time by blair1q · · Score: 1

      So you're saying they should get into making movies anyway.

    142. Re:I think it's time by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      That's actually true (I use Yahoo currently for my search needs) but it's not the point I was trying to make.

      mmm... you were saying (I believe) that although a decision by Google might well lead to a decline in the use of their engine, Bing would probably be next on the MPAA's hit list and would have to follow suit (thus losing any advantage) or else come to some arrangement with the MPAA, probably involving censoring references to torrent and the like from their indices. Personally, I suspect they'd choose the latter approach, and still count it a good deal if it meant overthrowing Google and getting their hands on all that ad revenue. Not to mention being able to once again distort their search results for fun and profit with the reasonable expectation that people might be reading them.

      What I found more interesting was the suggestion that Google might want to remove MPAA related results in order to attract more users in the form of countless MPAA haters who have been silently boycotting Google because they wish never to receive an MPAA related search result.

      For one thing. I can't imagine that your particular market segment is large enough to make up for potential losses if Google decide to ignore an entire industry. For another, I'm not aware of any MPAA free search engine that people such as yourself could be using in place of Google, which means that by and large Google probably already have those users. Also, frankly, I just can't see the point of having potential access to less information rather than more. Ever. But maybe that's just me.

      Granted, I can imagine how an MPAA-free Internet might have widespread appeal. But (as has been pointed out once or twice in this topic) removing the MPAA from Google is not the same thing as removing them from the Internet.

      As a side note: didn't Yahoo dismantle their search engine some years ago in favour of licensing either Google's or whatever MS were calling their offering at the time? I seem to recall they keep flip-flopping between the two depending on who's offering the better deal.

      Using Yahoo is not necessarily the same thing as not using Google :)

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    143. Re:I think it's time by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      Typing it in straight into firefox was just a mistake on my part - it is apparently related, as near as I can tell before I got the window shut, to a group (real or fake, I don't care to look into it more) seeking to promote men/boy relationships (an attempt to legalize pedophilia was my first impression and I won't be pursuing more info on it as a result).

    144. Re:I think it's time by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          No, "Scary Movie", "Not Another Teen Movie", "Epic Movie", "Disaster Movie, the "Twilight Saga", "Police Academy" (all 7 nauseating installments) and "Zardoz are evil.

          For those who haven't seen any of them, especially the last, please don't. Preserve your eyesight, your sanity, and your lunch.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    145. Re:I think it's time by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I kind of liked the first Police Academy, but I can understand you'd think the world would be a better place without them. But Google getting things out of their search engine just because the authors (or whoever has interest int them) threatened to sue is evil. That would put Google in a "we can do anything we want, and you can't defend yourself" position.

    146. Re:I think it's time by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1
      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  3. do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DO IT! lmao

    1. Re:do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DO IT FAGGOT!

  4. I will be very honest by kthreadd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I won't be sad the day the movie industry goes out of business. I've found other ways to find entertainment which does not involve them. Everything does not have to last forever.

    1. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't be sad the day the movie industry goes out of business. I've found other ways to find entertainment which does not involve them. Everything does not have to last forever.

      I don't know. I think I will be sad when the movie and record industry go out of business. I mean where else am I going to get such comedic ideas such as trying to disconnect google from the internet? Nothing they have released recently has been even close.

    2. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      A hope you're not American. A complete collapse of the movie industry would be devastating to the US economy, likely as much as if the auto industry had collapsed. Not only are the studios enormous and employ thousands of people, but the trickle down effect (all movie theaters, any store that sells DVDs) would be epic. Granted you're also an idiot if you honestly believe any of this has a realistic chance of happening.

    3. Re:I will be very honest by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What amazes me is - this is precisely the same crap the Cult of Scientology keeps doing.

      Has anyone ever noticed how many MafiAA bigwigs are also Scientologists? Anyone think there might be a connection?

    4. Re:I will be very honest by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a complete collapse of the movie industry wouldn't even be devastating to the music industry itself, it would only be devastating to the MPAA.

      where do you come up with this crap?

      The MPAA and hopeuflly, IFPI is the only part that will fail. The rest of movie industry, music industry, etc are doing just dandy and well with filesharing the entire time. The overall market has expanded greatly.

    5. Re:I will be very honest by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not illegal to quote PUBLIC GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS - So ruled the Supreme Court of these United States

      US District Court, Central District of California
      Fishman Case # 91-6426 HLH (Tx) Continued
                          Exhibit B
                          Dismas House, Room 324
                          141 N. W. 1st Avenue
                          Dania, Florida 33004
                                  ON CONTROL AND LYING
                                  ____________________

      THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can
      write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you
      can control anybody is to lie to them. When you find an individual
      is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control
      you. One way or another this individual is trying to control
      you. That is the mechanism of control. This individual is lying to
      you because he is trying to control you - because if they give you
      enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that
      they can control you. Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part
      of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human
      being is lying to you. Not "is going to", but "is" lying to you.

      [last sentence is underlined in original]

      Check these facts, you will find they are always true. That person
      who is trying to control you is lying to you. He's got to tell you
      lies in order to continue control, because the second you start
      telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and
      he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you can't control
      somebody without telling them a bunch of lies. You will find that
      very often Command has this as its greatest weakness. It will try to
      control instead of leading. The next thing you know, it is lying to
      the [illegible]. Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all
      of a sudden the thing blows up. Well, religion has done this.
      [Following sentence is underlined] Organised religion
      tries to control, so therefore must be lying. [end underline]
      After a while it figures out (even itself) that it is lying, and then
      it starts down tone scale further and further, and all of a sudden
      people get down along this spring-like bottom (heresy) and say,
      "Are we going into apathy and die, or are we going to revolt?"
      and they revolt, because you can only lie to people so long.
      Unfortunately there is always a new cycle of lying.

                                                        L. Ron Hubbard
                                                        Technique 88

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:I will be very honest by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You're a shill for the MPAA, aren't you? Sure it would be a shock to the industry, but it's not like the customers are going to decide to stop spending their money. Most likely what would happen would be that the talent would flow to independent companies and any money that consumers were going to spend on movies would either be spent on independent films or other things. In neither case would that be devastating.

      OTOH California would be a pit, but then again, they pretty much are already, this would be more of a coup de grace.

    7. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, trickle down effect.

    8. Re:I will be very honest by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "where do you come up with this crap?"

      Deep within his rectum.. You gotta reach way up there to find something that smells that bad.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:I will be very honest by lgw · · Score: 1

      the trickle down effect (all movie theaters, any store that sells DVDs)

      The collapse of the MPAA does not imply the collpased of the studio system, but even if it did, would it really be missed? Movie theaters don't make any money from ticket sales for MPAA films. Indie productions may draw smaller crowds, but the cinima would make a lot more per head. And DVDs? You mean people would rent the original instead of the remake? I mean, it would be one thing if the MPAA studios make anything that wasn't a remake or re-imagining, but they've sort of stopped doing that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:I will be very honest by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like, Wal-Mart (the biggest seller of DVDs and CDs) would lose, like, 2% of their income, man. They've considered using that rack space for something else, selling other shit that's more profitable.

    11. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. One of us finally found a girlfriend

    12. Re:I will be very honest by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      >Most likely what would happen would be that the talent would flow to independent companies

      and this would be in local economies so local people will see benefit.

      >OTOH California would be a pit, but then again, they pretty much are already

      not really, much of Hollywood production is outsourced, like everybody else.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    13. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Bollywood over the next few years may do just that. The have the talent, The talent is cheap, and they are able to do what the movies in the 30's 40's and 50's did, Churn 'em out like hotcakes. Additionally they have a much larger market to fund the engine locally too.

    14. Re:I will be very honest by DrVomact · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then again, you can control people by telling them someone else is trying to control them, and that only by following you will they be truly free. You can also say the same thing over and over again in a mind-deadening cadence until the victim's brain short circuits.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    15. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Darth Vader :
      "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaaaaaaaaaa......."

    16. Re:I will be very honest by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you

      From http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright
      "...anything that's characterized as disconnection or this kind of thing, it's just not true. There isn't any such policy."
      ...
      "We all know this policy exists. I didn't have to search for verification -- I didn't have to look any further than my own home." Haggis reminded Davis that, a few years earlier, his wife had been ordered to disconnect from her parents "because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did twenty-five years ago when they resigned from the church. . . . Although it caused her terrible personal pain, my wife broke off all contact with them." Haggis continued, "To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: what else are you lying about?"

      Also http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133561256/the-church-of-scientology-fact-checked

    17. Re:I will be very honest by DaveGod · · Score: 2

      I won't be sad the day the movie industry goes out of business. I've found other ways to find entertainment which does not involve them. Everything does not have to last forever.

      The movie industry isn't going out of business. Even if we're to accept that MPAA members are all in deep trouble then what we'd be looking at is a change in the movie industry. Maybe the industry would be unrecognisable compared to it's current form, but for better or worse capitalism marches on.

    18. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "where do you come up with this crap?"

      Deep within his rectum.. You gotta reach way up there to find something that smells that bad.

      How high up? My take - until you reach the cranial cavity; the stench is maximum there

    19. Re:I will be very honest by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      I won't be sad the day the movie industry goes out of business. I've found other ways to find entertainment which does not involve them. Everything does not have to last forever.

      Well, sadly, the rest of us are still looking for girlfriends... congrats to you though. ;-)

    20. Re:I will be very honest by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >The collapse of the MPAA does not imply the collpased of the studio system, but even if it did, would it really be missed?

      It might create opportunities. It could engender a cultural shift where eventually, every film doesn't have to strive to be superlative over every other film that was ever made. A film could be merely good, and still be made, without being relegated to a single screening at some festival.

      What we have today is a situation where only the films with the biggest financing and/or the greatest projected financial upside even get made, and there's only that tier and nothing else.

      This could be different, if we as a culture could survive such a shift.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    21. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    22. Re:I will be very honest by datsa · · Score: 1

      Then again, you can control people by telling them someone else is trying to control them, and that only by following you will they be truly free.

      That's lying to them.

    23. Re:I will be very honest by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      That's lying to them.

      I'm glad you agree.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    24. Re:I will be very honest by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Also, repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true, although it might brainwash the weak-minded.

      I can perfectly control you by telling you the truth: I've got your pet hamster strapped to half a ton of dynamite, and the remote control is in my pocket. Now do as I say, minion.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    25. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. And you would not be the only one. It is to be expected, certainly.

    26. Re:I will be very honest by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      Ah the sweet irony of that paper.. everything he writes is a well constructed lie, he's lying to people about people lying to you to control you, and he does that so he can control them, could this be any more circular?

      Could someone tell me what fallacy of argument this would fall under? Would be nice to know, I only know this as "the Bush argument" as he used this kind of circular thinking to take blame away from himself and put it on others.

    27. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that we know Hubbard was trying to control people. Therefore the document is lies.

