MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Gawker Gets Aggressive

They could certainly be accused of trying to undermine the competition, but I was surprised by two Gawker/Defamer pieces this last few days that dug a bit into the business end of HuffPo and Deadline Hollywood Daily.
The first is a look at the effort to funnel some of HuffPo’s recent funding round, as well as donations from major corporations and charities, into a tax exempt “Huffington Post Investigative Fund.” The problem? It’s not clear that the fund is anything other than a tax dodge for Huffington to pay freelancers to do her bidding without paying taxes on the the money.
The author of the piece, John Cook, sees other ironies, but to me, the big joke is that fund hangs its tax-free status on making their reporting available for free to anyone on the web who wishes to reprint it while HuffPo is the top thief of news content that is not meant to be reprinted at no cost.
The other interestingly Smoking Gun-esque piece was Foster Kamer’s piece on Nikki Finke & Co trying to trademark “Toldja.”
He lingers on some past hypocrisy by Nikki. Not I. Too many daily hypocrisies to be parsing it that carefully. I just think it is a hysterically funny notion. Finally, something that could allow Nikki to raise the number of threatened lawsuits (without ever calling the lawyer) per year.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “Gawker Gets Aggressive”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    You forgot “Not much news here” (which is a variant of “No surprise”) and also “BZZT! Wrong!”

  2. LexG says:

    “Perspective, please.”

  3. jose says:

    what about “avatar box office record…”

  4. Martin S says:

    Dave – Take my advice on BYOB. You use it all the time and will run you under 400 to TM it.

  5. Martin S says:

    …and if someone tries to grab it before you, you’ve got the track record to contest it.

  6. Andy Felix says:

    And a trademark filling/dispute means exactly what in terms of Apple as a whole? Nothing.
    Apple probably spends more on toilet paper in one week than these legal fees would amount to.
    What makes you think this isn’t Apple doing this because they can? Because they find the blog coverage amusing? Because it fits into the general model of trying to disallow other companies from using the i-whatever language?
    ———-
    Andy

  7. Andy Felix says:

    idn’t they have to bully another company into relinquishing the iPhone name when that was on the horizon?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon