Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google The Internet Your Rights Online

MPAA Threatens To Disconnect Google From Internet 468

Posted by samzenpus
from the searching-for-glass-tigers dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Threatens To Disconnect Google From Internet

Comments Filter:
    • It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ocdscouter (1922930)

        It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.

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

        • by ivoras (455934) <(rh.ref) (ta) (sarovi)> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @04:48PM (#35154460) Homepage

          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.

          • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @06:21PM (#35155366) Journal

            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.

          • by couchslug (175151)

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

      • by camperslo (704715)

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

  • I think it's time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hypergreatthing (254983) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:18PM (#35153484)

    That Google disconnects the MPAA from existence.

    • Re:I think it's time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iONiUM (530420) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:23PM (#35153562) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:27PM (#35153612) Journal

        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".

        • by click2005 (921437) *

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

          • Re:I think it's time (Score:5, Informative)

            by Chyeld (713439) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (dleyhc)> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:44PM (#35153832)

            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.

            • by Rary (566291)

              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.

      • by Plekto (1018050)

        "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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:35PM (#35153710)

        I can see it now:

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

      • by Byzantine (85549)

        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

        • Re:I think it's time (Score:5, Informative)

          by Stregano (1285764) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:48PM (#35153878)
          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.com]

          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.

          • by Byzantine (85549)

            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.

            • by Imrik (148191)

              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.

        • by lgw (121541)

          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?

        • 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 th

      • by JWSmythe (446288)

        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 mo

    • by nametaken (610866) * on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:31PM (#35153668)

      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. :)

      • by rhook (943951)

        I doubt anyone would miss the MPAA.

      • by oGMo (379)

        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.

      • by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:52PM (#35153908) Journal

        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.

        • Re:I think it's time (Score:4, Informative)

          by jjinco33 (1107007) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @04:26PM (#35154224)
          Actually according to http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html [google.com] Google broke $10 billion in profit.
        • by kthejoker (931838) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @05:00PM (#35154582)

          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.

          • by blair1q (305137)

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

          • by Draek (916851) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @07:19PM (#35155954)

            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.

      • Re:I think it's time (Score:5, Informative)

        by brunes69 (86786) <<gro.daetsriek> <ta> <todhsals>> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @04:55PM (#35154536) Homepage

        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

        • by AmiMoJo (196126)

          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....

    • by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:41PM (#35153806) Journal

      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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

  • by kthreadd (1558445) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:19PM (#35153494)

    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.

    • by Moryath (553296) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:26PM (#35153600)

      What amazes me is - this is precisely the same crap the Cult of Scientology [arstechnica.com] keeps [chillingeffects.org] doing [slashdot.org].

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

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:37PM (#35153738) Journal

        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

    • by DaveGod (703167)

      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.

  • Who is this MPAA comedian guy again?

  • by mykos (1627575) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:19PM (#35153502)
    No law is adequate, no business is more important, no constitutional right can supersede the wishes of the commercial content industry.
  • 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).

    • by corbettw (214229)

      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 Co

      • Re:Whoopee (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PacoCheezdom (615361) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @05:20PM (#35154796)

        *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? [lmgtfy.com]

        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 [sony.net])

        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.

  • BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Oh this is a good one. Listen MPAA, Google will CRUSH you in court.
  • Illegal Threats? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreakNO@SPAMeircom.net> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:23PM (#35153568) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re:Illegal Threats? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:27PM (#35153616)
      I think the word you're looking for is "barratry [wikipedia.org]".
    • 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?

  • by wideBlueSkies (618979) * on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:27PM (#35153620) Journal

    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. :)

  • by rockman_x_2002 (1791612) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:27PM (#35153622)
    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.
  • Bring it on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xian97 (714198) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:27PM (#35153624)
    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.
  • 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.
  • by Thud457 (234763) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:29PM (#35153652) Homepage Journal
  • 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.
  • by peterofoz (1038508) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:39PM (#35153768) Homepage Journal
    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/ [ipwatchdog.com]

    • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:47PM (#35153864) Journal

      >>>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,.

    • 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.

    • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @04:03PM (#35154034) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • by oracleguy01 (1381327) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @04:28PM (#35154248)

        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 [memory-alpha.org]

  • "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.

  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:40PM (#35153786) Homepage Journal

    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

  • This is the USA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Adam Appel (1991764) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:42PM (#35153818)
    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.
  • by JustNiz (692889) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:52PM (#35153918)

    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).

  • By what authority? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fredjh (1602699) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @03:53PM (#35153934)

    By what authority does the MPAA have the power to disconnect ANYONE from the internet?

  • Go Google Go (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RichMan (8097) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @04:16PM (#35154140)

    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.

  • Replace the MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew&gmail,com> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @04:22PM (#35154184) Homepage Journal

    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.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...