    28. Re:I will be very honest by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      Actually there are other means of controling people which are based in eliciting emotion and do not require lying.

      Violence is a pretty damn good example of this. Charm is another one.

    29. Re:I will be very honest by owlstead · · Score: 1

      That [illegible] should have been extended to the entire piece.

    30. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, according to Gödel there is no way to prove the completeness of your worldview from inside your worldview. So until you manage to overturn all of logic, all the people in the world except for me are robots, and I am going to shoot you all if you don't get off my god-damned porch.

    31. Re:I will be very honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, you can control people by telling them someone else is trying to control them, and that only by following you will they be truly free.

      ... which is a lie. Good lying incorporates a foundation of truth.

  5. MPAA Comedy by Superken7 · · Score: 1

    Who is this MPAA comedian guy again?

  6. Moving the earth rather than changing themselves by mykos · · Score: 3, Informative

    No law is adequate, no business is more important, no constitutional right can supersede the wishes of the commercial content industry.

  7. Next Up... by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

    MPAA threatens to disconnect the human race from the internet, citing nothing whatsoever. In other news, the sun continues to rise in the morning.

  8. Like a baby without a bucket! by mapzta · · Score: 1

    Jeebus chribs, they're acting like a stubborn kid who lost his bucket. Lying on the floor, rolling around, screaming on the top of his lungs! Imagine a RIAA baby and a MPAA baby in the same room. Glass would break...

  9. How strange by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

    "mpaa.org has mysteriously disappeared from our searches! That's a shame." - Google

    --
    Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    1. Re:How strange by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't it be funny, though? Imagine if Google did this with others too: "Sorry, but we're not going to include results from people who are currently suing us. Don't shit where you eat!"

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:How strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      either that or Google themselves googlebomb it to display stuff related to "poor loser," "dinosaur," and all the other epithets from these comments

    3. Re:How strange by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it won't happen. It would open the way for law suits for liability providing access to sites. As it is they get sort of a free pass on infringement sites because they don't filter content.

    4. Re:How strange by Stregano · · Score: 2

      No need to make up information there kid: Site removed from the Google index. I guess you are correct, everything is unfiltered and they do not touch any results. Next on iWitness news, Steve Jobs stops wearing turtlenecks

      --
      The world is how you make it
    5. Re:How strange by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      That would be a bit of a dick move and, prima facie, libel no?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  10. Good luck with that... by hodagacz · · Score: 1

    I mean, really MPAA? HAve you disassociated that much from reality?

  11. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The MPAA thinks it controls the internet?

    Excuse me... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  12. Whoopee by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    When push comes to shove, I rather suspect that Google is more than up to the challenge of staring down this "shot off the bow" (more like pissing from the beach).

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Whoopee by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Google had revenues of about $29 billion last year. Sounds impressive, until you realize that just one of the MPAA members (GE*) made over $40 billion in one quarter. Sony also made more than $26 billion in one quarter. There are some pretty big hitters in that group, and if Google went toe-to-toe with them there's no guarantee they would win.

      *I don't think GE's a member anymore, but it's impossible to know for certain how much of their revenue came just from NBC-Universal so it's hard to say what amount Comcast would now have in their coffers thanks to the buy out.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Whoopee by PacoCheezdom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      *I don't think GE's a member anymore, but it's impossible to know for certain how much of their revenue came just from NBC-Universal

      Really?

      Page 34 of GE's 2009 earnings report: Revenues, NBC Universal, $15,436,000,000; Segment Profit, NBC Universal, $2,264,000,000.

      Yeah, it's impossible to know for certain that NBC-Universal made $2 billion in profit last year. Sony Pictures, by the way, collected ¥705,237,000,000 (~ $8 billion) in revenue for FY 2010, and only ¥42,814,000,000 (~ $519 million) in profit; Sony Pictures includes not only MPAA-relevant stuff but TV shows just like NBC-Universal. That's from SONY's annual earnings report, which is admittedly not the first Google result, but whatever, it wasn't that hard to find. (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/ar/2010/index.html)

      When you consider how little of Sony or GE's total revenues have to do with their movie-making divisions, and how much Google's revenues are based on Internet services supposedly threatened by these letters (practically all of Google's revenue) I think you can easily realize how much more money Google would be willing to spend on a fight than the MPAA. That is, if these angry letters Google received had any real meaning other than to try to scare the individuals who usually receive them.

    3. Re:Whoopee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the rest of GE only exists at the pleasure of the US taxpayer.

      GE will be an excellent short on 1/20/13.

    4. Re:Whoopee by corbettw · · Score: 1

      *I don't think GE's a member anymore, but it's impossible to know for certain how much of their revenue came just from NBC-Universal since I'm incredibly lazy

      Really?

      Fine, I fixed my original statement.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  13. lolz by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Oh this is a good one. Listen MPAA, Google will CRUSH you in court.

    1. Re:lolz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony, Disney, Time Warner, News International et al are not that concerned about the small bug tech company in their way.

  14. Re:Moving the earth rather than changing themselve by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 5, Funny

    > No law is adequate, no business is more important, no constitutional right can supersede the wishes of the commercial content industry.

    G'kar, I know your government did some sketchy things to raise money during the Earth-Mimbari war, but speaking for the MPAA? Dude, go back to the arms sales. Much more honorable.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  15. In Soviet Russia... by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

    Victim kills assassin...

  16. Illegal Threats? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although the copyright holders use strong language, these notices are nothing simply warnings, and typically do not lead to legal action.

    Isn't there a term for this? 'Legal Battery' or something? I think if Lawyers could lose their licences to practice over pulling these kinds of stunts then they'd think twice before sending these letters out... or else expect to get paid in advance to do so.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Illegal Threats? by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the word you're looking for is "barratry".

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Illegal Threats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the great thing about barratry, at least from Dante's point of view, from that article:
      "In his Inferno, Canto XXI, Dante places barrators in the Eighth Circle, fifth bolgia of Hell."

      Eighth.. that's pretty low. :) But of course, most deserving.

    3. Re:Illegal Threats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of movie pirates, the term bARRRRRatry might be more appropriate...

    4. Re:Illegal Threats? by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the MPAA critters could use some battery. Preferably with a crowbar. Anyone who has savagely beaten an inferior specimen knows the feeling, ever seen the skin bruising under the strikes? It's an awesome sight. The broken capillaries. The hematoma forming under the tissues. The swelling. Makes you want to hit again on another part of the body only to watch the process again. But the broken bones... I mean, that sharp cracking noise, followed by the yelp of pain. Pure bliss. How can't one love the crowbar?

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    5. Re:Illegal Threats? by syousef · · Score: 1

      I think the word you're looking for is "barratry".

      Sounds like something Dogberry would come up with .

      A salt and barratry

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  17. I for one... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 2

    Would be amused to see all Google Search Results for MPAA point instead to pages on TPB and Demonoid. Spread that link juice around I say. :)

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:I for one... by grub · · Score: 2
      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:I for one... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      And this of course will affect all of Bing's results.

      --
      Huh?
    3. Re:I for one... by dogeatery · · Score: 1

      If this happened, it would be the ultimate troll!

  18. They're serious? They can't be serious. by rockman_x_2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what you're saying here is that there's someone even better capable than Sony in spewing out nuclear-grade stupid? How exactly do they propose to remove Google from the Internet? That's like removing oxygen from the air in an instant. Actually, I have a suggestion for a better course of action for the MPAA: How about just going back to the business of just making decent movies and quit harassing folks entirely? That way, you get products out there people actually care about, and people don't cringe in anger every time they hear mention of your organization in the news. Just a thought.

  19. Bring it on by Xian97 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would like to see them try to take Google to court with their vaults of money instead of single mothers and college kids that can't afford to fight back.

    1. Re:Bring it on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google: Come at me, bro!

  20. Re:MPAA Comedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Iraqi Information Minister

  21. Wow... Just... Wow... by EEGeek · · Score: 0

    I guess you learn something everyday... I didn't know that the MPAA were the keepers of the Internet and have the power to decide who can and can't access the internet.

    I, for one, welcome our new Internet Overlords!

    1. Re:Wow... Just... Wow... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new Internet Overlords!

      They've been here all along. Their name is Google!

  22. More than they can chew by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    I think the MPAA *should* attack Google with everything they can muster. Because once Google breaks their impetuous arrogant charge dead in its tracks with its Great Wall of Lawyers, the rest of us can breathe a little easier.

    1. Re:More than they can chew by ocdscouter · · Score: 2

      The questions is, who is secretly in possession of the Greater Wall of Lawyers (of +3 Litigation)?

  23. Re:MPAA Comedy by grub · · Score: 1


    The MPAA? They're the people Bing are paying to have Google knocked offline.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  24. friendly advice to the *AAs: by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:friendly advice to the *AAs: by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      REV 13:4

      So the internet is the dragon, and Google is the beast? At least I'm pretty sure we're all saying something to the effect of "Who can make war with Google?" and Google is given it's power and it's seat by the internet.

    2. Re:friendly advice to the *AAs: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is incidental in this. Mr Ghonim just happens to be a marketing manager for them as a day job.
       
      Google had nothing to do with the Egypt uprising. This was all on the Egyptians, and bravo to them for doing it.
       
      You lessen their struggle by suggesting otherwise.

  25. Hey Google by MrEricSir · · Score: 0

    YOU DONE GOOFED

    Sincerely,
      - MPAA

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Hey Google by sconeu · · Score: 1
      Dear MPAA,

      Fuck off.

      Sincerely,
      - Google

      ObDisclaimer: I am currently not affiliated with Google in any way, shape, or form, except as a user of their products. This post is intended as social commentary only. IANAL. YMMV.

      (OT why do I have to use <em> tags instead of <i> tags?)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Hey Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (OT why do I have to use <em> tags instead of <i> tags?)

      I am not sure why slashdot is enforcing the deprecation of <i> when I do not think it is deprecated by the W3C. I just found this interesting wiki which discusses the situations where <i> should be used. It encourages users to consider whether <em> or <dfn> would be more appropriate. The second one was interesting and new to me: it is used for a page's defining instance of a term. So, italics are used for at least two semantically-distinct purposes: stress emphasis and term definition. Instead of having one tag fulfill both roles, they have separated them out.

      I can see this being useful for translation and automatic processing. If you were making an index or glossary, for instance, you would be interested in <dfn> but not <em>. On the other hand, if you were feeding the document into a speech synthesizer, perhaps for the deaf, you might have the computer's voice stress the <em>s but speak the <dfn>s normally.

      But of course, this is the argument for the tags in HTML, not on slashdot: in my first paragraph, "stress emphasis" and "term definition" are both surrounded by <dfn> tags, but they are not rendered that way. Perhaps this will be implemented at the same time as unicode support.

