
New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google - voidingw
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/new-court-evidence-reveals-hollywoods-plans-smear-google/
======
venomsnake
If I were google I would choose a big upcoming multi billion Hollywood film.
And just return empty pages while the marketing campaign is roaring. For the
star/cast/everything.

I would call it piracy prevention program - that way no one will be able to
find piracy content trough google.

~~~
vonklaus
I assume this is a joke. This would be terrifying. The MPAA are trying to stop
google from fairly distributing pages they disagree with. Google is net
neutrality and should act as a dumb pipe utility in the sense that it returns
the most relevant info based on your search.

If google returned empty pages for something it didn't agree with, the
implications would be appalling.

Google should do during the spectrum wars when they bid on spectrum and
territory to leverage telecom co.s. They should threaten to back netflix or
start a studio to make movies and content. They already have distribution and
funds.

~~~
cbr
I agree Google should return the best response to your search and not cut
things out for bargaining points, but "dumb pipe utility" is incredibly off.

~~~
venomsnake
Google deliberately decided to downgrade the torrent sites ... so they lost
all pretense at neutrality.

------
rwhitman
Hollywood is an industry that should be very vulnerable to disruption. Even if
we ignore the whole digital distribution aspect, there's so much bloat in the
overhead cost of producing a film. Everything about the industry is based
around croneyism, various inside deals made between established independent
contractors on short term contracts with all sorts of padding. Plus overhead
for safety & insurance, lots of manual union labor w/ exhausting overtime
hours that cost $$, and big egos demanding everything under the sun.

The thing is that when the level of CGI realism gets to the point that most
blockbuster movies don't really need to shoot on location at all, there's no
need for Hollywood production anymore. The Pixar office campus model starts to
become the norm. You can produce movies from anywhere you can fit a server
rack. The only films that will need Hollywood will be the ones that wouldn't
work as CG - comedies, documentaries and dramas which don't make much money
and will need to get cheaper and cheaper to be viable.

Basically Hollywood as we know it will collapse eventually. The companies that
will win at the filmmaking game are the ones with their fingers in digital
distribution, a global marketing apparatus, cheap compute resources, and
cheaper human talent. AKA Google / YouTube. So the MPAA needs to knock out
Google for any hope of survival. Tactics like this will only accelerate the
process. So Google wins.

~~~
olavk
Your point about "shooting on location" versus CGI seem absurd to me. A
Hollywood production is _so_ much more that just the logistics to shoot on
location. It is actors, directors, casting, production design, production
management, music, manuscripts, editing etc. All of these things requires a
specialized skillset. None of these can be replaces with a server rack.
Animation is somewhat different production-wise, but still need the same kind
of talent, just not as many trucks.

Hollywood accounting is infamous, but it seems Hollywood actually know what
they are doing business-wise. They pay stars a lot of money because it
translates into ticket sales, not because they are idiots.

Many movies are made outside of Hollywood (so-called independent movies) with
cheaper talent (sometimes working for free), but only rarely are they as
financially successful as Hollywood movies.

~~~
rwhitman
Those roles can be outsourced offshore to cheaper labor markets or handed to
cheaper (aka non-union) domestic talent markets, which is what I was hinting
at. Wasn't really implying that computers can replace creatives. Basically the
argument is when you level the geographic playing field, quality creative
talent is a cheaper commodity.

~~~
olavk
Lots of movies (and especially TV) are made on the cheap outside of Hollywood
and around the world. There still seem to be a significant demand for
Hollywood-style grand productions and movie stars.

------
NicoJuicy
I'm actually wondering how illegal this is? This is trying to influence the
stock market and attacking 1 company without "legal" jurification. They are
trying to hurt Google's through stock, this IS actually the same as
stealing/taking away a billion $ (stockvalue) ... (that should be illegal,
isn't it?)

They obviously failed before execution, but that shouldn't matter...

Does anyone know if Google can use this information in court for a lawsuit
against MPAA?

~~~
JupiterMoon
It is probably covered by defamation of character law (it would be in the UK
at least) or by malicious litigation law.

~~~
pascalmemories
Despite Tony Blair pushing through changes to allow corporate bodies to use
defamation laws, it's still pretty rare and an uphill struggle. The McLibel
case showed how dangerous it is for a company to resort to that sort of
litigation.

