×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Threatens To Disconnect Google From Internet

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the searching-for-glass-tigers dept.

Google 468

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

468 comments

Don't make me laugh! (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153476)

That is all.

Re:Don't make me laugh! (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153572)

It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.

Re:Don't make me laugh! (3, Insightful)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153716)

It's like a chihuahua barking at a tiger.

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

I think it's time (3, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153484)

That Google disconnects the MPAA from existence.

Re:I think it's time (4, Interesting)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153562)

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.

Re:I think it's time (3, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153612)

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".

Re:I think it's time (2)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153658)

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 (5, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:I think it's time (2)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153662)

"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.

Re:I think it's time (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153710)

I can see it now:

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

Re:I think it's time (1)

Byzantine (85549) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153792)

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—that destroys that trust.

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

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:I think it's time (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153890)

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?

Re:I think it's time (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153928)

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."

Re:I think it's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153606)

I heard some folks were DDOSing the MPAA's website, and decided to go to it to see if it was up. Strangely, my google search was unable to find it...

Re:I think it's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153644)

+1 Like.. :D

Re:I think it's time (5, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#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. :)

Re:I think it's time (2)

rhook (943951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153748)

I doubt anyone would miss the MPAA.

Re:I think it's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153882)

It isn't so much the MPAA, but those that back them. Almost every media source in existence. Google would have more to lose by de-indexing the MPAA and those that form it, than they have from losing Google (remember, Bing and other alternatives do exist).

I would look forward to a legal battle that would reinforce the idea that the carrier is not liable (assuming Google is acting as an ISP in this case). If it was against an access point supplier like Starbucks or what not, they wouldn't be able to put up as much of a battle as Google, but would be forced to.

Re:I think it's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153764)

The one who wins this battle is the one who built the bi-directional medium. MPAA has the oneway broadcasting from radio, tv, and movies. But Google already has infrastructure for two-way commnication.

Guess who wins:
The culture where the information flows one way?
Or the culture where anybody can add to the information?

Re:I think it's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153836)

You purport to presume that it is 'multi-billion dollar entertainment companies' that are responsible for generating culture of any type? Mother of God...

Re:I think it's time (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153848)

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.

Re:I think it's time (5, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153908)

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 (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153960)

Google is strong because their search engine is strong. Take that away and they're not the Google we know today.

If you take away Google's search engine, not only would Google not be what we know today, but either would Microsoft's Bing (http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914).

Re:I think it's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153970)

True, but Google could buy out most members of the MPAA and thus control how they deal with copyright ^.^

Re:I think it's time (1)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153982)

But the real Question is... Who's lobby group is lining the pockets of the correct politicians.. Thats how the biggest battles are won these days... in the pockets of politicians..

Re:I think it's time (5, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153806)

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:I think it's time (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153926)

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

do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153492)

DO IT! lmao

Re:do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153698)

DO IT FAGGOT!

I will be very honest (5, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:I will be very honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153570)

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.

I don't know. I think I will be sad when the movie and record industry go out of business. I mean where else am I going to get such comedic ideas such as trying to disconnect google from the internet? Nothing they have released recently has been even close.

Re:I will be very honest (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153580)

A hope you're not American. A complete collapse of the movie industry would be devastating to the US economy, likely as much as if the auto industry had collapsed. Not only are the studios enormous and employ thousands of people, but the trickle down effect (all movie theaters, any store that sells DVDs) would be epic. Granted you're also an idiot if you honestly believe any of this has a realistic chance of happening.

Re:I will be very honest (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153638)

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.

Re:I will be very honest (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153888)

"where do you come up with this crap?"

Deep within his rectum.. You gotta reach way up there to find something that smells that bad.

Re:I will be very honest (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153822)

You're a shill for the MPAA, aren't you? Sure it would be a shock to the industry, but it's not like the customers are going to decide to stop spending their money. Most likely what would happen would be that the talent would flow to independent companies and any money that consumers were going to spend on movies would either be spent on independent films or other things. In neither case would that be devastating.

OTOH California would be a pit, but then again, they pretty much are already, this would be more of a coup de grace.

Re:I will be very honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153824)

lol, trickle down effect.

Re:I will be very honest (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153980)

the trickle down effect (all movie theaters, any store that sells DVDs)

The collapse of the MPAA does not imply the collpased of the studio system, but even if it did, would it really be missed? Movie theaters don't make any money from ticket sales for MPAA films. Indie productions may draw smaller crowds, but the cinima would make a lot more per head. And DVDs? You mean people would rent the original instead of the remake? I mean, it would be one thing if the MPAA studios make anything that wasn't a remake or re-imagining, but they've sort of stopped doing that.

Re:I will be very honest (5, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#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?

Re:I will be very honest (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153738)

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

Moving the earth rather than changing themselves (3, Informative)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153502)

No law is adequate, no business is more important, no constitutional right can supersede the wishes of the commercial content industry.

