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."

87 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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".

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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. :)

    6. 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'?"

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

      I doubt anyone would miss the MPAA.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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.

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

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

    13. 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
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

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

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

    22. 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

    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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'
    26. 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
  2. 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 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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,
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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!

  12. 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

  13. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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
  14. 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)?

  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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).

  19. 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 zAPPzAPP · · Score: 2

      Google has an ISP?

  20. 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
  21. 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?

  22. 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.

  23. 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.
  24. Looks like boilerplate by yuhong · · Score: 2

    I read TFA and looks like they are quoting boilerplate. It is still funny, though.

  25. 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.

  26. 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?

  27. 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?
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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.

  33. Re:Don't make me laugh! by camperslo · · Score: 2

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

  34. 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.

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

    You accidentally the noun.

  36. 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.

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

    if they lose google, bing will stop working.

  38. 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.
  39. Re:Deffinitions of Hollywood by aXis100 · · Score: 2

    Whoosh! You need to get abreast of the subtle joke...

  40. 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."
  41. 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."