They spent millions, had an array of hilarious 'mom & apple pie' witnesses
flown in from the US and managed to lose on many points (but not all) and were
left with a useless judgment which they can never collect on as they were
stupid enough to sue two people with no assets or any prospect of having any.

They did however, become a laughing stock in the legal world and have an array
of TV programs and plays, mocking them mercilessly. Plus some of the, till
then, unproven, claims of disgusting practice ended up being proven and
therefore repeatable without risk - which was not the case beforehand.

Defamation actions are never a good way to go. Even winning one does not
generally help you much.

~~~
JupiterMoon
I thought that companies were legal persons in English law? And if they can
prove actual damages then they can sue for libel? As always IANAL

I'd agree that McLibel didn't play out that well for them - however here we're
talking one massive company vs another. McLibel was not even close to the same
thing as e.g. Google vs. the MPAA would be.

Anyway my main point was laws already exist to protect companies from
malicious communications.

------
sandworm101
The MPAA is not "Hollywood" and had not been so for a long time.

MPAA current members: Sony, Disney, Fox, Universal, Warner and Paramount.

Netflix is not a member. Lionsgate is not a member. You tube is certainly not
a member. The MPAA therefore doesn't represent the content industry let alone
all of Hollywood. Those writing about the MPAA (Wired) should not take its
word as representative of anyone other than its FIVE backers. And some of
those (Sony) aren't exactly happy with them these days.

~~~
ajross
Uh... Under whose definition are Netflix or Youtube (Google) part of
"Hollywood"? The term has always been used to refer to the industry formed by
the big traditional studios which were founded in the early part of the
century in the Hollywood/Burbank area. Lionsgate might qualify (and I don't
know why they aren't in the MPAA), but then they haven't even been around for
two decades yet.

The MPAA is "Hollywood" for sure, inasmuch as that term has any meaning at
all. I simply don't understand what point you're trying to make.

~~~
sandworm101
I'd say that Hollywood is the north-American content industry focused around
Hollywood California, but including New York, Vancouver and anywhere else
where movies and TV is produced. Netflix is a major content producer who uses
the same people as the MPAA backers. Youtube doesn't produce content in the
same way, but they are very influential having stolen things like Music Videos
from the likes of MTV. These non-MPAA entities compete in the same space but
have very different opinions than those who support the MPAA.

My point is that the MPAA does not represent these other "Hollywood" content
producers and shouldn't be described a representing any content producers
beyond the five members.

~~~
ajross
Some advice on argumentation: don't make a point by subverting well-
established jargon unless you're really explicit about it. You just confuse
everyone involved.

I actually don't disagree with your point exactly (though it's a little spun:
original content on Netflix and Youtube represents a tiny, tiny fraction of
the eyeball-minutes of the movie industry -- it might get there some day but
it's not remotely there yet). But what you were trying to say was completely
obscured by your insane-seeming attempt to say that the MPAA doesn't represent
the interests of "Hollywood".

------
sklogic
I would not mind if the entire entertainment industry just die. Some (likely,
the only worthy) part of it will adapt, and the rest is totally worthless.

------
nerdy
The MPAA just might have picked on the wrong kid this time.

~~~
balls187
How so?

~~~
nerdy
Because the MPAA is often the larger entity in court, and with leverage
(copyright law). They have a long, litigious history from DMCA takedowns &
expansion to SOPA. They don't mind suing individuals, wholesale [1].

In this particular case it's pretty clear the MPAA and the AG were both out of
bounds. Why would the AG, the top lawyer for the state government (and
supposedly for the people), need to help the MPAA with a smear campaign?
According to Google, AG Hood's office supplied a proposal to the MPAA [2] with
an editorial suggesting slumping stock prices, media segments in collaboration
with the AG, regulatory lawsuits...

This is a conscious, targeted attack against Google because Hollywood didn't
get its way. The project was even codenamed "Project Goliath" (related to the
MPAA & affiliates, not the AG) [3].

Google has the resources, capability and will to vigorously defend itself
where others may have not.

[1]
[https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/](https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/)
[2]
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179099/gov-
uscourts-nysd-442776-40-0.pdf) [3]
[http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-
goliath](http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath)

~~~
zamalek
> editorial suggesting slumping stock prices

Is this not fraudulent?

