Google Sues Mississippi Attorney General For Conspiring With Movie Industry 114
ideonexus writes: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has called for a "time out" in his perpetual fight with Google in response to the company filing a lawsuit against him for conspiring with the movie industry to persecute the search giant. Leaked Sony Pictures Entertainment emails and documents obtained under FOIA requests this week have exposed how the Motion Picture Association of America was colluding with and lobbying state prosecutors to go after Google, even going so far as to "assigned a team of lawyers to prepare draft subpoenas and legal briefs for the attorneys general" to make it easier for them to persecute the company. Here's the full complaint (PDF).
Related article... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Looks like the state Attorneys General are the newest benefactor of policital contributions in the ongoing purchasing of our government by special interests.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't consider Lawyers the Ultimate Special Interest ?
haha (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but as much as North Korea sucks, this hack just gets better and better...
Google’s effort to position itself as a defender of free speech is shameful. Freedom of speech should never be used as a shield for unlawful activities and the Internet is not a license to steal,” said Kate Bedingfield, an M.P.A.A. spokeswoman, in an emailed statement.
That statements so unbelievably ironic... Sony and the MPAA are trying to squash these very document releases with the same tactics they use to try and stop file sharing... but this time it's to hide their own collusion, racketeering, bribery and likely other violations of federal law. I wonder if the other inmates will appreciate her opinion that piracy is stealing when she's in the state pen...
Re:haha (Score:5, Funny)
this time it's to hide their own collusion, racketeering, bribery and likely other violations of federal law.
I wonder if the other inmates will appreciate her opinion that piracy is stealing when she's in the state pen
No, they will be too busy wondering how she ended up in the state pen for violation of federal law.
Re: (Score:2)
The combination of two factors:
1. Eric Holder has "broad discretion" in prosecuting federal crimes.
2. There are so many unexpected laws (Mississippi's silly ones include this list [dumblaws.com]), that a committed prosecutor can always find something to convict you of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the rare occasions they do, it's to one of those white-collar resort joints.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that up there? Looks like a stapler ... only it's red!
Re:haha (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is lobbying the AG's themselves, but they seem to be on the defensive. From Ars: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
Several weeks later, a meeting took place between Google executives and Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen. The same morning the meeting took place, MPAA's Perrelli was informed about it by two attorneys at the AG's office, who offered to send Google's presentation to Perrelli. Jepsen reached out to the MPAA, seeking demands that he could press against Google.
The article makes clear that many AG offices seem to be favoring the MPAA side, even after hearing from Google. I'd be really interested to see a survey of who's funding election campaigns for all state AGs in the country. Follow the money and see what shows up.
Re: (Score:1)
Who modded this interesting, it is nonsense. Google aren't lobbying the AGs they are responding to the MPAA-penned accusations put to them by the corrupt AGs, and this is not just splitting hairs. To understand the distinction clearly:
If the MPAA had not 'lobbied' (ie bribed) the AGs then Google would have had no contact with the AGs, the reverse is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Statement from Attorney General Jim Hood/a> [wdam.com]
Mr. Hood's letter is so cynical I just can't get my head around it. He has been caught red handed accepting bribes from the MPAA and what does he conclude?
"The Sony emails themselves document that long before the hack many attorneys general were working to make our states safer for our children. It would be a discredit to the public interest not to question Google's actions and consider the consequences."
Think of the children. It's all about the children! Th
Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. (Score:3, Funny)
Does anybody even want to live in Mississippi? I'm pretty sure it's the worst state in the Union for a reason.
The rest of the country should just build a wall around it, and put all the politicians and lawyers there.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been to Wyoming?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wyoming is just one of those imaginary states like Idaho and East Prussia.
Re: (Score:2)
Wyoming is great if you value your privacy. I mean the air gaps are huge.
Mississippi is just a swamp.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably can't find a better place to have a farm.
Sure, if you don't mind mosquitos the size of horses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you can actually shoot them and hit? Sounds like a win-win!
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the country should just build a wall around it, and put all the politicians and lawyers there.
Finally! I've been waiting for the reboot [io9.com] for a while.
Dear Mississippi (Score:5, Interesting)
How does it feel to know your tax dollars and elected representatives are being used to do the bidding of private motion picture conglomerates at the expense of regular citizens using the internet?