Re:Moving the earth rather than changing themselve (5, Funny)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153560)

> 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.

Next Up... (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153508)

MPAA threatens to disconnect the human race from the internet, citing nothing whatsoever. In other news, the sun continues to rise in the morning.

Like a baby without a bucket! (1)

mapzta (1924598) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153514)

Jeebus chribs, they're acting like a stubborn kid who lost his bucket. Lying on the floor, rolling around, screaming on the top of his lungs! Imagine a RIAA baby and a MPAA baby in the same room. Glass would break...

How strange (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153516)

"mpaa.org has mysteriously disappeared from our searches! That's a shame." - Google

Re:How strange (4, Interesting)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153558)

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!"

Re:How strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153686)

either that or Google themselves googlebomb it to display stuff related to "poor loser," "dinosaur," and all the other epithets from these comments

Doing it all wring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153714)

you need to go after the studios and the products of those studios

Google needs to make searches for Harry Potter and the like to point instead to an independent movie of the same genre.

Re:How strange (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153860)

Unfortunately, it won't happen. It would open the way for law suits for liability providing access to sites. As it is they get sort of a free pass on infringement sites because they don't filter content.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153532)

The MPAA thinks it controls the internet?

Excuse me... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Whoopee (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153534)

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).

Re:Whoopee (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153904)

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 Comcast would now have in their coffers thanks to the buy out.

Illegal Threats? (3, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153568)

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.

"extortion"? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153774)

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?

They're serious? They can't be serious. (4, Insightful)

rockman_x_2002 (1791612) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:They're serious? They can't be serious. (4, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153838)

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?

Bring it on (4, Insightful)

Xian97 (714198) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Wow... Just... Wow... (1)

EEGeek (183888) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153628)

I guess you learn something everyday... I didn't know that the MPAA were the keepers of the Internet and have the power to decide who can and can't access the internet.

I, for one, welcome our new Internet Overlords!

More than they can chew (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153630)

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.

Hey Google (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153700)

YOU DONE GOOFED

Sincerely,
  - MPAA

Re:Hey Google (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153840)

Dear MPAA,

Fuck off.

Sincerely,
- Google

ObDisclaimer: I am currently not affiliated with Google in any way, shape, or form, except as a user of their products. This post is intended as social commentary only. IANAL. YMMV.

(OT why do I have to use <em> tags instead of <i> tags?)

Backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153732)

I think they have it backwards. Should be "the Internet might get disconnected from Google."

One wonders how the MPAA would FIND anyone to sue without Google available to them.

It's funny (1)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153740)

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.

Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name (4, Interesting)

peterofoz (1038508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153768)

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]

Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153864)

>>>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,.

Re:Next week: DHS siezes Google domain name (2)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153914)

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.

Summary (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153780)

"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.

there once was a time (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153786)

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

Re:there once was a time (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153968)

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. Plus 3d has been horribly half-assed cince then as most films are shot in 2d and 3d version faked so the theater experience is utterly crappy compared to avatar.

Avatar made money because of the hype and newness of the latest iteration of 3d. if it was not 1st out of the gate it would NOT have done as well.

Disconnecting Google.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153790)

When you cut the Google's connection, you are not disconnecting Google from Internet, you are disconnecting Internet from Google.

lets see (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153812)

yesterday they are sueing a genrec http host. today they make a totally empty threat to google. mpaa is not the fcc they have no control over the internet. hell even the court system is getting sick of the thousands of subpoenas there getting everyday. to me this is a good thing when they start affecting the rich people change happens for the better. when they where suing poor people who could not pay the insane judgments nobody cared.

This is the USA (3, Interesting)

Adam Appel (1991764) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:This is the USA (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153896)

heh yea they attempt that crap all the time with insurance. i live in a no fault state and some chick tryed to sue me. i got your standard threat letter.so i called him this chick lived in ny btw and i told him mi is no fault she can make no such clams the insurance covered everything. and told him to bring it on. i never herd from him again.

MPAA - Take your ball and go home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153856)

I could last longer and be happier without the movie industry on the internet then I can without Google.

Thankyou MPAA! (4)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 3 years ago | (#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).

Refuse to serve YouTube to IP address(es) of MPAA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153920)

I'm assuming here that it is within a business owners right to refuse access to any particular person. An example would be a bar owner asking me to leave and not return to his/her establishment and having me charged with trespassing if I do. So could Google, or any business entity with a website identify specific people (based on IP address) and notify them that they are no longer welcome at the companies website and then either block those IP addresses are bring them up on charges of trespassing if they did 'return'?

By what authority? (4, Insightful)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153934)

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

my old body says run away, my spirit says.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153938)

there's no better place to go in the long haul, there never was, stay.

The question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35153950)

Would this be disconnecting Google from the internet, or disconnecting the internet from Google?

Seriously though, disconnecting a major internet company with datacentres all over the world would be a major challenge and I doubt that the legal system is willing to devote the resources to do it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...