Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Revealed In MPAA Emails 256
vivaoporto writes: Techdirt reports on a plan to run an anti-Google smear campaign via the Today Show and the WSJ discovered in MPAA emails. Despite the resistance of the Hollywood studios to comply with the subpoenas obtained by Google concerning their relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood (whose investigation of the company appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves) one of the few emails that Google have been able to get access to so far was revealed this Thursday in a filling. It's an email between the MPAA and two of Jim Hood's top lawyers in the Mississippi AG's office, discussing the big plan to "hurt" Google.
The lawyers from Hood's office flat out admit that they're expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories. One email reads: "Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The "live buys" should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google's stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed."
As Google notes in its legal filing about this email, the "plan" states that if this effort fails, then the next step will be to file the subpoena (technically a CID or "civil investigatory demand") on Google, written by the MPAA but signed by Hood. This makes it pretty clear that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and that the subpoena had no legitimate purpose behind it, but rather was the final step in a coordinated media campaign to pressure Google to change the way its search engine works.
The lawyers from Hood's office flat out admit that they're expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories. One email reads: "Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The "live buys" should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google's stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed."
As Google notes in its legal filing about this email, the "plan" states that if this effort fails, then the next step will be to file the subpoena (technically a CID or "civil investigatory demand") on Google, written by the MPAA but signed by Hood. This makes it pretty clear that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and that the subpoena had no legitimate purpose behind it, but rather was the final step in a coordinated media campaign to pressure Google to change the way its search engine works.
Shocking (Score:5, Funny)
This is so out of character for the MPAA and its allies, I am utterly shocked that they would stoop to using such underhanded tactics! ...said no-one ever.
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Interesting)
How about an Attorney General knowingly siding with illicit corporate interests?
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not illegal if there is nobody who will investigate it and nobody is ever charged.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Funny)
Illicit? This is a strong word, citizen-consumer. Do you have the money to back up your words?
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you MPAA, now I finally can pirate films with a clear continuousness.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Funny)
Just want to know. Maybe if we chip in, we could get one that works for us for a change.
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Interesting)
You already pay the AG's salary as well as his business expenses and his medical/dental/vision through your taxes. You shouldn't have to illegally bribe him extra to have him do what's best for the general public that he's being legally paid to serve.
Serving someone other than the people who elect you and pay your salary needs to be tried as treason or at least heavily stigmatized. Unfortunately, it's not even frowned upon lately.
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but we ain't living in a perfect world and politicians as well as officials who should work for taxes deliberately choose to be whores and sell themselves to the highest bidder. So ok, I can't change the game so I want in. How much? How much is the whore? How much for a law? How much to actually get it executed? How much to get a law bent and turned inside out to use it against its intent?
Apparently these hoes are for sale, so what's left to be determined is the price.
Re: (Score:2)
How much? How much is the whore? How much for a law? How much to actually get it executed? How much to get a law bent and turned inside out to use it against its intent?
Just make an offer they can't refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
"I have here your son. He can be alive tomorrow provided you..."
That kind?
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Passing laws which make lobbying a criminal offence would seem to be a good start in turning this odoriferous garbage barge of state around, though.
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lobbying isn't evil in itself. I've worked as a lobbyist. Politicians aren't experts in every domain, so a domain expert explaining the issue can be very useful.
George Lakoff explained it very well in a video that I can't find now. He said "lobby reform" is wrongly framing the debate. Groups should be allowed to say what they want politicians to do, but it's the politicians who must take this info and then do what the public wants. "Congressional integrity" is the term I think he said we should use for this debate. If our political representatives had more integrity, then lobbyists wouldn't be such a problem.
If there's a problem that politicians are taking bribes (be it campaign contributions or the promise of a well-paid job later), the party with the most guilt is the politician. We shouldn't let them off the hook by saying "It's the lobbyist's fault for offering the bribe!"
In the video I saw, he didn't go into how to reform "congressional integrity" but off the top of my head maybe he'd suggest politicians be subject to greater financial transparency, and maybe be banned for a certain time from taking jobs in certain industries whose legislation they worked on as a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
... maybe he'd suggest politicians be subject to greater financial transparency, and maybe be banned for a certain time from taking jobs in certain industries whose legislation they worked on as a politician.