    3. Re:Hey Google by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      http://htmlhelp.com/reference/wilbur/phrase/em.html

      been that way since I handcoded my first web page back at college. *wipes tear for the good ol' days*

  26. News? Olds! by ktetch-pirate · · Score: 1

    This story, is basically a reprint of a story from last week. Not exactly new any more http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-snags-google-downloading-torrents-threatens-to-disconnect-110205/

  27. Doing it all wring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you need to go after the studios and the products of those studios

    Google needs to make searches for Harry Potter and the like to point instead to an independent movie of the same genre.

    1. Re:Doing it all wring by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The Asylum's low-budget knockoff of Sherlock Holmes was, IMO, better than the big-budget movie. Though this is in part due to the terrible writing of the big-budget one. Plus the Asylum version has a giant steampunk mechanical dragon, which automatically makes it cool.

  28. HAH! by z3pp3h · · Score: 0

    Please, try it. I've been needing a good laugh for a long, long time.

  29. Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they have it backwards. Should be "the Internet might get disconnected from Google."

    One wonders how the MPAA would FIND anyone to sue without Google available to them.

  30. It's funny by frozentier · · Score: 1

    In a lot of ways, Google almost IS the internet. At least they are trying to be. I can not express how laughable this whole thing is.

  31. I hope they do it by mostermand · · Score: 1

    The resulting outrage would be the end of MPAA.

  32. Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by peterofoz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Why should Google take this seriously? Because the RIAA and MPAA have managed to get a 'man inside' the DoJ and to harness the power of federal government to protect their interests under the guise of movies and songs being a national security issue (via Customs and Border Patrol).

    http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/19/riaa-attorney-appointed-to-top-doj-position/id=1594/

    1. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>>RIAA and MPAA have managed to get a 'man inside' the DoJ and to harness the power of federal government to protect their interests under the guise of movies and songs being a national security issue

      Or as Thom. Jefferson wisely foresaw ~220 years ago:

      "Copyrights of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent. And it being possible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good." - He must have used a crystal ball to see RIAA and MPAA colluding with the government to protect their assopoly,.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 2

      The difference between this and the MPAA's usual schtick is that when they take down a pirate hosting site, people say "Hey, they were doing bad illegal things." Here, one of the biggest sites on the internet disappears, and Ma Average throws a fit because she can't find her Facebooks.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    3. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh please, if the DHS really did seize the Google domain name, that would wake America up from it's pop-culture induced stupidity coma. So many folks that access the internet daily rely on Google it's not even funny. If the DHS seized the Google domains, that means gmail would be down, the search engine would be down, YouTube would probably be affected negatively, Google books would be down, Google image search, etc. etc. etc. That type of content probably accounts for more than half the activity of Americans on the internet. Add to that the fact that some business actually use Gmail and Google Docs for official business, and you have a recipe for disaster.

      If, all of the sudden, Americans woke up one day and found Google (mind you, Amazon, Facebook, and a few other web presences would have a similar effect) gone, they would go into a frothing mad rage. As soon as one person pointed a finger at Hollywood or the DHS, you'd have a God damned holy war on your hands. We Americans are certainly passive little government lap dogs as long as we have a steady soma dose of useless crap pumped into our veins via T.V. and the internet. But if you cut off that IV, you will learn really quick like just how much rage a bunch of pissed off house wives that can no longer access their lolcats pictures can generate.

    4. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by oracleguy01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If, all of the sudden, Americans woke up one day and found Google (mind you, Amazon, Facebook, and a few other web presences would have a similar effect) gone, they would go into a frothing mad rage. As soon as one person pointed a finger at Hollywood or the DHS, you'd have a God damned holy war on your hands. We Americans are certainly passive little government lap dogs as long as we have a steady soma dose of useless crap pumped into our veins via T.V. and the internet. But if you cut off that IV, you will learn really quick like just how much rage a bunch of pissed off house wives that can no longer access their lolcats pictures can generate.

      "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people – as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..." - Quark

    5. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Oh please, if the DHS really did seize the Google domain name, that would wake America up from it's pop-culture induced stupidity coma.

      You have way too much faith in my fellow countrymen.
      More likely they would, in their stupidity coma, demand some Google exec's head on a pole (or the modern-day equivalent, 7400 years in jail), with televised court proceedings.

    6. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by HuckleCom · · Score: 1

      Amen. And I hope something similar happens so the government quits bedhopping with corporations for lobby cash.

    7. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent post and really highlights how the MS business model has failed on the Interwebs.

    8. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by Crackez · · Score: 1

      All I have to say is 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4, iirc.

      I wonder how many people point to that instead of their ISPs' nameservers?
      Seizing the google.com domain would do very little except piss off a lot of ISPs, who now have a complainer in every customer. They would figure out how to make it resolve properly very quickly, and the DHS can go find a root server and cram it where google street view can't see... (dhs - what a waste of tax $$)

    9. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by gambino21 · · Score: 1

      It was actually Madison who wrote this, although I can't find a definitive on-line source. It's worth reading the full essay. It's always surprising to me the depth of understanding the founders seemed to have in certain areas. A depth which seems completely lacking in most of today's politicians.

    10. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, Bread and Circuses:

      Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.


      - Satire X, Juvenal, (c) 100 A.D.

    11. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, if the US authorities were serious about getting rid of Google, they could just DNS redirect it to a more "friendly" service, like Bing. I doubt most people would care that much, or even notice anything major, other than the different look.
      And no, I'm not making a recursion joke.

    12. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they all go to Bing or Yahoo. Let's be for real - most folks would just go to another site - their friends on facebook or twitter will let them know about the other search engines, then it's mostly business as usual. I have serious doubts that the revolution would be fought over Google, given how many other things have been ignored in the US.

    13. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by masterwit · · Score: 1

      Although your comment is a bit further down, this is the first one that I see addressing the core of the issue. Will Google ever be taken offline? - no. The fundamental problem does not lie with the MPAA's [business] goals, but rather the way they seek to promote their stance and agenda. Props to you peterofoz, this is not a national security issue and never will be...this is how what we should be telling our [ignorant] politicians and the court system. (Now the MPAA themselves may be a national security "issue" but that is a whole other ballgame...)

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    14. Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Society is no longer three meals away from anarchy."
       
      ~ s/meals/episodes of Britain's Got Talent/;

  33. "extortion"? by v1 · · Score: 1

    I've never understood why this is not considered extortion under the law? Isn't that where you notify someone they're breaking the law and you will go to the police unless they pay you? How do these 'settlement letters' they like to do not get classified as extortion? Or is this a civil law vs criminal law thing? extortion is legal for civil law?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:"extortion"? by techoi · · Score: 1

      ianal, but it sure seems that the MPAA, RIAA, and the rest of their ilk rarely ever let this stuff come to any kind of actual trial. Anytime it appears that the extorted is someone that has a legal foot to stand on, the *AA will do almost anything to avoid an actual trial and judge where some precedent could be set. Probably because that precedent would provide some kind of legal muzzle on the *AA activities.

    2. Re:"extortion"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but here is something to think about:

      US law changes are proposed by politicians and former lawyers. These individuals know that for lawsuits to succeed w/minimum fuss they must sue someone other than lawyers, so they do not go against companies as much as against large groups of [by default] lawyer-less individuals. Since lawyers and politicians rarely need to protect themselves from direct suits, then why would they even think about creating laws regarding extortion?

  34. Summary by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

    "these notices are nothing simply warnings, and typically do not lead to legal action."

    Eh? I'm having trouble understand this sentence, is the summary nothing simply written bad?

    I read about this a few days ago, I seem to remember its pretty much a standard template of a letter automatically sent out, so I don't know how much should be read into it.

  35. there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    when they made movies that were seen in cinema houses, which people bought tickets too. how quaint and historic

    oh wait!

    that's not history: the most profitable movie ever made, "avatar", just made a mint, less than a year ago, excluding all dvd sales. they made a massive profit in these quaint historic relics called "cinemas"

    the cinema house is not a historic relic. it still works as a solid revenue generator and business model. i'm certain some strange gollum like creatures are happy watching movies alone in their cold basement on a 17 inch screen, but most of will go drive or walk to the cinema and pay to see movies, even with the cell phones and babies and expensive popcorn, its still a superior experience. they've even done sociological studies that all the oohs and aahs in the theatre alongside you in the dark heightens the movie going experience: we're social creatures, that someone else is crying or laughing or afraid heightens your enjoyment. it's the same sociology that drives people to go to church: shared emotional experience equals enjoyment (i know, this is probably the wrong website to talk about this social phenomenon)

    cinemas, in other words, with the latest in IMAX tech, with their huge screens: you can't recreate that at home. cinema is a solid business. they said cinema houses were dead... in the 1950s. tv was supposed to kill them, it didn't. vhs tape was supposed to kill them, it didn't. and now the internet is supposed to kill the cinema. guess what: it's not. profits have been going up and up and up, no dvd sales, no internet streaming or cable deals needed

    the mpaa is not protecting its existence, its protecting its dvd cash cow (which is already dying) and other cable deals/ internet ways to stream movies

    but if they limited themselves to revenue just from theatres, and DID THEIR FUCKING JOB and protected the movie files form being pirated/ stolen from cinema houses... guess what? they would still make plenty of money to fund plenty of moviemaking from cinema houses. imagine that!

    so basically: fuck you mpaa. stay in your cinema house, and don't mess with the internet. assholes

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there once was a time by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Avatar made money only because it was a first of the new technology of 3d. It has zero re-watch-ability so DVD sales will be dismal at best. Plus 3d has been horribly half-assed cince then as most films are shot in 2d and 3d version faked so the theater experience is utterly crappy compared to avatar.

      Avatar made money because of the hype and newness of the latest iteration of 3d. if it was not 1st out of the gate it would NOT have done as well.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:there once was a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      its protecting its dvd cash cow (which is already dying)

      And it did this by raising prices across the board on new releases. Lo-and-behold sales went down but profit remained semi flat to slightly up.

      I buy used or wait until the bargain bin. I am not paying 30 bucks for a bluray when I can get the dvd for 20 or wait and in 3 months get it for 5-10 bucks, or just rent it for a couple of bucks, or get it from netflix...

      It is called not being price competitive. It is what is imploding the CD market.

      Also Star wars still hasnt made a dime. So even though they rake in cash, they claim to take huge losses. All so they can avoid paying the people who actually make the movie and taxes (mostly this last one).

      These dudes are in one HUGE tax dodge. Funny how the IRS doesnt look into it.

    3. Re:there once was a time by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      The problem is that directors and some actors expect to be paid a ungodly sum of money to make movies. I say some, because many actors never "make it big" in the business. The process of making a movie now involves hundreds of people, consultants, stunt and pyro people, lawyers, advertising and marketing folks that since everyone wants a piece of the pie, the prices to go see a movie keep increasing evermore ditto PPV, retail DVD/Blu-ray and rentals.

