Leaked e-mails have revealed that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) paid multiple state Attorneys General to attack Google. The leaked e-mails are the latest scandal to break from the massive Sony online hack. The MPAA and Google have a tempestuous history together; Hollywood accuses Google of facilitating copyright infringement by indexing illegal torrent sites, and Google regularly resists the MPAA’s attempts to censor its search results.
The Verge summarises one of the key incriminating e-mails from the MPAA below:
May 8, 2014: Fabrizio to group. “We’ve had success to date in motivating the AGs; however as they approach the CID phase, the AGs will need greater levels of legal support.” He outlines two options, ranging from $585,000 to $1.175 million, which includes legal support for AGs (through Jenner) and optional investigation and analysis of (“ammunition / evidence against”) Goliath. Both options include at least $85,000 for communication (e.g. “Respond to / rebut Goliath’s public advocacy, amplify negative Goliath news, [and] seed media stories based on investigation and AG actions.”).
The e-mail needs a little deciphering: ‘Goliath’ refers, of course, to Google, whereas CID stands for ‘Civil Investigative Demand’, a form of administrative subpoena to force information from a company. In summary: powerful Hollywood studio collective pays US public servants to bully a company it doesn’t like. It will be interesting to see how the MPAA tries to spin this.
Source: Techdirt
MPAA. The MAJOR reason to pirate films.
Don’t be stupid they didn’t exist when people were still downloading movies from the net.
Don’t be stupid. They exist today. I didn’t say they where the reason piracy started. It’s just that, the way they work, makes movie industry to look unethical, rotten and corrupted. It’s easier to justify piracy when you don’t see the people working to create a movie, but the face of MPAA or RIAA and the way they try to fight piracy, many times attacking individuals, even underage people, like they are the worst criminals on the planet alive, or other times asking from courts to fine families that downloaded a couple of dozen songs, like they stole the whole archive of a music or movie company, asking for hundreds of thousands or millions for damages.
And? You act like they are doing something wrong when they do sue, did those people not steal their media? Why yes, yes they did.
So when you singled out the MPAA as the MAJOR reason to grab warez releases, you were being naive, people have been illegally recording music, movies and copying games since the 80s.
The only reason people want to blame those corps is because they look for excuses to somehow legitimize what they do regularly, and I have heard the excuses since the 80s till now, all rubbish and no basis of facts. The olde “if prices were not so high” has run its course and has died as a viable excuse these days, since most will steal an app costing a couple of dollars.
“The game’s protection…” is no longer viable either, since most authorization protections involve online schemes, which by the way most warez users complained about not having back in the day of Securom, Starforce etc… their excuse was “if it was an online check I would buy the game… blah de blah”… and look what happened, they didn’t again another BS excuse to make themselves feel better.
So yeah, if I created something and I find out someone is using it without paying, ill sue also. What would have cost you a few dollars may end up costing you many times more. And good on them.
And as for the case of the underage people, the case you are thinking about is the teen who had thousands of audio tracks being shared via Kazaa years ago, and they wanted to sue for the cost of the tracks, court fees and other disclosed fees.
Well all those that you call excuses do have a strong base, and there are plenty more. If you are following this from the ’80s as you are saying, then you know it. And no, I was talking about Kazaa.
It’s human nature to share… if I retell the Harry Potter books to a friend does that mean they have now pirated it? Will my friend have to pay up or get sued for listening?
Music and Movies make their primary profit from live-performances and opening weekends… secondary sales are a fraction compared to that initial burst.
The MPAA decries piracy to the same degree as murder, BUT at the same time the movie industry has RECORD BREAKING PROFITS in the same year…
And this new information shows just where they are channeling those profits: into targeting non-complacent businesses with exorbitant legal battles.
The MPAA was formed in 1922.
No the MPDDA was formed in 1922, the current MPAA was formed in 2004.
No, the MPAA (formerly the MPPDA) as an institution, was formed in 1922. A name change does not suddenly make it a different thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America
“The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is an American trade association that represents the six major Hollywood studios. It was founded in 1922 as the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA)
to advance the business interests of its members. In its formative
years it took on the role of devising guidelines for film content which
resulted in the creation of the Production Code, and currently administers the MPAA film rating system.”
A name change requires registration with the relevant people in the USA depending on size of course, and that means a chance of contracts etc, thusly a new company.
Do you think Activision Blizzard is the same company as either activision or blizzard? No its a new company.
Just like countless businesses in history, once you register that new name you are now a new company. It may very well be the same board members etc, but it is new.
A lot of businesses do this when their previous one has gone bankrupt.
Try again. Blizzard Activision is a merger of two different companies and is in no way comparable to the MPAA simply changing its name. You are comparing apples to Skyscrapers and making a tit of yourself.
Your making a tit of yourself, doesn’t matter if one is bought out, merged or just simply started afresh, a new company is a new company and has to be registered as such. That also includes rebranding.
So you try again. But this time look up the practices of businesses and how and when they should change names etc.
I ran my first business at age 11, my second at age 17, ran 4 others over a 14 year period and have just registered my new company here in mainland Europe. You are arguing with someone who not only very clearly has a better grip on reality than yourself, but also with somebody who has probably spent more years running companies than you have spent being alive.
Good luck with your life, I think you need it. I’ll not be continuing this argument as it is now clear that I have an unfair advantage over you.
I ran my successful business also for a number of years, and sold for 10x the initial equity. This my first business at 11 and then 17… seriously shut up, anyone who ends the olde “Good luck with your life… yadda yadda” clearly knows nothing.
Here is a simple question if you are business owner as you said, why do you have to register your business. There is only one correct answer. If you have ran one you will know the answer. And it isn’t easy to find why.
Here, I think you should look at this before you say anything else on a subject you’ve just outright proven you have no knowledge of:
http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/09/register-your-small-business.html
That is the simplest, easiest to understand link I could find at such short notice, I do hope there aren’t too many big words in there. Just to be on the safe side though, I’ll give you a brief rundown:
There are numerous places you need to register with, and for numerous reasons all of which depend upon the starting conditions, such as country, business type and operating area.
Not all businesses need to register in all places and the rules will differ depending on whether your business is wholly new, a previously incorporated company wishing to trade under a different name, two or more businesses merging in to one new entity with a new name, two or more businesses merging in to a new entity operating under the combined name/s of the previous companies the list goes on and on, and on.
10x the equity eh? OK fella, have fun with that.
Thinking that linking a random site that deals with business issues somehow qualifies as you being knowledgeable is almost laughable.
Doesn’t matter the country, or the law etc, there is only one answer to that question and you failed to answer it, which means you have no clue. If you knew you wouldn’t try and link a site that doesn’t even show the answer and you would just come out and say it.
The fact you laugh off the word equity also shows you have no clue.
I await your nonsensical ranted reply.