This is how it's meant to work in the UK, but the body responsible for vetting jobs once leaving office seems never to say "no", and that's according to at least Private Eye and some private conversations!
Rgds
Damon
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is WAYYYYYYY beyond lobbying. This is a state AG committing state resources to a private business vendetta.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh this case is rotten to the core, but I'm talking about lobbyists in general. There are good ones and they can have a role that's great for democracy.
One case I worked on involved software patents, which combines two things that most politicians know very little about. I can only imagine what the Microsofts and IBMs told them, but for my part I've a clean conscience.
The politicians really had no clue how patents work or how software development works or how the two interact or even the current situation
Re: (Score:3)
That's why there's a role for lobbyists, but of course there's tonnes of room to improve how the system works (who gets access, etc.).
there would be a role for 'expert groups', given these were transparent enough to guarantee neutrality, and given their expertise is confirmed by peers.
free roaming lobbies could be useful too but only if you make sure that that their prominence is proportional to social demand, not the money they can hand out. then again lobbies would be of course targeting voters and the media instead of congressmen, but this at least would be more transparent.
anyway, i fully agree: the fundamental issue is close monitori
Re: (Score:2)
The parties are all guilty, the politicians, the lobbyists, and the system that allows it. If I hire an assassin am I not doing anything wrong because I don't actually commit the murder.
Sure people should be allowed to say what you want, but do it from the street corner or on your blog, or some other public forum. The moment you can have a private chat with a senator then it is wrong. I am all for informing politicians, but if you do so it should be done publicly so people who disagree with can have a mecha
Re: (Score:2)
The assassin analogy is a good one. But if you accept that some honest lobbyists are necessary (which I argued in my 2nd post just above [slashdot.org]) then it gets complicated when you try to prove which lobbyists are dishonest. Microsoft produces public documents saying software patents are great, and I think those documents are misleading and inaccurate, but how do make a law saying Microsoft isn't allowed say what they say?
First off, to enforce such a law, you'd have to be able to know what Microsoft is saying. Can
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lobbying isn't evil in itself. I've worked as a lobbyist. Politicians aren't experts in every domain, so a domain expert explaining the issue can be very useful.
And you just decided that you are then one most appropriate to help them out and explain your view of it, knowing that you aren't representative of the population as a whole?
No, lobbying is evil. No matter how you look at it it is a way to sidestep the democratic process by inserting the opinions of special interests groups in a non-democratic manner.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's a problem that politicians are taking bribes (be it campaign contributions or the promise of a well-paid job later), the party with the most guilt is the politician. We shouldn't let them off the hook by saying "It's the lobbyist's fault for offering the bribe!"
No, nor shouldn't we let the lobbyists off the hook... both of them should be put in jail, and forever barred from being in those positions again.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a problem that politicians are taking bribes (be it campaign contributions or the promise of a well-paid job later), the party with the most guilt is the politician.
That is fucking bullshit and needlessly takes away blame from assholes who knowingly use every tactic in the book to get what they or their employers want, even if it fucks over the general public and the world in general.
Both lobbyists throwing resources (in one form or the other) at and politicians accepting any of those are enormous egotistical pieces of shit.
Said differently: taking and offering bribes are equally immoral.
Politicians aren't experts in every domain, so a domain expert explaining the issue can be very useful.
You mean advisors?
Consultants?
Independent parties who don't try to sway the opinio
Re: (Score:3)
You mean advisors?
Consultants?
Independent parties who don't try to sway the opinion of the person they are talking to in the process?
They can't have an advisor for every single issue. Take the topic of software patents for example. Even if they had an army of advisors, enough to include a software advisor and a patents advisor, the chances are small that either of these is going to have the in depth knowledge of software patents that an expert in software patents has. And they shouldn't just listen to one person, so now they need multiple advisors on the very specific topic of software patents - a topic which may or may
Re: (Score:3)
And should they really make laws affecting software developers, patent owners, and software users without talking to some people from these three groups?
Sure, why not? As long as they have a solid understanding of the matters the law concerns, they definitely don't need to talk to stakeholders. Because, again, those stakeholders have a stake in the matter and have a huge incentive to either lie or portray half truths, and anything they say is thus suspect to the point that it is better not to hear what they have to say.
