Can you really smear a company who's reputation is already beyond repair?
Not sure if serious
As far as I'm concerned google is just an NSA data collection hub.
New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
71–80 of 135 posts
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax dodging, conspiracy to suppress salaries, non-meritocratic compensation policies - the list goes on.
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?
Plenty of people do give a shit.
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#73I'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 infor…
Why isn't the AG being indicted by the DOJ for this garbage? That is what I want to know. This is the kind of thing that should put someone behind bars and end a political career. Hood has obviously let his power go to his head. The MPAA is a well documented piece of garbage, but the Hood revelation is really where things get scary.
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#74If 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.
[deleted]
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#75I'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 infor…
> this IS actually the same as stealing/taking away a billion $ (stockvalue) Although it will probably go precisely nowhere, this is an interesting point. This sort of attack goes beyond a "character" attack on the company. Indeed, Google isn't directly affected by a drop in stock price; but as a Google shareholder, I am. How is that fair or remotely acceptable? I suppose that's the purpose, and it's despicable. Once…
Perhaps it is acceptable for the same way legal character attacks on individuals are acceptable. If you spread true and public information that results in financial harm for a person such as causing the loss of their job, are you responsible for the damages?
Say that you were once charged with some awful crime. I mean really really bad crime. A little later the police noticed it was actually forgotsusername who they were after, and you were let go and even given a public statement that it wasn't you. But say I pulled up the records of you originally being charged and put them up on a billboard. Let's say I even showed the part where you were let go. But the crime is so horrible, and some people are so jumpy and so strongly believe in the 'where there is smoke there must be fire' line of thinking that your employer decides you are just too much of a liability. Would you have a case against me?
(Granted this might depend purely upon local laws where you live, so maybe the question should be: should you have a case against me?)
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specific to the US, who do you think people will side with? Movie stars or Google Lawyers? I don't see this as being slam-dunk for either side.
The MPAA/RIAA are not "The Movie Stars" they are "The Movie Studios." It's not even that. The MPAA is an industry lobbying group that the studios are members of. There is no big name movie star that is the "face" of the MPAA.
Clearly MPAA aren't "Move Stars" but in this case, the MPAA interests are more clearly aligned with today's celebrities, then they are with Google.
It's a stretch, but one could imagine google's competitors piling on as well.
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#77Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? This is bullshit. Where does the most popular television abd film content come from? Hollywood - including the Netflix only stuff.
By Hollywood, people here mean the big studios/distributors, that is, the companies who provide the cash, not the production companies that film the stuff.
Through a system of billing specifically set up to make the production company end up deep in the red while the big "studio" rakes in the profits. AKA Hollywood accounting.
The system is rotten to the core, and copyright as a concept has been broken since the day someone could drop a couple of 100s on the table and walk out the door with the digital equivalent of a printing press.
Copyright basically hinges on the act of copying being a laborious process, involving large machinery and man-hours.
This because such requirements make all acts of copying for profit activities, to recoup the costs of the copying.
But when producing one additional copy is a case of ctrl-c ctrl-v, calculating the cost heads into "angels on the head of a pin" territory.
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#79Maybe Google should do product placement in movies like Apple does:
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-product-placements-in-t...
* Apple's marketing chief, Phil Schiller, said that "One of Apple's employees works closely with Hollywood on so-called product placement so its gadgets are used in movies and television shows.
Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Specific to the US, who do you think people will side with? Movie stars or Google Lawyers? I don't see this as being slam-dunk for either side.
Who will they side with? Google or the people who keep killing their favourite movie streaming and Torrent sites?
I expect the US population that cares about torrents is practially nil, though that is based personal bias.