      I would care more for Hollywood productions if they made more feel-good movies and not these super high budget productions. My favorite movies in the last 10 years or so are all Direct to Video, likely have small production costs, are entertaining and I've generally bought the discs (albeit used or on sale) and not regretted the purchase. I know about the big-budget type movies. You don't have to advertise those anymore people KNOW about them already and I do watch them in the theater. Spend more money advertising the little heard about movies people might want to buy instead.

      MPAA also spending money advertising movies as though they are music - watch hundreds of times. I dunno about others, but I play CDs at least 50 times or more, but there aren't any movies I've watched 50 times (maybe Ferris Bueler's Day Off being the exception!).

    4. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      i purposefully did not mention 3D in the comment you are replying to because i think 3D is a stupid fad:

      http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/01/25/2231254/3D-Cinema-Doesnt-Work-and-Never-Will

      (look who submitted that story to slashdot)

      avatar is a good movie, well done. i saw it in theatres twice: in 3D, and not in 3D. both times were enjoyable stories. 3D had nothing to do with how good a movie avatar was, how well it did. it simply boosted sales numbers because there's a premium on 3D ticket prices. but even without that premium ticket cost avatar was a groundbreaking movie (the computer animation) and it was a story by james cameron that was greatly anticipated

      the story was as good as cameron's other efforts like titanic and terminator. i know that there's a lot of mindless hate on the internet, and it makes a few strange gollum like creatures feel good about themselves by saying avatar sucks, for some ill defined ego reason. but its complete bullshit: avatar is a good movie, period, no 3D need apply to qualify that statement, and no stupid internet hate need apply. who says? not me. sales figures say so

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:there once was a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superior experience? That's subjective. No, it's more a lack of competition for new releases. Release that new blockbuster on cable and streaming on the Internet and see which method of viewing people prefer.

    6. Re:there once was a time by profplump · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly possible to recreate the same field-of-vision of a typical IMAX screen at home. All you need is a half-decent projector, something to project on, and 4 seconds of math to find out how far away you should sit. It's not even ridiculous expensive -- if you're not concerned about brightness you can get a 1080p projector for a couple of grand. And a 1080x1920 projector is not a whole lot less resolution than the 2k horizontal resolution offered in most theaters (including those that use IMAX film prints, as virtually all big-budget films are scanned at 2k). And with a projector you don't even have to dedicate a room to the thing -- mount it on the wall, roll up the screen when you're not using it, and you can do this in your dining room.

      There are reasons to go to the theater, but "better technical experience than home" is quickly becoming irrelevant. Yes, not everyone wants to spend money on a high-quality home theater rig. But most of those people also wouldn't spend more for a ticket at a high-quality conventional cinema either, and likely wouldn't be bothered by the smaller size or lower technical quality of a cheaper home rig in the first place.

    7. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      you are referring to hollywood accounting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

      and i agree, i don't understand why that racket hasn't been broken up

      the mpaa is just a mafia like goon squad of lawyers, a subset of hollywood accounting. bust the racket up, shut down these assholes

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:there once was a time by WeatherServo9 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Avatar made money only because it was a first of the new technology of 3d. It has zero re-watch-ability so DVD sales will be dismal at best.

      Dismal at best? Avatar-DVD-and-Blu-ray-smash-sales-records or how about 'Avatar' DVD sells big, despite paltry two dimensions or Avatar Crushes Yet Another Record: DVD and Blu-Ray Sales. Just a few random links, google revealed quite a few saying the same thing. I'm sure some people bought a copy and then regretted it, but it seems a lot people didn't seem to mind (or didn't expect to mind) the lack of 3D.

    9. Re:there once was a time by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      avatar is a good movie, well done.

      Um, no, it's a butt-numbingly extended remake of 'Pocahontas: dancing with smurfs'. 3D is about the only thing I can imagine it might have had going for it.

      Cardboard characters, nonsensical plot, stupid technology and blatant CGI hardly make what I'd call a good movie. If Cameron had cut out two hours it might have been a watchable movie.

    10. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      let's put it this way:

      if they released a movie, for free, on the internet, at the same time as they released it in theatres, they would still make a huge profit in theatres, because the experience of watching at home is simply not the same. of course it would hurt sales, so they won't do that, but you understand my point (or at least i hope you do): the cinema house is not going away. it is part of the movie enjoying experience. you may not appreciate that, but tv, vhs, and internet has not killed the cinema yet, so maybe that simple fact means something to you. i don't care how much you've gussied up your home theatre system, it can't compete with imax

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      i'm glad for you and the 3 other hobbyists who will try that. but my comments have to do with the other 99.9999% of movie goers

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    12. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Troll

      you know what? every single movie, book, or play ever made can be described as derivative of something that came before. even going back to shakespeare: he was "ripping off" the ancient greeks. everything is derivative of everything else, so all you are demonstrating is that you don't know what "original" really means. "original" means a well told story, a story that has similarities to hundreds of other stories similar to it

      but i'm not going to place my word against your word, because you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with sales figures and one of the most successful directors in the history of cinema. who the hell are you? just another easily negative self-appointed expert on the internet. you're a dime a dozen. whenever someone experiences success, the haters come out of the woodwork. typical, pointless. so i'm glad you didn't like avatar. who fucking cares? sales figures say otherwise, and sales figures rule. sorry

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    13. Re:there once was a time by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      Funny, if MPAA took Google off the internet you wouldn't have been able to find out how many truckloads of cash they made off Avatar ;)

    14. Re:there once was a time by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

      1080p is roughly 1/4 of the pixel count of a 2K scanned movie. Big project movies are scanned at 4K for at least some scenes. IMAX uses a 3D domed projection screen to give you close to 180 degrees viewing angle. Try recreating that with a flat screen at home.

      --
      I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    15. Re:there once was a time by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      avatar is a good movie, well done. i saw it in theatres twice... both times were enjoyable stories....the story was as good as cameron's other efforts like titanic and terminator. i know that there's a lot of mindless hate on the internet, and it makes a few strange gollum like creatures feel good about themselves by saying avatar sucks, for some ill defined ego reason. but its complete bullshit: avatar is a good movie, period, no 3D need apply to qualify that statement, and no stupid internet hate need apply. who says? not me. sales figures say so

      So not liking this movie means that I'm somehow deficient—a "hater", even. If your measure of whether or not a person is good consists of "likes the same movies as me", then I'd say that's a pretty trivial criterion that might, just might, lead you astray from time to time. I'll leave your lesser solecism—that art is judged by sales figures—untouched.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    16. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      art is judged by sales figures, sales figures is the only opinion that matters

      everything else is subjective, and therefore pointless. sales figures is the only valid means we have of judging quality objectively. any other discussion we could have on the topic is my opinion versus your opinion. in fact, that's what every single discussion about movie quality amounts to, subjectively: a pissing contest

      therefore, how do you judge movie quality objectively? and there is only one way to do that: money talks, bullshit walks. sales figures. if people are willing to pony up cash to plant their butts in seats, then you have the only objective measure of movie quality available. everything else is subjective bullshit

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:there once was a time by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      hey, the IRS are the ones that got Capone!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    18. Re:there once was a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol - I'm not sure where you are getting your information - but
      Our basements (though not always basements) are warm, happy places filled with 7.2 surround sound, huge screens (when you take into account seating distance, our home screens be they 50" plasma/lcd or 100" projected are proportionally much larger than the typical megaplex view).
      We don't have kids chatting on mobiles, kicking the backs of our seats - and if we have a crying baby - we can pause the movie, care to their needs and then pickup where we left off.
      We can have our selection of tasty treats without paying massive markups
      We still can share these benefits with our friends, family. And "necking in the back row at the picture show" goes on and on and on :D

      Why are you going to the cinema again?

    19. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes, and this has been true since the 1950s with tv. and yet cinema is not dead. i'm glad you don't go to the cinema house anymore, but you have to accept that, even with the choices you cite that have been around for 60 years, people are still going to the cinema

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:there once was a time by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      I think he was arguing that the movies success was based on novelty and not quality, which is a fair argument. I personally disagree, I liked the movie Avatar before I knew you could even see it in 3d. whats not to like about wheelchair bound soldier having weird hair sex with a dragon bird?

    21. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no man. weird hair sex with a sentient soul tree (fap fap fap fap fap...)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    22. Re:there once was a time by Cederic · · Score: 1

      the story was as good as cameron's other efforts like titanic and terminator.

      The story sucked large overweight donkeys. Whether it was better or worse than other Cameron films doesn't alter the fact that it was pathetically formulaic and had shite dialogue.

      who says? not me. sales figures say so

      Pirates of the Carribean had massive sales figures. So did its sequels. All of them are shit films.
      Sales figures are not an indicator of quality. Particularly in the film industry.

      Avatar had some great effects and portrayed a fantastic world. For those reasons it was quite a good film. If it had been better acted and had a remotely good script it could have been a great film, but it didn't, even if lots of people did buy into the hype and go and see it.

    23. Re:there once was a time by Cederic · · Score: 1

      art is judged by sales figures, sales figures is the only opinion that matters

      Art and sales figures have absolutely fuck all to do with each other. How many times has the Mona Lisa - one of the most recognisable, most celebrated, most admired works of art in existence - been sold?

      everything else is subjective

      Welcome to the world of art.

      therefore, how do you judge movie quality objectively?

      I don't, I happily apply subjective measures. I certainly don't use sales figures to measure artistic merit because sales are fuck all to do with artistry. There is no objective link.

      Lets not argue about this. You go and watch the highest grossing films and I'll go and watch the good ones. Sometimes we may even see the same film but you'll miss out on some of the best cinema ever made.

    24. Re:there once was a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "avatar", just made a mint

      Hollywood's accountants beg to differ.

    25. Re:there once was a time by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      bullshit

    26. Re:there once was a time by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>avatar is a good movie, well done.
      >>it was a story by james cameron that was greatly anticipated

      Mod parent +5 Funny.

    27. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the difference between myself and say the asshole who has an ego problem and must tell everyone how much "avatar" sucks is that i know my tastes are my own and bear no relation to anyone else's tastes. the films that i like i know mean nothing to you, and i expect them to mean nothing to you. my subjective grade of quality means nothing to you, and i don't expect it to. that's honesty

      meanwhile, i have a very serious problem with people who have a need to insist their subjective grades must be known by all. its a character weakness. its elitism. its not honest. its contrived if it is so shallow an experience for you it must be broadcast to the world. a movie that truly effects someone deeply, that is something private, it is not broadcast

      i trust the common man. i do not trust aesthetes, feeling superior based on nothing but feedback from others like them who have a need to feel superior based on arbitrary reasons. its a subculture, an echo chamber. its not about real quality, its about trendiness based on nothing "the emperor's new clothes" scenarios

      the common man is humble. his tastes are honest and real. lack of humility in your tastes only signals to me that i am wasting my time talking to you, because the conversation is about you feeling good about yourself for your "superior tastes". i don't want to talk you, and i have already discounted your opinions

      so i trust no opinion save one: the box office. because it is honest, and real. every other opinion of quality is tarnished by character weakness in my eyes and repulses me

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    28. Re:there once was a time by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      you know what? every single movie, book, or play ever made can be described as derivative of something that came before, even going back to ... the ancient greeks

      So quit posting. If all of humanity after Socrates couldn't come up with something original, you sure as hell can't.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    29. Re:there once was a time by Cederic · · Score: 1

      so i trust no opinion save one: the box office. because it is honest, and real. every other opinion of quality is tarnished by character weakness in my eyes and repulses me

      Good to know you reject entirely a film like The Shawshank Redemption, a film that flopped at the box office.