Or do you expect them to also have some software developers on staff (who happen to understand the patent aspects) just in case this topic comes up in their term?
False dichotomy. There is somewhere between 'talk to the guys the law specifically concerns' and 'hire everybody to cover all possible knowl
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't they hire experts instead of relying on paid-for-someone-else "experts"?
Re: (Score:3)
One reason is that they need to listen to a broad range of people. How does changing patent policy affect small businesses? The national economy? Research? Venture capitalists?
It's not practical to hire experts on all aspects of every policy are which might come up for discussion during their term. Or if they hire them just when necessary, what do these experts do the rest of the time? Well, they need a job that pays them for the 95% of the time when the politician doesn't need them, and then they're not u
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Passing laws which make lobbying a criminal offence would seem to be a good start ...
It would also be unconstitutional.
The Right to Petition [wikipedia.org] IS the right of lobbying, and is constitutionally protected. (That's why anti-lobbying laws keep getting struck down when challenged.)
In the US it's part of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You'll also find it in Article 44 of the EU's Charter of Human Rights, Germany's 1949 Fundamental Law, England's Bill of Rights of 1689, Petition of Right of 1628, and Magna Carta (1215).
It's a fundamental part of Western Law: ANYBODY gets to ask their legislature to adjust the law to make it better for them (if they can get the legislators' attention) and not be penalized for doing so.
It's also a REALLY BAD IDEA to try to interfere with this fundamental right (and also with the fundamental right to support the political candidates of one's choice). The big money / big power people can always find ways to influence and finance the politicians of their choice. The only thing such laws do is make it harder on the "big mass of little guys". So they institutionalize elite-class favoritism and corruption, rather than retard it.
If you want to attack corruption the place to do it is the selection of the officials: Elections, and exposure of malfeasance to the electorate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lobbying isn't the problem. Bribery from lobbyists is.
There should be a much stricter hands-off policy for lobbyists (and anyone, really). If you so much as take your congresscritter to lunch, it's a bribe and you get criminally prosecuted. The more you bribe them, the more you get prosecuted.
And, yes, the highest penalties (including death) should accompany this. You're trying to pervert justice for your gain at the expense of millions of others. That means that bribing a congressman should result in milli
Re: (Score:3)
fuck off you right-wing scum.
In the immortal words of Red Skelton and Mel Blank: "He don't know me very well, do he?"
corporations aren't people.
Au contraire: Though they DO exhibit most of the characteristics of independent lifeforms, corporations are GROUPS of people, working together for a defined purpose. This is true whether they're businesses, schools, labor unions, churches, political parties, special-interest group, or whatever.
I assume we're agreed that people working together as a corporation s
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but we ain't living in a perfect world and politicians as well as officials who should work for taxes deliberately choose to be whores and sell themselves to the highest bidder. So ok, I can't change the game so I want in. How much? How much is the whore? How much for a law? How much to actually get it executed? How much to get a law bent and turned inside out to use it against its intent?
Apparently these hoes are for sale, so what's left to be determined is the price.
I don't disagree with the tone of your post, but think that using the word "whore" in this way is very offensive towards prostitutes, who work honestly and provide a useful service.
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Informative)
I am sad to see that my comment was modded "Funny" when I was in fact quite serious about my statement. There are such pieces of shit that are disruptive to society, like corrupt politicians and self-serving CEOs and bankers, and yet we most people somehow attribute to "whore" a worse meaning than the professions I mentioned above.
Re: (Score:3)
The funniest jokes tend to have a grain of truth in them.
Re: (Score:2)
I do have a lot of respect for the women (and men, let's not forget them) who provide a valuable service by selling professional aid in the area of satisfying one of the most powerful human urges.
But these people I'd certainly call prostitutes. Or maybe, if I have to skirt the issue, a "working girl/guy".
I would never dream of calling someone who actually has a decent job and provides a valuable service a hoe or a whore!
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't for sale to you. Their (real) job is to maintain the system; they get paid a commission from their current corporate patron. They aren't interested in your money, you're a mere mortal.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think your comparison is fair to prostitutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You already pay the AG's salary as well as his business expenses and his medical/dental/vision through your taxes. You shouldn't have to illegally bribe him extra to have him do what's best for the general public that he's being legally paid to serve.
Unfortunately for the general public, the items you list do not engender loyalty to the general public.
.
The MPAA knows how to buy the loyalty of politicians, and it is done via campaign contributions. If you do what the MPAA wants you to do, then they will help your campaign. If you do otherwise, you may find a well-funded candidate running against you.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of paying public officials salaries, let's have them issue stock, with the government acting as pre-IPO venture capitalist at the net present value of some fraction of the normal salary over a period of years securing a majority of the stock. The rest of the stock would up for public grabs, trading on NASDAQ with the same disclosure rules that apply to corporations. So "Orrin Hatch, R-MPAA" would no longer be guesswork campaign mud, but an official filing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Attorney General is not being paid to serve the general public. He's being paid to serve the government. Best to think of him as the governor's lawyer (or President's lawyer).
Sometimes the government's interests are aligned with the general public's interests. Sometimes, not so much so.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that we can't provide cushy sinecures for them after they complete their government service.
Looking at the Revolving Door [opensecrets.org] can be truly startling.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting what kind of money such a fundraiser can collect. Somehow I can see this getting a LOT of money.
Too big to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too big to fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporations were not considered in the original list of entities that would need to be included in the checks-and-balances equation. Back in the Founders day, there was the East India Tea Company, but still governments were unquestioningly the shot callers. So, there was an effort to place checks and balances within government.
Today, businesses have grown large enough to co-opt government. And they definitely influence society.
Eisenhower warned of the Military-Industrial complex in his famous speech: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." [msu.edu]
Today, the financial sector dwarfs defense in its lobbying efforts. [opensecrets.org] Technology is also another gigantic sector with a growing influence.
So - Business must now be included in the check and balance equation of governing. Unfortunately, virtually no one willingly gives up power.
Re:Too big to fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, businesses have grown large enough to co-opt government.
Wow, sense of proportion. Tthe total market value of the largest corporation, even by today's inflated stock-market values, is still far less than the revenue of the United States. Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of government expenditures are written into law
Of course they are. The only way a legislative body can spend money is by making a law. The only way they can do anything is by making a law. The laws are as easily changed as they were made in the first place. Your point is fun but meaningless.
Welcome to America (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I could be shocked at this behavior but this is standard operating procedure in America. The government has long been owned by the corporations, stuff like this just removes all doubt. The AG is conspiring openly to wipe out billions of dollars in Google's market value and for most of America this will merit a "ho-hum". The copyright mafia is out of control, writing their own laws and then conspiring with law enforcement to destroy their rivals. Something should be done but nothing will, as long as political campaigns are funded by corporate donations the political class will do their bidding. I guess Google just hasn't been giving the appropriate bribes.
I don't think it's a ho-hum (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason Germany & the Icelandic countries are doing so well is they're united. Their working class has so
Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Remove the winner-take-all election contents and rather divide districts such that they elect several representatives from each district. This eventually leads to choices that don't exist along party lines and you can find a candidate that more closely represents your views (e.g., pro-gun, pro-gay, anti-abortion, pro-immigration, etc.) that has a reasonable chance at election.
Any changes that make it more difficult for political parties to operate would go a long way towards improving the country. Politicians would have to start voting their own mind, or better yet talking with their electorate, rather than simply falling into line with the party, and there would be less pandering to small, vocal parties that serve as important parts of the political parties' bases.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that the beneficiaries of the two-party system are the ones that would have to change it. They worked hard to rig the system, why would politicians change the system to something where they have to think about their views rather than just parroting the party line? Just like our system for financing campaigns, the voting system won't ever change because it would require politicians to work against their own self-interest to further the public good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's the point (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the biggest problem is that a two party system completely dumbs down the whole process of government and removes nuance. If you're pro-gun, you pretty much have to be a Republican and if you're pro-gay, you pretty much have to be a Democrat.
Remove the winner-take-all election contents and rather divide districts such that they elect several representatives from each district. This eventually leads to choices that don't exist along party lines and you can find a candidate that more closely represents your views (e.g., pro-gun, pro-gay, anti-abortion, pro-immigration, etc.) that has a reasonable chance at election.