~~~
jacquesm
It'd be very nice if the SEC jumped in.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
US financial regulators usually have to be shoved in.

------
tosseraccount
Maybe Google should do product placement in movies like Apple does:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-product-placements-
in-t...](http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-product-placements-in-tv-and-
movies-2012-8?op=1)

* Apple's marketing chief, Phil Schiller, said that "One of Apple's employees works closely with Hollywood on so-called product placement so its gadgets are used in movies and television shows. _

~~~
WorldWideWayne
They've done product placement and they've also done something that Apple
never has - they got an entire movie about just their company. It's called The
Internship.

------
nness
I wonder if the threat of continuous attack and litigation could hurt
shareholders of the MPAA's partners more than Google itself. Particularly
since the last decade of investment into anti-piracy campaigns and measures
has not curved piracy.

------
curiousjorge
Hollywood is slowly decaying into irrelevance. This is a sign that they know
their days are numbered. People are not going stop pirating, hell the whining
and draconian measures to get people to stop pirating their movies makes me
want to pirate the shit out of it even more.

Plenty of video services like netflix, amazon prime are producing their own
quality tv shows that exceed most of the crap movies we get. Everything is CG
or some dumb plotline about sex. I'm sure films & tv shows will turn out from
tech giants. I think if Google jumped in and began paying celebrities to star
in their movies it could do well. I've always thought Hollywood to be a
propaganda machine.

~~~
mc808
The threat to Hollywood goes deeper than piracy. Within a few years, video
games will be generating photo-realistic feature films on demand, with unique
scripts and characters and worlds adapted to the viewer's tastes and mood.
Game/movie publishers won't have to worry as much about piracy because they
will be selling the service, not the content. (But upload your personalized
movie to YouTube and they can monetize that, too.)

~~~
thenomad
I may possibly be the best person in the world to comment on this particular
statement. Given that: no, this isn't going to happen in the near future.

"Films on demand" \- some aspects of this are near-future plausible given
existing script, mocap and voice acting. Simple programmatic cinematography is
just about possible, and AI editing is getting better. 5 years away, maybe,
for sitcom / soap-opera equivalent lighting and cinematography. A LOT longer
before you're replacing Roger Deakins, though.

"Photo-realistic" \- photorealistic CGI films have been just around the corner
for 15 years now and continue to be so. Proof-of-concept 15 second renders are
doable, feature-length films with non-humans are doable (albeit with a LOT of
human intervention), but 90 minutes of CGI humans is a lot harder.

"Characters" \- moulding their appearance is almost doable now. Motion is a
lot harder - we've got semi-programmatic facial animation but it's a bit
rubbish. Programmatic body animation is getting there. Programmatic voice
acting is a Really Hard Problem and I'm not aware of anyone making any
significant moves forward in that area.

"Unique scripts" \- no-one has demonstrated anything close to an AI
scriptwriter at this point. It may well be that's a problem which requires
strong AI to solve.

We might be looking at Hollywood being replaced completely at some point, but
I doubt it'll happen in the next 20 years.

However, what IS a huge threat to Hollywood is the increased power of indie
filmmakers with technological assists. I write about that sort of thing over
on my blog at
[http://www.strangecompany.org/blog/](http://www.strangecompany.org/blog/)

One filmmaker today can do things that would have required a crew of 20 back
in 1993. The cost of filmmaking is plummeting. And that certainly is a threat
to Hollywood.

~~~
ethnomusicolog
what are your thought on building a business model around that trend ?

~~~
thenomad
If you can find a way to monetise the _enormous_ amount of new content that's
being produced right now - in excess of 10,000 feature films a year - then you
have the potential to make a vast amount of money.

Discoverability and marketplaces are the key problems for film at the moment.
There are other groups working on that problem, but so far it remains
unresolved.

I wrote a bit about this on Charles Stross's blog a while ago -
[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/06/hugh-
han...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/06/hugh-hancock-here-
again-charli.html)

------
CmonDev
Can you really smear a company who's reputation is already beyond repair?

~~~
Oletros
Not sure if serious

~~~
CmonDev
Tax dodging, conspiracy to suppress salaries, non-meritocratic compensation
policies - the list goes on.

~~~
Oletros
Apart that the only illegal thing is the second, do you really think that
people is aware of this or that they give a shit?

~~~
ionised
Plenty of people do give a shit.