Re: (Score:1)
You are assuming that people in Mississippi can a) access the internet, which they cant, b) work a computer, which they can't - they are the devils work and c) read.
Re:Dear Mississippi (Score:5, Insightful)
There can be little question that what the USA needs now is another Teddy Roosevelt trust-buster. Big corporations-- and banks-- are exerting way too much influence on the USA's politics and marketplace. Time to do what T.R. did about100 years ago: use government to regulate Big Business so that the marketplace and politics can work the way the founding fathers intended. Instead of twisting governments-- state as well as federal-- to do what Big Business thinks is best for themselves.
I'm not sure that Saint Hilliary is earthy enough to get the job done. I'm not sure that Ms Warren has the skills and shrewdness of thought the work requires. Maybe they could combine forces.
What I am pretty sure of is we need a Mommy in the White House who can restore order in the nursery and rumpus room and do whatever enforcement is needed to get all the kids to play nicely with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get elected is lie your ass off about what you intend to do once elected. You can't be honest about that and expect to win.
The people who truly want this probably would vote you in, but they don't vote. The people who don't want this vote.
People already on record as someone you would vote for will not get the funding. They will not get past the first round to the primaries where voters get a choice.
What the USA needs is voters who understand that we have a capitalist economy, and who unde
Re: Dear Mississippi (Score:1)
We've had a socialist economy for about a hundred years. It started out with infrastructure, moved to banking, power and phone, and now encompasses medicine and most heavy industry through the various parts of the military industrial complex and the war on drugs.
This America is capitalist meme you are parroting is about as hilarious as the people that called Obamacare socialist because it was going to take away their Medicare.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it feel to know your tax dollars and elected representatives are being used to do the bidding of private motion picture conglomerates at the expense of regular citizens using the internet?
If i paid taxes, I'd be pissed.
Another Chris Dodd faux pas (Score:5, Informative)
The MPAA is led by disgraced former Senator Chris Dodd, famous for being on the take from Countrywide Mortgage as a "Friends of Angelo" Mozilo member in good standing. Wonder if this little project with the studios meets anti-trust law violation thresholds....
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks that there will ever be a repeat of the Hollywood anti-trust lawsuits of the late 40s clearly doesn't understand just how much power Hollywood has over the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Sony just tell the uber US hacking corps to fuck Korea in the goat ass for the recent hacking attempts?
No?
Because if Hollywood had the power you are talking about, the would have immediately.
You have a very specific definition of power, and one that you should elaborate on or just stick a sock in your mouth for the rest of the week.
Re: (Score:3)
uh, two words for ya: George Bush.
Need any more?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck cares if he's a Democrat or a Republican or a fucking treehugging hippy? His actions dictate his place in history, not his commercial affiliations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The dude looks like a stereotypical redneck (Score:4, Informative)
There are places in Mississippi that functioned as tort mills for a long time, although most of them are not populated with people who look like him.
Hmmmm.... I'd want to sue his ass too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think if law enforcement, the civil courts and the MPAA don't have a right to force Google to do their jobs for them. I also think that due process for individuals still exists and the MPAA shouldn't have a right to tell Google to pull content without a court order or valid evidence.
So yeah, this guy kinda needs to be sued. Google has done nothing but try to balance the rights of these greedy bastards and the rights of individuals. Google has spent a ton of money to implement functionality just to help placate these morons while pissing off its user base.
And if people don't get their pirated content with a Google search, there's MANY other trivially easy ways to find it.
In case you're wondering (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes he's a Democrat. Does it matter? I don't know - why does every he-done-bad story involving someone remotely associated with the Republican party lead with "Republican so-and-so...".
I do think this is a kind of shitty deal though. If there was some wrong I'd want righted, and I thought that the arm of government responsible for looking into the matter was low on resources, I'd want to be able to "help out". If this case has merit and results in favor of Google and friends, what kind of precedent does tha
Re: (Score:2)
So would I.
Especially if I were going to be paid millions and millions of dollars for "helping out".
Re: (Score:2)
Because Republicans are the party of the moral conservatives, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, religious conservatives, and most other conservatives.
