Live data from Hacker News

New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

wired.com

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#81
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They are a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site (also known as the iOS censorship apologist argument)

I think it would be possibly anti-competitive. However, Google already attempts to reward original content so if they could do it algorithmically to everyone (hence not disrupting the competitive marketplace) I think they'd be able to claim "oops."

Until someone subpoenas their emails and sees a discussion in which the act is deliberate, during which case it's anti-competitive.

"Oops" only works when there's no proof, and it's hard to hvae an absence of proof in something that would take so much orchestration.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 w…

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.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#83

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 infor…

I once knew a guy who was sent to jail for insider trading in the 80's for manipulating stocks as a WSJ writer. It was a big deal at the time.

Publishing an editorial in the WSJ with the intention of manipulating a company's stock price certainly feels like it should fall under the same category..

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#84
post #77
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned google is just an NSA data collection hub.

Like every other American company?

It's not just America, all of the "5 eyes" share data, plus the occasional deal with countries like Netherlands and Germany.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be lovely, however that probably won't happen. Seeing google might get sued for that.

Why? They are a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site (also known as the iOS censorship apologist argument)

Because they very much have to toe the line of being "neutral" in their search results as to not enable all the sanctions/remedies that other search engine competitors (like Bing) to have merit. Were they to overtly use their position to "punish" the content companies in this way, they would be jumped on by regulators everywhere for abusing a monopoly power.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be lovely, however that probably won't happen. Seeing google might get sued for that.

Why? They are a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site (also known as the iOS censorship apologist argument)

They can and should be able to, but ever so often a government starts thinking that "oh, it's big enough that we should remind it we're bigger and claim it's a 'utility' or something". This kind of thing makes that argument easier.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#87
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.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be lovely, however that probably won't happen. Seeing google might get sued for that.

Why? They are a private company, they can do whatever they want on their site (also known as the iOS censorship apologist argument)

The real reason is that they fight very hard to seem like a neutral search agency. They wouldn't want to jepordise that for a squabble with hollywood.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#89
post #52

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. Everyth…

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 t…

> Within a few years, video games will be generating photo-realistic feature films on demand

Games are struggling to match the offline renderings of 14 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaI7ZPA9I1c - in particular pay attention to the lightning and textures, less so the animations. Especially those off in the distance, something that games continue to struggle with in a big way.

Photo-realistic video games are very, very far off. Significantly the costs required to achieve high-end graphics these days are astronomical.

Re: New Court Evidence Reveals Hollywood’s Plan to Smear Google

#90

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 manu…

You could say the same about television. I don't buy it. I don't see us all watching cartoons only in the future.
Post reply on HN