hey youguys. i’ve found a couple of atricles in the new york times that i think you might be interested in. the first is about internet movie piracy, it’s apparent heirarchical structure and what hollywood needs to do to combat it. here’s a small extract.
“The Internet was designed to facilitate file transfer. That’s what it’s all about, so whether it’s in e-mail, instant messaging, music or films, it’s all going to increase as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow,” said Mr. Fleischer at BigChampagne. “I think the movie business is in the same place the music business was in 2001 and 2002. They’re just sitting it out and not doing much to put legitimate movie offerings online.”
HOLLYWOOD veterans say they are well aware of the momentous changes afoot. “Our industry is trying very hard to make sure that what happened to the music industry doesn’t happen to our industry,” said Barry M. Meyer, chairman of Warner Brothers, which was one of the first studios to mount a serious antipiracy campaign. “We don’t want this to become mainstream behavior.”
click here to read the entire feature. (sorry you have to sign up, but it’s free)
the second article i think you guys would be interested in is about the current situation between google and cnet. this is about the reaction by google ceo, eric e. schmidt to a cnet article dated 14th July about his personal financial state of affairs. the twist here is, as you may already know is that this information was collatd by the cnet reporter using google’s own search engine. eric e. schmidt didn’t take kindly to this article being written however, even though less that an tenth of the article referred to him. this information is freely available on the net anyway - here’s an extract from the cnet article.
“Google CEO Eric Schmidt doesn’t reveal much about himself on his home page.
But spending 30 minutes on the Google search engine lets one discover that Schmidt, 50, was worth an estimated $1.5 billion last year. Earlier this year, he pulled in almost $90 million from sales of Google stock and made at least another $50 million selling shares in the past two months as the stock leaped to more than $300 a share.”
for a direct link to this article click here.
personally, i don’t care that schmidt has made so much money, i mean it’s expected, so why is he so annoyed with cnet for revealing freely available information? the point of the cnet article was to explore the issue of privacy concerns regarding internet entities such as google - however it has resulted in a vow from the google ceo that his company will not talk top any cnet reporter for a period of on year.
here’s a link to the nytimes article which analysis the situation. i have to say as a disclaimer though that the nytimes have seemed to have taken a slightly anti-google stance, as can be seen in a previous article which accuses the company of being ‘evil.’ read at your own risk!