Any changes that make it more difficult for political parties to operate would go a long way towards improving the country. Politicians would have to start voting their own mind, or better yet talking with their electorate, rather than simply falling into line with the party, and there would be less pandering to small, vocal parties that serve as important parts of the political parties' bases.
I think you've got it backwards.
In Canada the parties are far stronger than they are in the US and the individual MPs are almost irrelevant as they're simply expected to vote with their party, yet we seem to have a lot less of this kind of corruption and I don't think it's a coincidence.
Look at the emails, the guy was so compliant partly because he was relying on the MPAA for fund-raising, he's a state level politician dealing with the representative of the US media industry, of course he was playing ball.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, most European countries are divided as well but we typically have a proportional representation with a 4-5% minimum which means we have more than two choices which creates an entirely different dynamic. Now naturally it divides itself into blocks it means there can be 2-3 different directions and 2-3 specialist parties that support their side and their relative strength matters. I'm guessing with a European system you'd have Democrats, Liberals, Republicans, Christians, Tea Party, Libertarians and
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of the "two party system", but a large part of the blame falls on the people and the constant repetition that this is a 2 party system, which re-enforces the doubts/beliefs that keep people from going outside the party lines.
Right now, there are 2 independents in the US Senate (out of 100). It's not a lot; I'd like that number to be higher; But it is not a zero.
It was not long ago that there was a third party presidential candidate that jockeyed for the lead in the polls throughout the election (
Re:Welcome to America (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more interesting to me than the collusion of the AG with an industry group is the willing participation of the media. News shows like 'Today" are not podunk operations, yet they play along with these sorts of things continuously without anyone really making mention of it.
It is more obvious when it is the political parties pulling the strings, but the same dynamic is at play. When the White House wants to focus on a topic for the week - let's say they are making a big push on immigration or defense - they'll arrange for all of the major news outlets to run parallel stories supporting their push. Or when one of the political parties has a message they want out, they run to the press and magically their message gets passed along as if it were original thought.
I understand the pressures to get stories out there, particularly with dwindling resources, but you'd think that a reporter worth his salt would be extremely skeptical when a PR guy comes around with a story that is obviously shilling for some company, industry, political party or candidate. With some of the political hit pieces over the years you might suspect that the reporter's political leanings are at play, but that doesn't really explain all of the corporate shilling. And it isn't just folks like the MPAA - we've seen a blizzard of these kinds of campaigns - either supporting a company or tearing them down. Like the coverage of Uber. They got tons of positive coverage early on, and then there's been a concerted effort to get stories out there that make them look bad. Things like "woman mugged by Uber driver" as a headline.
At least in this day and age we have the internet to help us get around the media filter presenting the preferred narrative, for good or ill. I guess this sort of thing has been going on forever, we just finally have a way to see it for ourselves with the immediacy of the internet. With the internet I get to see the representatives of the Taxi and Limousine industry out their pushing the anti-Uber angles and then watch the stories miraculously pop up on the Today show a week later.
Re: (Score:3)
a reporter worth his salt
I would also like to see a unicorn.
The problem is that journalistic quality is not really measured. Western societies just do not (really) reward good journalism. There may be some prizes and awards within the field that matter somewhat, but the largest part of it is an entirely different beast of 'attention', 'sensation', 'controversy', 'clicks', 'tweets', 'views', etc. These have become the metrics for success in the field (one could argue that similar metrics always were, btw) and in no way do they stim
Lifting the Veil on Corporate SOP's (Score:4, Informative)
I don't doubt that such methods are routinely practised by corporations in other areas. For instance: United Launch Alliance creating a stealth PR campaign against the upstart SpaceX, as exhibited by this hopelessly biased hit piece [latimes.com]; or established auto companies creating a stealth PR campaign against the upstart Tesla or other electric cars as exhibited in the overemphasis [dailymail.co.uk] of Tesla battery fires; or the propagation of the myth that the hybrid Toyota Prius is worse [thecarconnection.com] for the environment than a Hummer (I heard that one repeated from an engineering professor friend of mine recently). The biggest one of all is the continued campaign against the entire field of climate science in order to prevent action on climate change, action that would with certainty reduce the revenues and power of fossil fuel companies.
