If 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.
I assume this is a joke. This would be terrifying. The MPAA are trying to stop google from fairly distributing pages they disagree with. Google is net neutrality and should act as a dumb pipe utility in the sense that it returns the most relevant info based on your search.
If google returned empty pages for something it didn't agree with, the implications would be appalling.
Google should do during the spectrum wars when they bid on spectrum and territory to leverage telecom co.s. They should threaten to back netflix or start a studio to make movies and content. They already have distribution and funds.
Or Youtube. That must be the only place people will watch a trailer without the studio paying anything. In fact, maybe they even make money from the views.
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.
Having made films for quite some time, aiming to outdo Hollywood rather than work within it - there's a lot less bloat than it may initially appear, and they're better at this stuff than they look from the outside.
Films are hugely labour-intensive, particularly to produce to the standards that the public demand. There are a variety of interesting avenues to pursue if you are interested in disrupting Hollywood - I blog about many of them when I'm not actively pursuing them - but none of them are trivial.
As for CGI realism: ish. I actually moved away from CGI to live-action quite recently, after nearly 20 years of making low-budget animated movies, because IMO live-action is actually far more promising right now. CGI is extremely useful as a backup and emabler in conjunction with live-action, but not so much on its own. I wrote more about that here - http://www.strangecompany.org/why-the-guy-who-coined-machini... .
Your point about "shooting on location" versus CGI seem absurd to me. A Hollywood production is so much more that just the logistics to shoot on location. It is actors, directors, casting, production design, production management, music, manuscripts, editing etc. All of these things requires a specialized skillset. None of these can be replaces with a server rack. Animation is somewhat different production-wise, but still need the same kind of talent, just not as many trucks.
Hollywood accounting is infamous, but it seems Hollywood actually know what they are doing business-wise. They pay stars a lot of money because it translates into ticket sales, not because they are idiots.
Many movies are made outside of Hollywood (so-called independent movies) with cheaper talent (sometimes working for free), but only rarely are they as financially successful as Hollywood movies.
I've thought about this a lot - I work in mediatech and have also thought about PG's RFS when it was posted some years ago.
Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that thinking about Hollywood as "production & distribution" is naive - if that were really the case YouTube and Netflix would have long replaced Hollywood by now. And I don't think "CGI" realism will disrupt them either.
What Hollywood has, to an overwhelming degree, and which is really hard to "automate" is talent. From writers, singers and to actors and directors, Hollywood is really effective at finding and growing talent and the rest of the world hasn't really figured out how to write great content other than "throw millions of dollars at it" (like Netflix with House of Cards).
Simply put, you can have the best distribution channels or the cheapest platform but the top tier talent is expensive - but also has the best returns. And couple that with the fact that media production is very hit or miss (you can spend 150MM on a movie and have no one watch it, or make 1B), you are faced with something you can seemingly only "disrupt" by spending as much as everyone else.
No need to shoot on location? This is how it was done in the studio system from the early days through about the 1970s. The studios were more dominant then.
I agree some aspects of film are ripe for disruption but many aspects have already been disrupted multiple times over the years.
I'm in the medical industry, which is another field that tech newbies think will be fixed real soon now as hackers turn their attention to it. In both cases there is a lot of hard earned insider knowledge that outsiders (arrogantly) discount.
Hollywood does have a very important role that isn't subject to disruption by technology. Hollywood is the home of the "star" system. Stars sell movies these days. Be them writers, directors, models, or guys with funny voices, the market want to see famous people on screen.
Whether it is Paris Hilton or Bill Maher, stars are the people who rise to the top of the system and become household names. The various media wings need a place with a critical mass of famous people. That happens in LA, and to a lesser extent in New York. Look at Vancouver. Lots of films, lots of money, but none of the media associated with LA's star system. The physicality of this system means it is resistant to disruption by technology. Hollywood will be king for a long time.
I learned recently that one the big reasons why Hollywood because synonymous with movies (besides the weather) was movie studios moving west to avoid Thomas Edison's ability to enforce his patents on the east coast.
My question is how much damage to society will Hollywood do before collapsing? Putting a "Strong IP Enforcement" regime in place could cripple the USA for decades, for example.
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 information in court for a lawsuit against MPAA?
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.
>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 the political support for the MPAA ends, they'll have nothing left.
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..
The MPAA is not "Hollywood" and had not been so for a long time.
MPAA current members:
Sony, Disney, Fox, Universal, Warner and Paramount.
Netflix is not a member. Lionsgate is not a member. You tube is certainly not a member. The MPAA therefore doesn't represent the content industry let alone all of Hollywood. Those writing about the MPAA (Wired) should not take its word as representative of anyone other than its FIVE backers. And some of those (Sony) aren't exactly happy with them these days.
Uh... Under whose definition are Netflix or Youtube (Google) part of "Hollywood"? The term has always been used to refer to the industry formed by the big traditional studios which were founded in the early part of the century in the Hollywood/Burbank area. Lionsgate might qualify (and I don't know why they aren't in the MPAA), but then they haven't even been around for two decades yet.
The MPAA is "Hollywood" for sure, inasmuch as that term has any meaning at all. I simply don't understand what point you're trying to make.
I would not mind if the entire entertainment industry just die. Some (likely, the only worthy) part of it will adapt, and the rest is totally worthless.
* 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.
They've done product placement and they've also done something that Apple never has - they got an entire movie about just their company. It's called The Internship.
I wonder if the threat of continuous attack and litigation could hurt shareholders of the MPAA's partners more than Google itself. Particularly since the last decade of investment into anti-piracy campaigns and measures has not curved piracy.