      Must be entirely coincidence that many peoples high subjective rating of the film happens in this instance to be backed up by phenomenal video and DVD sales, which have assured significant profits to the film makers.

      Methinks the character weakness isn't in those that look beyond mere box office receipts..

    30. Re:there once was a time by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      IMAX uses a 3D domed projection screen to give you close to 180 degrees viewing angle. Try recreating that with a flat screen at home.

      IMAX Dome (formerly called OMNIMAX) uses a dome-shaped screen. Every non-OMNIMAX IMAX theater I've ever been in has a flat screen.

    31. Re:there once was a time by ChromeBallz · · Score: 1

      Cinema revenue has been increasing because of the higher price point of 3D movies, and the general increase in ticket prices. Add the recent (very high) inflation to this, and you'll notice that all the numbers Hollywood accountants are bragging about are actually a solid indicator of the movie industry going south, fast.

      Roger Ebert has been a staunch opponent of 3D, and while he's not the most important man in the industry, his word carries a lot of weight with much of the movie going audience. If such a prominent figure takes up arms against it you can bet that more people will do so, and soon. Add to that the recent reports of how the current implementation of 3D is actually harmful to the human eye and you've got an avalanche waiting to happen.

      What's even more, independant movies are on the rise and studios with little to no input from their parent companies (like, for instance, Pixar) are proving to be much more succesful in the long run than any of the execs' own creations - They have been relying on licensed franchises for their money for a long time now, exceptions such as Inception or Avatar not withstanding. This only shows how desperate Hollywood has become.

      Not to mention that the (video)games industry has overtaken Hollywood by a not-so-inconsiderable margin. It says a lot when your product is being outsold by a supposed children's toy to the same audience you're trying to sell your 'works of art' to.

      Oh, and Farmville has been more profitable than Avatar.

      Cinemas as they are now are on their way out. They will still exist, but in a far more specialized manner. They will get more expensive, but in return you'll get a better experience. They will get rarer, but the quality will go up.

      That is, if the film industry finally realizes it's entered the new millenium over a decade ago and starts to reform it's business accordingly.

    32. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i said "money talks, bullshit walks". in the realm of the cinema house, that's box office receipts. in the larger realm, there are a number of ways money shows objective patronage, from art auctions to record or concert ticket sales, to dvd sales

      so why do you think you contradict me when you only broaden and strengthen what i am saying?

      my thesis here is that financial performance is the only true objective measure of quality. you've supported that assertion by pointing to dvd profits from the 1990s. i thank you for furthering my argument

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    33. Re:there once was a time by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I love how your thesis keeps changing as I pull holes in it.

      Lets take Transformers II.
      Accept that it's a steaming pile of (well marketed) shit and your theory falls flat.
      State that it's a great film because it had massive box office sales, and the discussion is immediately forced into examining your mental state.

      Maybe you do have to use financial reward as a measure because you lack any artistic appreciation. That still doesn't explain why your theory states that any artwork that is not commercially exploited is worse than the streak on the pavement left by someone slipping over on a turd left by an asthmatic dog.

      Clearly an indefensible position, yet one you cling to.

      bullshit walks

      Remember to take a break regularly, you're going to wear out your shoes soon.

    34. Re:there once was a time by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      "Accept that it's a steaming pile of (well marketed) shit and your theory falls flat."

      i stopped reading there

      you are certain the movie sucks. good for you. i saw the movie. it was entertaining on a flash and fury level, not an intellectual level

      but on what basis is shallow entertainment inferior to deep entertainment? i also saw the shawshank redemption. excellent movie on a deep level

      i appreciate both movies for what they are, in separate niches of entertainment. i have no need to criticize shawshank's lack of cgi awesomeness, i have no need to criticize transformer's lack of moving introspection

      is "wall-e" a poor movie because it doesn't scare you? is "the ring" a poor movie because kids can't watch it? no, both movies are good, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. the same is true of shawshank, the same is true of transformers. the error you make is saying all movies have to be deep intellectual odysseys. no, bullshit. there is a valid place for empty eye candy, and it is just as valid a form of entertainment as shawshank

      if you were a horror movie buff, how would you criticize wall-e? if you were a children's movie buff, how would you criticize the ring? you would do neither. meanwhile, if you were a cosmopolitan person who realized not one type of movie satisfies everyone, you would realize there is a valid place for horror, kid's movies, empty eye candy, and moving intellectual fare in the cinema house, all at the same time. and to criticize all movies from the point of view of only one subgenre would be ignorant. that's you

      i can simply appreciate ALL TYPES of movies for what they are: good movies, in their own right, so says the movie going public, according to their financial outlays, which is the only objective measure of value possible, completely sweeping aside your subjective bullshit

      i'm sorry meanwhile that you are so narrow minded that you think your appreciation for your subculture is the only valid point of view to critique art. nope, you fail except in the realm of arrogance, where you think your private opinions are superior to everyone' elses opinions, according to their pocketbooks. elitism is defeated by populism. sorry

      money talks, bullshit walks

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    35. Re:there once was a time by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      1080p is roughly 1/4 of the pixel count of a 2K scanned movie. Big project movies are scanned at 4K for at least some scenes. IMAX uses a 3D domed projection screen to give you close to 180 degrees viewing angle. Try recreating that with a flat screen at home.

      Actually, in this order: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

      1080p is 1920 horizontal lines compared to Cinema 2k at 2048. Vertical resolution is about the same (due to aspect ratio differences). Actual number of pixels is generally very close.

      Most movies are not scanned at 4k. And of those filmed digitally, most are not filmed at 4k, and are instead filmed at 1080p. Many movies that have 4k scenes have 1080p scenes that are upres'd. And finally, you are mistaking IMAX surround screens (the half domes) with IMAX 3D screens (which are a lot different, and not half domes). And replicating an almost flat screen viewing situation with a flat screen viewing situation isn't that difficult. And that's assuming the homeowner does not have a curved screen.

    36. Re:there once was a time by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Lol - I'm not sure where you are getting your information - but Our basements (though not always basements) are warm, happy places filled with 7.2 surround sound, huge screens (when you take into account seating distance, our home screens be they 50" plasma/lcd or 100" projected are proportionally much larger than the typical megaplex view). We don't have kids chatting on mobiles, kicking the backs of our seats - and if we have a crying baby - we can pause the movie, care to their needs and then pickup where we left off. We can have our selection of tasty treats without paying massive markups We still can share these benefits with our friends, family. And "necking in the back row at the picture show" goes on and on and on :D

      Why are you going to the cinema again?

      Mine's in the back yard. It's only 17'x13' though (masked for 16:9 and 16:10 content), and run with a Barco projector that does HD. Though, I must admit, we only have a 5.1 surround system. But at 15' away, the screen might as well be a lot bigger.

    37. Re:there once was a time by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Cinema revenue has been increasing because of the higher price point of 3D movies, and the general increase in ticket prices....

      Mostly wrong (and in effect, entirely wrong). Ticket prices have went up in most markets a whopping dollar (maybe $2) in the last 5 years. That's an extra TEN CENTS for the cinema per ticket. And I guarantee you that the rental charge on the movies (paid to the studios) went up and eats that away and then some.

      A cinema pays to get the movie, then the cinema also pays usually 90% of the receipts to the studio for a number of weeks. Then that figure goes to 80%, and slowly goes down (at about the point no one is watching the movie).

      Now, preferential treatment is also given to theaters with certain setups (this certified sound system, or that certified projection system) - which also means constant upgrade costs to the newest (insert tech here... 5.1-> 5.1 extended -> 7.1 -> on and on... or going to the new digital systems).

      There really is a reason why popcorn is so expensive. Take it from someone with inside information into how it works... or go research it yourself.

  36. Disconnecting Google.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you cut the Google's connection, you are not disconnecting Google from Internet, you are disconnecting Internet from Google.

  37. lets see by luther349 · · Score: 1

    yesterday they are sueing a genrec http host. today they make a totally empty threat to google. mpaa is not the fcc they have no control over the internet. hell even the court system is getting sick of the thousands of subpoenas there getting everyday. to me this is a good thing when they start affecting the rich people change happens for the better. when they where suing poor people who could not pay the insane judgments nobody cared.

  38. This is the USA by Adam+Appel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can send a letter saying anything you want, that letter in and of itself is irrelevant (with some extreme exceptions). I got a letter demand for cash from a lawyer who said my "corporate vail would be pierced" and I would have to pay him anyway. Point of fact, other then some attempts to slander me and a quick consult with the international law firm my liability insurance payed for (they take it very seriously) I never heard from that lawyer again.

    --
    They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
    1. Re:This is the USA by luther349 · · Score: 1

      heh yea they attempt that crap all the time with insurance. i live in a no fault state and some chick tryed to sue me. i got your standard threat letter.so i called him this chick lived in ny btw and i told him mi is no fault she can make no such clams the insurance covered everything. and told him to bring it on. i never herd from him again.

    2. Re:This is the USA by HuckleCom · · Score: 1

      "corporate vail would be pierced"

      Sounds dirty.

      and a quick consult with the international law firm my liability insurance payed for (they take it very seriously) I never heard from that lawyer again.

      'never heard from', as in snapped in half in a mud-buried barrel in the Euphrates?

  39. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just speculate for a minute - let's assume they pull their Evil Puppet String, call someone on the Purple Phone, and Voila, Google is faced with a cease and desist from doing business on the net. Just here in dreamland, suppose it is as easy as what Egypt pulled.

    Would that be enough for the revolt to kick off real change? Would the frog finally notice it's been boiling?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  40. MPAA - Take your ball and go home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could last longer and be happier without the movie industry on the internet then I can without Google.

  41. Re:Greater by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    **AA hits the stack Last In First Out with a +8 Corruption.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  42. Thankyou MPAA! by JustNiz · · Score: 4

    Thank you MPAA for being stupid enough to poke the sleeping bear.
    Finally you've picked a fight with someone big enough to defend themselves against your usual bully tactics.
    I hope Google effortlessly disembowels you. It couldn't happen to a more deserving institution (other than the RIAA).