A typical Democrat, party of liberals, will not be outraged by a speeding ticket or drug charge or arrest for gayness. But a typical Republican will be mortified by an arrest for anything, or a charge of darn near any
From the article (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google play (Score:5, Interesting)
The best comment I saw on Ars, was that as a response to these AG tactics by the MPAA and RIAA, Google should remove all references to the MPAA and RIAA from its search results. There doesn't seem any reason that google *has* to index your site.
Re: (Score:2)
What is needed, is a search site that allows you to exclude terms, domains, regular expression based, as part of your profile that you never ever want to see mentioned. i.e. a user managed/specific blacklist. Something that happens at the search level, instead of my browser having to block it via Ghostery or AdBlock or some other utility.
-= Rhyas =-
Re: (Score:2)
Block ALL results except those exposing the *AA and AG, to take it a step further.
Re: (Score:1)
The best comment I saw on Ars, was that as a response to these AG tactics by the MPAA and RIAA, Google should remove all references to the MPAA and RIAA from its search results. There doesn't seem any reason that google *has* to index your site.
I used to applaud these sorts of ideas, but lately I've been thinking that they sound exactly like the "We have an effective monopoly, so we're going to intimidate anyone we feel like" actions that a free society should oppose. I'm open to being convinced either way.
Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? (Score:3)
Re:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, yes it is. What is **not** standard practice is for an "injured party" (is it clear that MPAA is an "injured party"?) to bribe prosecutors and write their legal briefs for them. Does that help to make it clear why this behavior is offensive to some, and probably illegal (hence the lawsuit by Google against the attorney general.)
Re:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? (Score:4, Informative)
First off: IANAL. Just skimmed the complaint (surprisingly light reading, actually).
Because Hood is going after them for stuff which is *clearly* protected by the CDA and DMCA (not to mention the first amendment and a lot of case law) and using a subpeona as punishment for Google refusing to cave to all his demands instead of as an information gathering tool (pages 9-14). The subpoena even "... makes crystal clear that it demands information about activities immunized by the CDA." (page 14), which is explicitly forbidden by the CDA (page 18). Google is even arguing that the *state* AG has no standing as a bunch of this stuff is the sole jurisdiction of the federal government (pages 30-32).
The title of the article is misleading—the core of the complaint has nothing to do with Hood conspiring with the MPAA, it's that he is on a vendetta and has no legal standing. The MPAA angle is really only mentioned in passing (e.g., in a footnote on page 13).
Again, IANAL, and obviously this document is pretty one-sided, but this really seems like a slam-dunk for Google. It's pretty clear that federal law immunizes them from the stuff Hood is complaining about, the subpoena is purely punishment for Google not doing more to censor their search results (in spite of the fact that they already do more than required to by law).
Re:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, its not a waste of money. Every time I get your company indicted, regardless of merit, it hurts your brand, your business development opportunities, etc, etc. It's a standard smear campaign tactic and smear campaigns work. Regardless of the outcome of a meritless case.
They don't need to win, and they probably don't care if they do. They just need to interfere with Google's operations and cost them money to the point where they have increased leverage in any dealings with Google.
Really, its pretty standard scumbag tactics.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, the lawyer, America's privledged class (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad most folks aren't aware of that. If people understood where the word came from they might have a better understanding of what it means to be privileged.
a "time out"? (Score:1)
Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess it would depend on how Google powers its data centers.
Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google (Score:5, Informative)
And between Exxon and Google, guess which one has a private jumbo jet for its executives...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
Exxon has at least 4 $50M Global Express and 4 $20M Challenger 500 jets.
The difference, of course, is that Google doesn't own their jets, they are owned by a separate LLC started by the founders that use the jets.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were Exxon vs. the attorney general of Alabama, I'd be hoping for a way they could both lose...
Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google (Score:4, Insightful)
What am I cheering for Exxon ?
If they were suing an Attorney general for being in the pocket of greenpeace sure I would cheer.
I'd also cheer if they were suing federal officials for promoting the insane gasahol program or cellolosic ethanol programs that have been nothing less than completely counterproductive.
I'd also cheer if they were suing over the sandbagging of the building of new refineries.
lol you Exxon haters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Google didn't spill 12,000 barrels of oil in 2013.
Nor do Google's data centers have a habit of exploding.