The MPAA was inept in allowing this email to surface. Most other companies who engage in such corrupt actions would not allow such incriminating evidence to surface, or even to exist. Seeing this email lifts the veil on the behaviour of one organization. But it seems to me that such behaviour is likely widespread. I am of the opinion that what can be done by corporations will be done, if it increases their overall profits and power. If a corporation can pay for newspaper articles to increase their power (and get away with it), then they will. If they can pay posters to write messages on Disqus (or on Slashdot for that matter), then they will. If they can purchase powerful politicians, either by direct payment or by offering of employment after the politician leaves office, then they will. This is not paranoia. It is an hypothesis that is supported both by logic and by evidence. If they can do that which benefits them, then they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Google "jim hood radley balko" to see how Hood has screwed innocent people time and again with convictions using discredited "bite mark analysis" and such. Hood's a piece of trash.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only america. America is also pushing the TPP which wants to bring the copyright bullshit into poor countries as well. For nothing in return.
Re: (Score:3)
It's usually largely in the hands of organized crime, and has been since the Nixon-Kennedy election
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
gotta protect your business (Score:4, Interesting)
No matter how outdated you are, you have to protect the family business. These big content distribution moguls are all up in arms about the fact that content distribution is trivially easy now. What would you do if you had a multi-billion dollar business built around doing something that became trivially easy to do? Start breaking some knee caps of course!
They've been operating in the grey area of the law for half a century. It's only a matter of time until MPAA/RIAA and their constituents get tried under RICO statutes.
Smart move, MPAA... (Score:3)
MPAA: Why is Netflix and all other streaming sites no longer a top link at Google?
Google: Ooooops! Hehe...
Already famous (Score:5, Informative)
This AG is already (in)famous for his use of obviously flawed forensic testimony to convict innocent people [washingtonpost.com] - even in death penalty cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if their behavior crosses legal lines, they will be disbarred.
Funny!
Ha, ha..... but no, not so much. Since they have pretty much unlimited protection from any consequences of their actions in office, they don't really face any consequences. Thanks to Harry Connick Jr's dad and the US Supreme Court, we know that a prosecutor's entire office can even conspire to railroad innocent people and never be held accountable. [wikipedia.org]
In the case of Mississippi's Hood, not only did he not back down in the face of overwhelming evidence that the "experts" he was using were fraudulent, he
Re: (Score:3)
Here is where I first read about the case with video of the expert witness creating false evidence. [reason.com] It references the video links but no longer seems to be hosting the video. HuffPo has a clip from the video still up. [huffingtonpost.com]
This was a death penalty case, and the video of the examination was not unearthed until after the defendant was sentenced to death.
Dangers of a homogeneous media (Score:2)
"When they own the information, they can bend it all they want." - John Mayer, "Waiting On The World To Change"
There are a lot of very powerful interest groups that want to gain control of the information flowing over the Internet. That would, I think, be a terrible blow to the advancement of the human race, and a slide back into oligarchy.
And also, this concept of local government officials - chieftains - working as fronts for very specific interest groups is troubling. It's commonly seen in DC where lobby
Re: (Score:2)
'back into' oligarchy? Because somehow the pitifully small and ineffective MPAA is the bogeyman here?
Funny how Google can't be oligarchy. Compared the market capitalization lately?
And Hod hasn't been arrested, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is definitely grounds for impeachment and dismissal, followed by criminal charges.
I'm shocked these kinds of emails linger around and don't get deleted, or at least PGP encrypted.
Should probably cancel my WSJ sub for this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be a joyous day (Score:4, Insightful)
when that old spoiled meatbag Rupert Murdoch dies.
Re:It's going to be a joyous day (Score:5, Insightful)
to be replaced by someone potentially a lot worse. Like, say, the offspring of Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair and Ted Turner.
No, News Corp needs dismantling.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you mean like the US Supreme Court?
Hurt Google? (Score:2)
I did a search for information about Mississippi and all that came up was a couple of web sites with crappy mobile homes and pickup trucks on cinder blocks.
MPAA vs Google (Score:2)
https://i.imgur.com/ess6W8Q.jp... [imgur.com]
Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
"Revealed in a filling"?
I guess Google wasn't exaggerating when they said getting disclosure from the MPAA was like pulling teeth...