    1. Re:Thankyou MPAA! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Google has done this before. They get a notice for youtube, they take shit down, they get a complaint, they put it back up, they are now clear of the law. Some asshole (Viacomm) came back to bitch, Google told them, "Hey. HEY! Fuck you! We did what we're supposed to! You can shove it!"

  43. Refuse to serve YouTube to IP address(es) of MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming here that it is within a business owners right to refuse access to any particular person. An example would be a bar owner asking me to leave and not return to his/her establishment and having me charged with trespassing if I do. So could Google, or any business entity with a website identify specific people (based on IP address) and notify them that they are no longer welcome at the companies website and then either block those IP addresses are bring them up on charges of trespassing if they did 'return'?

  44. By what authority? by fredjh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By what authority does the MPAA have the power to disconnect ANYONE from the internet?

    --
    Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:By what authority? by Bratmon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bribe money, the highest authority in the land.

    2. Re:By what authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the authority of the Unicorn and Fairy Council of course.

    3. Re:By what authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By what authority does the MPAA have the power to disconnect ANYONE from the internet?

      Same as any other special interest group does. If you want to win, you have to raise more money than your adversary. If your adversary is wealthy, well then you are a bad person and deserve to lose! Next you will ask why does Congress listen more to Walmart and China than it does to the US middle class. Really?

    4. Re:By what authority? by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      I've been saying for years that if We The People want some representation in government, we really need to pool our funds and hire a powerful lobbying firm to represent us!

    5. Re:By what authority? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      By what authority does the MPAA have the power to disconnect ANYONE from the internet?

      The DMCA.
      It requires ISPs to have a policy for disconnecting repeat infringers or the ISP can lose its safe harbor status.

      17 USC 512 (i)
      (1) Accommodation of technology. -- The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider --

          (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and

      In other words, the MPAA can tell Google's upstream ISP to cut them off or be held liable.
      Of course, I've never seen a description of what "appropriate circumstances" are.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:By what authority? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 2

      Google has an ISP?

    7. Re:By what authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the authority granted them via the DHS.

    8. Re:By what authority? by syousef · · Score: 1

      By what authority does the MPAA have the power to disconnect ANYONE from the internet?

      Chuck Norris!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    9. Re:By what authority? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Legally and constitutionally, absolutely none.

      Realistically, they could lobby for a law that imposes even more draconian penalties on distributors of copyrighted content. They could sue Google SCO style and force Google to fritter away money by stalling in court. They could call up their old buddy in Justice and ask him to file IRS charges on Google, or even just open an investigation. They could give Microsoft or Apple cushy contract deals on content while locking out Google entirely. All of these are not unprecedented, not even in America-- they only need to look up past cases to find examples. Some of them are illegal (asking for false investigation, anti-trust behavior), some are not but clearly unethical (lobbying), but if the MPAA really wants to hurt Google, I'm sure they'll eat the punishment and take Google down with them.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    10. Re:By what authority? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the MPAA can tell Google's upstream ISP to cut them off or be held liable.

      Does Google even have "an upstream ISP"? I could imagine them having none or many (Google owns backbone infrastructure, right?), but a single ISP which the MPAA could address seems absurd.

    11. Re:By what authority? by fredjh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the MPAA doesn't have the authority to demand anything... a judge might, but they'd have to prove their case first.

      --
      Stupid, sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:By what authority? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Ummm, it's OSP or ISP. And Google is both an OSP and ISP. These incidents are ones where Google is protected as an OSP (or ISP) *BY* the DMCA. These letters were written for end-user Internet users, not for an OSP or ISP.

      In case you don't understand the difference, an OSP is an online service provider, such as say "gmail" (if it was an entity). Since Google provides such online services to many users, it fits in the OSP category. An ISP is an INTERNET service provider... such as... Google, who also provides internet to numerous users.

      In either event, Google is protected. As an OSP, their ISP could be approached... but the problem is, this is an issue with them as an ISP, not an OSP, in which case, they should be approached as the ISP for those people who infringed (and it would be those people who's Internet may be able to be cut off using the DMCA). Even if the OSP definition fit these circumstances, MPAA would have to do the proper legwork first... issue takedown notices, and Google would have to refuse to take them down... but this isn't about content uploaded to Google's online services; it's about people who use Google's internet to download stuff from off-Google-land.

      Anyone can quote the law... but fortunately for the sake of this discussion, it's actually been my job to understand this particular law. And now, you do too (at least this part of it) ;-)

  45. my old body says run away, my spirit says.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there's no better place to go in the long haul, there never was, stay.

  46. The question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this be disconnecting Google from the internet, or disconnecting the internet from Google?

    Seriously though, disconnecting a major internet company with datacentres all over the world would be a major challenge and I doubt that the legal system is willing to devote the resources to do it.

  47. MPAA warnings for Google employees by doperative · · Score: 2

    "Google has received more than 100 copyright infringement warnings from MPAA-affiliated movies studios. Most are directed at users of Google's public Wi-Fi service, but others are meant for Google employees

    Is there a link to these MPAA infringement warnings addressed to Google employees?

  48. What defines the Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some point, one could envision that the network of "everyone who has been disconnected from the Internet" might outweigh the "Internet."

    1. Re:What defines the Internet? by Paspanique · · Score: 1

      Take me off the internet?

        I AM THE INTERNET FOOL!

      Now be gone!

      --
      I don't have an intelligent phone, so I need to be.
  49. May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA *WHEEEEEZE* *COFFCOFFCOFF* AAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    too fucking late, **AA retardobots, google is global, you decidedly aren't. You lost, google won, and the fallout from having all that media advertising and online presence suddenly disappearing would be such sweet music to my ears...oh wait, what was that noise? I think it was the sound of all the collective arseholes of the **AA clamping shut with a force greater than the chandrasekhar limit...

  50. The hilarity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Google provide enormously useful products and services, generate many employment opportunities, and advance technology. More generally, they influence our economy and culture are both profound and beneficial. The MPAA produce warning labels on film and litigation. Next to nothing. However, there are laws that potentially enable them to do significant damage to Google. These are the inverted priorities we have assumed.

  51. Do it by stubob · · Score: 1

    Google, call their bluff.

    For one day (one hour would suffice), shut down ALL Google services. Search, GMail, Youtube, Voice, Android, Ads, Picassa, Docs, Blogger, Maps, all of it replaced with a message that says "Google is offline thanks to the Media conglomerates. A message has been sent to your local representative on your behalf indicating your support for Google. Thank you." That should get some attention.

    --
    Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
    1. Re:Do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, why not just tweak an algorithm or two and disappear the MPAA from cyberspace altogether?

  52. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...would still use Google if they delisted MPAA companies. Heck, I'd use Google more!

  53. Go Google Go by RichMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Answer #1: Attention world please find attached a list of materials MPAA members or agents have directly released to the internet. We belive these are now considered free use to all.

    Answer #2: Discovery request. The MPAA is requested to turn over all authorship and ownership rights documentation on all material the MPAA claims to have authority over. Note we are Google. We mean ALL. We will take paper napkins and scan them if needed. We want all physical mail and all email correspondence between the MPAA and members for the last 100 years or life of claimed copyright, which ever is longer. Note we are Google the amount of material is not a problem to us. Have a nice day.

    1. Re:Go Google Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy smokes would this be fun to watch!

    2. Re:Go Google Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the MPAA is an industry Association, Google would have to ask for discovery from the individual studios, when Steven Speilberg, chris Nolan, JJ Abrams, Scorsese and George Lucas have to start printing their emails, this nonsense will stop. Open it up to anyone with a Production credit and half the SAG will be in the same boat.

      Discovery is required for a fair trial, but for a big entity, its a worriesome process and forces them to rethink frivolous nonsense.

      Google on the other hand probable has all their email with a decent recovery/discovery scheme and if not someone over at the gmail team could whip one up faster than the hundreds of studios could.

    3. Re:Go Google Go by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      I'd pay to watch actually...

      Maybe google could start this as a line of entertainment? :p

    4. Re:Go Google Go by mrrudge · · Score: 1

      Google: We'll need all your email. Oh, hang on, we already have it, I'm indexi... done. Now, about this trial, oh, to show that there's no hard feelings we've sent a bunch of flowers to your wife in the shape of your most common search terms.

  54. Re:Moving the earth rather than changing themselve by korgitser · · Score: 1

    Give me the arm of law long enough, and a bank account to leverage it, and I will move the earth...

    --
    FCKGW 09F9 42
  55. Replace the MPAA by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Instead of fighting the MPAA, Google could replace the MPAA.

    Google could approach each major studio and make a very clear case.

    We control the disemination of information in a major way. We control the distribution of content in a major way. You haven't figured out the online model yet. And while the RIAA was busy chasing Napster, Apple came along with iTunes and took over the music industry. What if we decided to start purchasing the rights to distribute films, and completely eliminated your current distribution system?

    We have the backbone to distribute them to theaters and invidual consumers just the same. And the people who would jump onboard first are the guys like James Cameron, Steve Speilberg, George Lucas, Chris Nolan, etc. that love to push innovation and new technology. The big blockbuster films that provide the bulk of your profit would disappear overnight.

    Or you can beg right now to be kept in the loop and cut a similar deal with us now, where we allow you to continue to distribute to theaters and just use Google to help distribute to video on demand, Google TV, etc. in the future.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Replace the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that this will never happen is because the MPAA and the Entertainment Industry are really one in the same. It's easier to create a proxy organization to go after your customers than to do it yourself. Afterall, Johnny is being sued by the MPAA not by Paramount else Johnny might decide that he no longer wants to do business with Paramount. But with this system, Paramount can at least claim that their hands are clean. Moreover by giving the power to Google, they're letting Google decide what is an actionable offense as opposed to getting to decide for themselves.

      All and all, the MPAA works for the Entertainment Industry. It's another arm that drums up profits through other means and since all the major studios are now parts of vast corporations and shareholder owned, it works well for their bottom lines. Giving control to Google would be hampering the ability of the MPAA to improve profits for shareholders, thus I'd be surprised to see this happen.

    2. Re:Replace the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that Google should start BEGGING for an anti-trust case?

      Cuz what would happen with the circumstances you describe is somebody in the government coming down hard on them.

    3. Re:Replace the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is, Google should take control of the intellectual property industry by extortion, threatening to ignore national laws and international treaties in the process?
      Great idea!
      I bet you'd love it if the Google Bank offered you a similar deal: bank with them, or they won't refrain from publishing your account details online.

    4. Re:Replace the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, all these traditional media industries are scared. Scared of what they are seeing from the internet. They are being cut out of the equation slowly but surely and they don't like it. Have your own TV show or movie online, produce and dist. your own music. Write and publish your own e-books. So they try all this petty crap to distract and slow things down. But the main plan now is to hit us all where it hurts directly. All kinds of internet capping and usage based limits are here and on the rise. They will make sure we pay, either on the front or back end. If they start this usage bandwidth crap in canada, I'll be moving my office to the public library! Free wi-fi... at least for now.

