We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Hollywood vs. Google

Ok is this not like watching a Godzilla movie?

The news story I recently wrote about a corrupt attorney general conspiring with the MPAA to take down Google has certainly caught the interest of our readers. Although the emails that Google recently obtained did contain some new information, many details of the conspiracy have actually been publicly available for a while. The Sony hack late last year revealed several emails that mention a strategy for movie studios to take on Goliath. It becomes clear from reading a few emails that Goliath is in fact a code name for Google.

Grab some popcorn! This is going to be fun, the vast monsters clash and lays waste to Los Angeles! What’s not to like?

11 comments to Hollywood vs. Google

  • Paul Marks

    Google backed Obama and co – but now they are stabbing Google in the back (because Hollywood, they believe, is still more important to the collectivist cause).

    As all these people are vile (sorry I mean “Progressive”)we can indeed just sit back and watch them tear each other apart.

  • John Galt III

    Yeah, the various lefty business establishments in California, all of whom trip over each other in praising Obama are now dividing and fighting each other. Couldn’t happen to a more smug group of arrogant assholes.

    That is a real case of Schadenfreude for me.

  • Julie near Chicago

    I would like to join in the general enthusiasm for the evening’s entertainment. (Unfortunately I haven’t got time to watch the video at the moment, but I shall certainly have popcorn later this evening. Perhaps we can all share tall, cool glasses of Schadenfreude with it. *rubs hands in anticipation*)

  • There is no honor among thieves. Thievery at its core is a willingness to be dishonest.

    There are no thieves. Even your fear.

    To live outside the law you must be honest.

  • staghounds

    Hey, that video is TWO copyright infringements! I’m reporting you to the RIAA AND to the MPAA!! And Jim Hood!

  • Watchman

    Although if the evidence presented here is correct, Google are in this case in the right – they are the subject of a conspiracy between public officials and private interests in favour of those interests. This is all the more striking because the service that is the subject of this conspiracy is delivered to consumers free (other than us giving up data – in most cases of no value individually).

    Regardless of your views on copyright, if the analysis is correct, in this case Google are the good guys. And if you are concerned by their political alignment rather than a matter of right and wrong, then maybe you should be questioning what makes you different from your average socialist or religious collectiist.

  • Regardless of your views on copyright, if the analysis is correct, in this case Google are the good guys


    And if you are concerned by their political alignment rather than a matter of right and wrong, then maybe you should be questioning what makes you different from your average socialist or religious collectiist.

    Not just wrong but inane. That is like upon seeing a rapist being incorrectly given a parking ticket and then speaking up as a witness for said rapist, because the fact he is a rapist should be ignored as it is not relevant to the parking ticket. True but so what? I am perfectly happy to see my enemies fight amongst themselves, and whilst it may be interesting to see who is in the right or wrong this time, ultimately… fuck ’em.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    It is like Godzilla only if Tokyo gets et.

  • Gareth

    Am i being a bit thick? The article never seems to explain why the MPAA would want to take on Google.

    I can only assume that it has something to do with Google logging requests to remove links to illegally shared material at Chillingeffects.org. From a brief look at some of them I can see that representatives of the movie industry are not particularly diligent – URLs for one film actually being for a different one and suchlike. Or apparent cases of people with no claims to represent copyright holders making the requests.(eg a music related company requesting the removal of a recent film seemingly because the name of a track owned by a company they represent shares a word with the name of the film.)

    Similarly there was this recent story: Universal asks Google to censor “Furious 7” IMDB page, and more

    Legitimate URLs hoovered up and sent to Google for de-indexing.

    Google do remove things from their index. And in the brief look at some movie related requests the URLs I tried were largely no longer available either so ISPs and hosting sites are working to remove things too.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Are Frommer’s Guides allowed to include such things as houses of ill repute, or where to get black-market absinthe, say — at least back when it was illegal in the U.S., presumably because of health concerns: the worm and all that?

    Do dictionaries define certain words, such as “fornication,” “sodomy,” even “perversion” generally? I assume “junkie” is still in the Urban Dictionary or whatever it’s called.

    May maps include routes from, say, New Orleans to D.C., despite the sort of despicable, illegal, and unmentionable concerns and/or sights and/or comestibles (perhaps) that may be found in those cities?

    Gareth’s observation prompts the line of inquiry.

    It’s an interesting question. Suppose there is a road from A to B, perfectly legitimate and necessary according to Western standards. But there are turnoffs which, if followed far enough, take one to a den of thieves. Is it up to the owners or managers of the road (almost surely The Gov, but that’s actually beside the point — almost, anyway) to make sure that the side roads are blocked at some point before the den of iniquity?

    Is it possible that even to those who, like me, believe that “intellectual property” should enjoy protection against thievery, the attempted cure, the blocking of access to information, is worse than the disease of making illegitimate use of the info?

    And going back to Frommer’s, just because it lists a bordello doesn’t mean anyone has to visit it. Or does one want to argue that the listing amounts to “aiding and abetting”?

  • Nicholas (Self-Sovereignty) Gray

    Julie, if I know that a place is a bordello, then I can avoid it, instead of innocently wandering in, thinking the red light was a doctor’s light. For the same reason that maps warn you about houses of Parliament, so they should warn you about other places not to see! Indeed, the more info, the better!