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. Everything is CG or some dumb plotline about sex. I'm sure films & tv shows will turn out from tech giants. I think if Google jumped in and began paying celebrities to star in their movies it could do well. I've always thought Hollywood to be a propaganda machine.
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 that, too.)
[+] [-] venomsnake|10 years ago|reply
I would call it piracy prevention program - that way no one will be able to find piracy content trough google.
[+] [-] vonklaus|10 years ago|reply
If google returned empty pages for something it didn't agree with, the implications would be appalling.
Google should do during the spectrum wars when they bid on spectrum and territory to leverage telecom co.s. They should threaten to back netflix or start a studio to make movies and content. They already have distribution and funds.
[+] [-] petepete|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcintyre1994|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SaturateDK|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] verinus|10 years ago|reply
nevertheless hollywood does everything to abolish itself producing only comic/computer game adaptions or se-/prequels.
[+] [-] BasDirks|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caskance|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itsuart|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwhitman|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thenomad|10 years ago|reply
Films are hugely labour-intensive, particularly to produce to the standards that the public demand. There are a variety of interesting avenues to pursue if you are interested in disrupting Hollywood - I blog about many of them when I'm not actively pursuing them - but none of them are trivial.
As for CGI realism: ish. I actually moved away from CGI to live-action quite recently, after nearly 20 years of making low-budget animated movies, because IMO live-action is actually far more promising right now. CGI is extremely useful as a backup and emabler in conjunction with live-action, but not so much on its own. I wrote more about that here - http://www.strangecompany.org/why-the-guy-who-coined-machini... .
[+] [-] olavk|10 years ago|reply
Hollywood accounting is infamous, but it seems Hollywood actually know what they are doing business-wise. They pay stars a lot of money because it translates into ticket sales, not because they are idiots.
Many movies are made outside of Hollywood (so-called independent movies) with cheaper talent (sometimes working for free), but only rarely are they as financially successful as Hollywood movies.
[+] [-] nemothekid|10 years ago|reply
Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that thinking about Hollywood as "production & distribution" is naive - if that were really the case YouTube and Netflix would have long replaced Hollywood by now. And I don't think "CGI" realism will disrupt them either.
What Hollywood has, to an overwhelming degree, and which is really hard to "automate" is talent. From writers, singers and to actors and directors, Hollywood is really effective at finding and growing talent and the rest of the world hasn't really figured out how to write great content other than "throw millions of dollars at it" (like Netflix with House of Cards).
Simply put, you can have the best distribution channels or the cheapest platform but the top tier talent is expensive - but also has the best returns. And couple that with the fact that media production is very hit or miss (you can spend 150MM on a movie and have no one watch it, or make 1B), you are faced with something you can seemingly only "disrupt" by spending as much as everyone else.
[+] [-] gmarx|10 years ago|reply
I agree some aspects of film are ripe for disruption but many aspects have already been disrupted multiple times over the years.
I'm in the medical industry, which is another field that tech newbies think will be fixed real soon now as hackers turn their attention to it. In both cases there is a lot of hard earned insider knowledge that outsiders (arrogantly) discount.
[+] [-] eplanit|10 years ago|reply
http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bet/2014/02/netfl...
http://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/#hollywood
Yes, they're ripe for it. The consumers are ready for it, too. More power to those who pursue it!
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
Whether it is Paris Hilton or Bill Maher, stars are the people who rise to the top of the system and become household names. The various media wings need a place with a critical mass of famous people. That happens in LA, and to a lesser extent in New York. Look at Vancouver. Lots of films, lots of money, but none of the media associated with LA's star system. The physicality of this system means it is resistant to disruption by technology. Hollywood will be king for a long time.
[+] [-] timjahn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shkkmo|10 years ago|reply
I thought that was poetically ironic.
[+] [-] bediger4000|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sirseal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NicoJuicy|10 years ago|reply
They obviously failed before execution, but that shouldn't matter...
Does anyone know if Google can use this information in court for a lawsuit against MPAA?
[+] [-] bkmartin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgetsusername|10 years ago|reply
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 the political support for the MPAA ends, they'll have nothing left.
[+] [-] brlewis|10 years ago|reply
Yes. According to the article it's in a court filing. I presume for the following lawsuit:
http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_jimhood_dec...
[+] [-] rwhitman|10 years ago|reply
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..
[+] [-] JupiterMoon|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
MPAA current members: Sony, Disney, Fox, Universal, Warner and Paramount.
Netflix is not a member. Lionsgate is not a member. You tube is certainly not a member. The MPAA therefore doesn't represent the content industry let alone all of Hollywood. Those writing about the MPAA (Wired) should not take its word as representative of anyone other than its FIVE backers. And some of those (Sony) aren't exactly happy with them these days.
[+] [-] ajross|10 years ago|reply
The MPAA is "Hollywood" for sure, inasmuch as that term has any meaning at all. I simply don't understand what point you're trying to make.
[+] [-] sklogic|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balls187|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosseraccount|10 years ago|reply
* 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.
[+] [-] WorldWideWayne|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nness|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousjorge|10 years ago|reply
Plenty of video services like netflix, amazon prime are producing their own quality tv shows that exceed most of the crap movies we get. Everything is CG or some dumb plotline about sex. I'm sure films & tv shows will turn out from tech giants. I think if Google jumped in and began paying celebrities to star in their movies it could do well. I've always thought Hollywood to be a propaganda machine.
[+] [-] te_chris|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc808|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CmonDev|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Oletros|10 years ago|reply