  56. The animal has become rabid... by noidentity · · Score: 1

    ...time to put it down for its own good, before it really hurts someone

  57. Looks like boilerplate by yuhong · · Score: 2

    I read TFA and looks like they are quoting boilerplate. It is still funny, though.

  58. self correcting problem by tempest69 · · Score: 1

    The MPAA has been making such lousy pics that I haven't even had the urge to download them. Btjunkies top recent downloader is Gullivers Travels. It's sad. And for the most part it's bypassing an $8 subscription to netflix. Just seems like a lot a fear mongering over some people not paying a fee for something that isnt entertaining.

    1. Re:self correcting problem by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I thought pirates had better taste. I see I am disapointed.

  59. Re:MPAA Comedy by praxis · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that be suicide for Bing?

  60. More evidence of MPAA thuggery by mfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is more evidence that MPAA are thugs and they want to destroy the internet. Just because you want to destroy the internet, doesn't mean you can actually do it, or at least not without the help of a Republican president.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:More evidence of MPAA thuggery by RedACE7500 · · Score: 5, Informative

      at least not without the help of a Republican president.

      Who is it that's sitting in the White House, pushing for an internet kill switch and is already taking control of domains suspected of activities related to possible copyright infringement?

    2. Re:More evidence of MPAA thuggery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Which party has all of the **AA lawyers in its Justice Department?

      Hint: not the Constitution, Green, Libertarian, or Republican parties.

    3. Re:More evidence of MPAA thuggery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is more evidence that MPAA are thugs and they want to destroy the internet. Just because you want to destroy the internet, doesn't mean you can actually do it, or at least not without the help of a Democratic vice-president.

      Fixed that for you!

    4. Re:More evidence of MPAA thuggery by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      at least not without the help of a Republican president.

      Who is it that's sitting in the White House, pushing for an internet kill switch and is already taking control of domains suspected of activities related to possible copyright infringement?

      Kabletown.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    5. Re:More evidence of MPAA thuggery by Caraig · · Score: 1

      or at least not without the help of a member of any US political party.

      FTFTFY.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
  61. Barratry in both senses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In both senses, no less... they're conducting legal system harassment, and if this turns out as most expect, then they're also scuttling their own ship, so to speak.

  62. Disconnecting Google or make no music/movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asking Google to be disconnected from the Internet as they provide /something/ that makes people violate a copyright is like asking the content producers not to create the content as they provide /something/ that makes people violate a copyright.
    It just makes no sense at all!

  63. Now we know... by Dragon_Hilord · · Score: 1

    ... who's calling the shots for the DHS. Being unsurprised, perhaps somebody can tell us all why this is a BadThing(TM) ?

    --
    Cheers, DH.
  64. Engulf, absorb, dissolve, disgorge by fnj · · Score: 1

    Why the fuck doesn't google just buy the MPAA and disband it?

  65. Googles response by ItsLenny · · Score: 2

    think it would look something like this for any movie title you tried to search for http://itslennysfault.com/stuff/IfMpaaSuesGoogle.jpg

    --
    ----------
    Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
  66. MPAA and "cutting" by toriver · · Score: 1

    I wonder when the Government are going to disconnect the member studios of MPAA from "Hollywood accounting", and the WTO are going to disconnect them from the price fixing and market segregation they have gotten away with when it comes to the DVD and Blu-ray region systems.

  67. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by cgfsd · · Score: 1

    All they would need to do is consult with China.

  68. Re:MPAA Comedy by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Why would Bing want to mess up their search engine back end?

    : D

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  69. complete bullshit argument by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    do you know how much they spent to make avatar? and they made a huge profit

    someone, the producers and investors, have to put up a lot of money to make a movie, you are correct. but that's their risk, not mine. if the movie does good, they reap a windfall of profit. good for them. if the movie bombs, well too bad, i owe them nothing, and there's no valid argument where we owe them anything. if they think they can reduce their risk by destroying the internet, fuck them

    a business is a business is a business: you invest, and reap a reward, or you don't. that's the business of movie making, and it should not in anyway be anything but exactly that sort of speculative endeavour. fucking with how the internet works in order to guarantee them a profit? for movies that might be bad? no, no fucking way

    you are not guaranteed anything just because you tried to make a movie

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:complete bullshit argument by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I know some of what I said people won't agree with. Its a personal opinion. So let me add ......

      I totally agree, they are a business. If their product bombs too bad for them, please don't pass on the us. I really don't feel sorry or give a shit.

      My point, is that everyone in Hollywood wants a cut - some times too large of a piece to make a profit. Its greed plain and simple. That raises the costs of production. They artificially raise the prices of their products to make up for the the movies that bombed - whether by $200 million or $500 dollars.

      The MPAA and the studios are trying to point the finger *at us* that it is our problem. Either we don't buy enough or we don't pay enough.

      Its clearly a problem with their business model.

      Not my fault, not your fault.

    2. Re:complete bullshit argument by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i agree with you. the movie making machine gets large enough, it starts looking at us and trying to alter our behavior and the laws of the land in order to guarantee profit. its complete bullshit but its also inevitable and typical. its called "rent seeking behavior" and its a common failure of all large corporate structures:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

      basically the mpaa needs to be shut down as a mafia like squad of legal goons engaging in rent seeking behavior rather than clean honest business efforts

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  70. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    Remember, Sony (Sony Pictures) is a member of the MPAA. The MPAA is a collective of companies that are not only capable of spewing out nuclear-grade stupid, but also in getting people in powerful positions to believe them. That's why people cringe in anger instead of responding in anger.

  71. Deffinitions of Hollywood by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Also, Hollywood is made up of many people and a number of differing interests. You can't speak of Hollywood as a collective whole any more than you can speak of Silicone Valley as a cohesive entity. Even the MPAA is run by a group of studios, who don't always see eye to eye on how things should be done.

    Google on the other hand...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Deffinitions of Hollywood by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      I though Hollywood was silicone valley?

    2. Re:Deffinitions of Hollywood by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      Please spend a few minutes studying California geography using an online map. Hollywood is about 500 km from silicon valley. That's like all of Europe, which makes all the difference in the world.

    3. Re:Deffinitions of Hollywood by coxymla · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

    4. Re:Deffinitions of Hollywood by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      Whoosh! You need to get abreast of the subtle joke...

  72. Do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should take down their homepage for 24 hours and replace it with a sign that say "The MPAA has disconnected us from the Internet. Please direct all complaints to ..."

  73. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    Just speculate for a minute - let's assume they pull their Evil Puppet String, call someone on the Purple Phone, and Voila, Google is faced with a cease and desist from doing business on the net. Just here in dreamland, suppose it is as easy as what Egypt pulled.

    Would that be enough for the revolt to kick off real change? Would the frog finally notice it's been boiling?

    No, the frog would just switch to Bing unfortunately.

    Remember: back in the day there was Hotbot.. then MetaBot... then AltaVista and Yahoo!... then Google... then a bunch of names that are bigger than AltaVista ever was (Wolfram, Bing, etc.), but are still tiny compared to Google.

    However, considering that Google Egypt employees played a large part in that revolution, and that Google has their own darknet that they could activate should they get pulled from the Internet, you might have a point.

  74. Really? by grolschie · · Score: 1

    For many people google is the internet. Yes, yes, we /.'ers know better, thuh interwebs is series of tubes....

  75. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy. One just Googles Google.

  76. Just the USA. Not the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that any injunction would only apply to the US.
    Google is big enough to stick two fingers up to the US and move off shore.

    Just a thought though.
    I wonder if Larry E has called in a few IOU"s from his pals down in Hollywood?

  77. In Google America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Google America, Google disconnects YOU.

  78. The MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are a bunch of stupid mother fuckers

  79. 3 hours later by bemenaker · · Score: 1

    Google sells direct connections to their nationwide backbone, creating a whole new internet. The old internet withers and dies in a matter of weeks.

  80. This would effect Bing as well by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    Since Microsoft has been allegedly been caught re-posting Google searches If you brought down Google, Bing would disappear as well.

  81. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MPAA is not in the movie business. It us in the lobbying business. It's MEMBERS are making movies, it doesn't. In fact, it IS going about its core business with this stuff.

  82. karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi

  83. Antitrust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the proposed approach by Google is exactly what Microsoft tried, using dominance in one market (Google: search-based advertising, Microsoft: OS) to enter another (Google: content distribution, Microsoft: browsers). I wonder if the Obama administration would hire David Boies again?

    And then there's that pesky "Don't be evil" - as Brin defines evil - guideline.

  84. Uh...... Good luck? by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    Considering Google owns a not-insignificant portion of "The Internet" (backbone connections,) I'd love to see the MPAA try. Might as well try to "disconnect" Level3 from the Internet.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  85. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Would the frog finally notice it's been boiling?

    I'm going to have to issue you a cease and desist for that fucking analogy.
    That analogy is 100% bullshit. A frog will jump out of a pot of water that's too hot, or too cold, regardless of how gradually you've changed the temperature.

  86. Sack Attack! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    RIAA, I hope Google takes a sack full of money and hits you in the face with it. SACK ATTACK! :)

  87. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

    No, the frog would just switch to Bing unfortunately.

    Ah, the secret Microsoft strategy is revealed!
    Get the MPAA to do the dirty work, Bing wins. :)

    --
    --Udo.
  88. Uppity cockroaches... by dlingman · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's a quote from Marooned in Real-time (Vinge), but I think it applies perfectly well to this situation. Just 'cause a company says it will not be evil, doesn't mean it can't squash you like a bug.

  89. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    "No, the frog would just switch to Bing unfortunately."

    without Google.. would Bing have any results though!?

  90. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Would the frog finally notice it's been boiling?

    Nothing will happen. The frog is already dead.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  91. MPAA succeeding would mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HA HA HA. We did it! We succeeded! We shut down Google! Man, we succeeded against all odds in getting rid of that search giant!!
    Welllll, now that that's over.....I'm kinda bored... What shall we do?

    Let's go out for ice cream!!

    Ok..... NAVIGATE TO ICE CREAM PARLOR
    (ERROR)
    NAVIGATE TO ICE CREAM PARLOR
    (ERROR)
    WTF is going on???

    Hang on. Let me see what I can do....
    (404 Page Not Found!! google.com)
    DAMNIT, how am I supposed to find the ice cream parlor??

  92. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting people to cringe in anger is the whole purpose of the MPAA (and the RIAA for that matter). They are a puppet organization controlled by big media in order to attract flack away from big media.

  93. I hope it comes to blows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the most unlikely of scenarios but I really hope it comes to blows with google and the mpaa because someone with the smarts, money and power needs to slap the mpaa across the face hard enough to knock them down. Personally Id love to see them shut down for good because they do no good in the movie industry and only see to harm it. Their ratings are flawed because they are not equal and they condemn things they personally find offensive. Like for instance the southpark movie had to be edited a lot of time because it was being graded by someone taking it home to watch, or the in the case of american psycho it was going to be rated nc17 because of like a extra 4 seconds during a NON explitive sex scene which contained 3 or 4 words because they found it offensive and I own the unrated dvd its virtually the exact same thing.

    The mpaa are censors, yes they censor. They do it indirectly but they do censor what the public sees by threating nc17 ratings because they means if the filmmakers want to get their movies into theaters, on blockbuster video shelves since BB doesnt have anything above R ratings in their stores and so on then the film makers have to change their movies in ways the film maker doesnt want to so they can get distribution, fair chances at box office sales and make money off their movie.

    All the mpaa does is threaten nc17 or x ratings to movies they dont like and I litereally mean threaten. They even threaten people outside the hollywood mainstream who question them and their rules purely because they dont like the film maker. And getting a nc17 rating means your screwed because very very few theaters will show nc17 movies and it usually means a box office failure.

    I am a true film lover and love all types of genres and appreciate film but I do really and truly hate the mpaa. Film in general would be better off without them because they do not create a equal playing field and they punish what they dont agree with. NO agency ever, in any form is fit to decide what is right or wrong for me to see.

  94. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Idbar · · Score: 1

    More interestingly. Would if be possible to split the Internet into two. The Google one, and the rest? I would assume that Comcast-NBC merger may help to disconnect people from Google, but what would be a proper retaliation from Google, if is not to set up their own Internet?

    Now, I know we are in dreamland, but go figure, maybe Google manages to pull that one out of their hats.

  95. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly do they propose to remove Google from the Internet? That's like removing oxygen from the air in an instant..

    Apt choice of analogy, as the same process is required for both - Fire. Lots and lots of fire.

  96. That'll be the Day... by JEEPn · · Score: 1

    When Hell Freezes Over...

  97. Funny by atari2600a · · Score: 0

    I guess the MPAA didn't catch wind that Google owns it's own dedicated lines & DNS servers, & is effectively it's own ISP...

  98. Wouldn't that be.. by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

    Asking them to disconnect themselves? Doesn't google own a significant part of the internet backbone including lit and dark fiber?

  99. Lets do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember BP. So much publicity was created that
    BP had to *pay* Google to get back #1 search rank.

    I suggest we do the same, create a similar sounding name
    for each and every page the content industry have.
    Fill those pages with content discribing the harm the MAFIAA
    does, have done. And aims to do.
    And people who whish to protest against the MAFIAA can
    link to it, eventually sinking the original pages...

    (No black-hat stuff, just white hat)

  100. Couldn't watch DVD legally, download worked great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last year tried to watch the DVD 'District 9' from a Red Box DVD machine on a Windows 7 Lenovo laptop. Could not get it to play no matter what we tried. Followed the instructions on the DVD, and on Red Box website. No luck.

    Downloaded a 'pirated' copy that played perfectly off the hard drive.

    Ironically it turned out to be a problem with the anti-piracy protection on the DVD that prevented us from watching it legally.

    Suing your own customers is not a good business plan, providing an easy-to-use delivery system is.

  101. lunch ticket by madchris · · Score: 1

    the mpaa wants to get rough...... the mpaa needs to understand who pays their luch ticket...... any punitive action on their part would seem to me to be an "act of war"; as well as an act of self-destructive, suicidal childishness.

  102. Hahaha! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    MPAA: Dear Google, if you don't stop violating our copyrights, we'll disconnect you from the Internet.

    Google: Dear MPAA, I DARE YOU TO TRY.

    MPAA: Dear Google, nevermind. We were just kidding. We know you could start handling record distribution and put us out of business in a week. We're sorry to have bothered you. Please don't hurt us.

  103. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would, but the revolt wouldn't be able to organize because they would then shut down Twitter and Facebook. You can't have a revolt without Twit & FB - it's impossible!

  104. Not so fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7234569/cantfindgoogle.jpg

  105. Re:I think it's time - but seriously! by NeverNow · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but "MPAA related" should include IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon... down to the most obscure movie-freak blog. That would be fun.

  106. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by mrrudge · · Score: 1

    It's not an analogy, it's a meme after 'sheeple'.

    It's quoted often to demonstrate the authors misunderstanding of 'I have an internal monologue and I can't hear yours' whilst simultaneously demonstrating their ability to follow exactly the others around them without thinking or doing any research.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

  107. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, everyone would use Bing and life would go on. As I posted to another article, if you revolt: The US gov military will FUCKING KILL YOU.

  108. A tip for the MPAA by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

    You cannot disconnect Google from the Internet. That is impossible. Instead, you must realise the truth: It is the Internet that will be disconnected from Google.

    --
    Here we go again!
  109. How is google infringing on copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's been established that an ISP is not responsible for the content that flows over the internet. If the MPAA is accusing google employees of copyright infringement, then the MPAA should sue those employees.

    If I give you a ream of paper, and you use that paper to make illegal photocopies of copyrighted material. Then you may have violated some copyright law, but not me.

  110. It's a way of starting a story.. by wanax · · Score: 1

    Think about this from a Hollywood perspective for a moment (and I don't mean the snorting middle-manager suits). Hollywood wields the modern day pen with considerable acumen, and they understand the making of a political 'plot' and what's required to be plausible all too well. And they already make their money at the high end of the risk spectrum (I don't know of any studio bailouts).

    Shutting down Google is not an objective, it's the denouement of the first act. The misinformed people, the 'other' and even the gods are against them, but down on their luck they still are fighting, and you, the intrepid state senator who would really like a movie-middleman job can help!

    The first part of Act 2 will be when they lobby most of the state legislatures into passing draconian infringement or usage laws, while we're busy chortling over how Google stomped on them.

    I don't even know how we get through Act 2, much less Act 26.

    To put it another way: Would you rather have $100m and the ability to invest it with 2% better return than the S&P, or the ability to talk anybody you meet into giving you 1% of their wealth?

  111. A blockage in a series of tubes? by tramusen · · Score: 1

    So I am assuming that the MPAA would be cutting Google off by blocking off the tubes that feed to Google's house? Or is it more like closing a faucet?

  112. Google "mpaa" by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    "Showing results for 'bunch of self-important jackasses'. Search instead for 'hahahahahahaha'?"

  113. Tit for a tat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would make business-sense to say that if anybody sues Google, then Google will just blast their ranking out to oblivion. It also makes common sense that you don't rank the pages of people who hit you with lawsuits.

  114. Just for one hour... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If google redirected all of it's incoming traffic to lets say a picture saying that google is down because the mpaa is threatening them for just one hour of downtime the mpaa would likely cease to exist.

    Just think of all the judges who would not be able to find their fetish anymore or do well pretty much anything. The lawyers would follow up and the mpaa would enter hell pretty quickly.

    Then the average user tries to watch the great new hilarious video on youtube and can't...Public enemy said it best: Burn hollywood burn...

    Say goodbye to hollywoood.

  115. In Soviet Russia.... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

    you disconnect Google!!

    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  116. and de-index them from Bing, too. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    They could just stop indexing everything MPAA related (i.e. their homepage).

    and the week after Google de-indexes them, the "MPAA" will also disappear from Bing resulsts too,thanks to some tool-bar magic.

    cue-in microsoft maketeer publicly announcing that they don't copy-paste the results.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  117. They are only doing theit job by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

    At last, It's entertainment, isn't it?

    --
    Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
  118. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Xarius · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Google have offices and servers in nearly every developed country in the world? If the MPAA tried anything, surely they can simply set up shop elsewhere and carry on?

    --
    C17H21NO4
  119. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

    Google has been buying dark fiber left and right, by now they probably have enough to connect themselves to several major ISPs. Pretty soon those ISPs would be offering you a choice between two internet connections

    - The old internet, with the MPAA website on it
    - The Google Internet (tm), the one with youtube, google, gmail etc....

    guess which one i would be signing up for

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  120. yeah right.... by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    The MPAA would have an easier time trying to pull the internet switch on M$ or IBM than Google.

  121. Google not accountable for its employees' actions. by master_p · · Score: 1

    Unless Google the company encourages downloading of copyrighted material, which I highly doubt, Google should not be held accountable for its employees' actions, for the simple reason that Google cannot lock the entire internet for its employees: at any time or place, someone will be able to download copyrighted material from any site.

  122. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    What do you think of when you say revolt?

    Is it like Egypt?

    I think it's going to be more straightforward. People will simply stop complying with the Federal government.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  123. Google to MPAA by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    Shut up or we'll buy you out and fire your a$$e$.

  124. I'm starting to get the impression... by P.+Legba · · Score: 1

    ...that the Internet is about to split in three. Google land, Apple land and Microsoft land, together with a few ancillary service providers like Facebook, Netflix and Twitter.

  125. Communist US by Tug3 · · Score: 1
    - What's the difference between US and China?
    - In US the communist party is called MPAA.

    Bad joke? - Not really when you think about it. In China the party threatened to "close out" Google, if it would not censor "dangerous" (ie. damaging to the party) content. In US the MPAA is threatening to "close out" Google, if it would not censor "dangerous" (ie. damaging to the MPAA) content...

    --
    If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
    The Life is out there...
  126. Re:Moving the earth rather than changing themselve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I so miss Babylon 5 :(

  127. Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

    Google has been buying dark fiber left and right, by now they probably have enough to connect themselves to several major ISPs. Pretty soon those ISPs would be offering you a choice between two internet connections

    - The old internet, with the MPAA website on it - The Google Internet (tm), the one with youtube, google, gmail etc....

    guess which one i would be signing up for

    Not sure... which one will have the most pron?

  128. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL that is all, Google is too amazing , the amount of complaints would be unreal of how people do not want to use to mpaa over google!

  129. Re:Revolt by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Nice question, though I like someone's comment that you can't quite pull an Egypt incident here in the US, the US Military would just use our money to pulverize us and then send us into social nuclear winter.

    The best revolt against social mores I can think of was the 60's free love movement against excessive morality of the 1950's. The key is legality. The "Spirit of 69" didn't violate any laws, which is why it worked. Morality was "just so", which lost out.

    My rough guess this time around is a national vote social networking site. We used to "want privacy" in our votes, but now (last 50 years) that fragmentation is being used against us with colluding politicians & corporations. But if we used the Big Tracking mentality against them, we could create our own consensus of opinions and then the polls would just be the formality.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  130. Posting anon for legal reasons - please mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anonymously because... well... I'm anonymous, and this information has been removed from slashdot before due to COS C&D letters. In the words of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, 'THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!!' As quoted from L. Ron Hubbard: The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged". His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants. When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development. One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time. In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful. One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body. One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small. Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.