Remember the IRS "non-scandal"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are setting up a new mob with pitchforks against an old mob with knuckledusters.
The root of the problem: The IRS. Abolish the IRS and the problem vanishes, together with lobbyists and grasping politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
You hate the gubbment? They go someplace where there is no central authority. I suggest Somalia.
Otherwise, STFU. You are not just a freeloader, you are a damned parasite. You want all the perks, and none of the responsibility. If there was some way I could get you kicked out of the country I would. You don't deserve to be here.
Re: (Score:2)
The same people who did it before there was an IRS or BIR. Alternatively, flat taxes or VAT.
Re: (Score:2)
You can rename the IRS, you can create a new agency to collect your flat tax or VAT. In the end, it will still, and always be the equivalent of the IRS.
We can rename the Army the Super Fun Happy Team, reorganize their structure, and send them to invade other countries—but in the end, they would sill be the Army.
Since the Civil War, income tax has always been collected by the IRS, or similar (and similarly named) bureaus. Before income taxes, the federal government was mostly funded via tariffs. So you
How is this not illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't stock manipulation illegal? Also, Google shareholders should be able to sue them out of existence for even contemplating such a stupid and irrational move.
What's their endgame really? (Score:2)
Re:What's their endgame really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that their goal right now is obviously to harm they way we look for information, is there any other system they propose in place of the current one?
Yes. Tom Brokaw earnestly looking out of the picture tube into your eyes, every single day at 6:00PM and 11:00PM, telling you how the world is, and you accepting it unquestioningly. The way it was for 50 years.
I don't think people understand just how much raw power television had over the Boomers. It was absolutely all-encompassing. It could and did literally dictate how the nation thought. What was said on the nightly news was what was Truth the next day. If you dissented at all you were counter-culture hippy scum who didn't deserve to live. And everybody knew this, because TV said so.
The Internet dismantled their hegemony, and they want it back.
They correctly identify Google as the reason why the Internet is as effective as it is, instead of being the moral equivalent of a bunch of underground newspapers with strictly local circulation and zero credibility. Google made it possible to find anything you were looking for, directly, without waiting for the organic growth of HTML links to piece it together, and effectively without a gatekeeper, since Google for their first decade of operation didn't have the time or the personnel to care what you were doing. The MPAA and their decades-long political allies want Google ended, because the Internet has made it very much harder to manufacture consent, and they believe that without Google the Internet will dissolve into isolated, bickering splinters that would be easy to once again marginalize from their bully pulpit that is television.
Excellent detective work (Score:2)
I've heard of spies concealing cyanide in their teeth, but I never imagined the MPAA would resort to similar tactics to hide information.
... oh wait.
Will they still go ahead? (Score:2)
How is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
How is this 1) legal, 2) accepted? Doesn't this directly fall under false advertising?
Here in Denmark, smear campaigns generally don't happen. You do not talk bad about other people or products - you instead talk about what you're doing better. And if you do smear competitors, you will lose face in the public eye.
It seems that in the US, that's entirely opposite. So bizarre.
Exhibit 1 - The actual emails (Score:5, Informative)
Could Google start a RICO case on this? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is collusion between the Mississippi AG and the MPAA. They are trying to interfere with Google's business. Google is involved in interstate commerce (duh). So there's a RICO case right there.
Anybody can initiate a RICO prosecution. The DOJ can always join the case if it wants to. Or not. In this situation there is a lot of disincentive for the DOJ to join: a large number of DOJ attorneys are planning on going to work for entities like the MPAA (lobbyists) and the recording/film industries when finish their relatively low paying stints with the government. Having the DOJ go after their future employers does not fit in with their personal plans.
Still, it would be highly amusing to watch Google go after the MPAA for conspiracy. That would make headlines outside of Slashdot. Ultimately I doubt it will happen. Even though they are more then willing to fight dirty, there is a higher level pact between big companies: don't do things that will reveal to the general population just how corrupt the system is. If people ever realize just how badly they are routinely screwed by the government/business complex, they might stop being sheep and start paying attention. That could be a disaster for big business. So it is really not likely to happen.
A good politician... (Score:2)
Please, please do this!!! (Score:3)
This is the equivalent of a small petulant child poking a very large bear with a pointy stick... I am pretty sure what the end result would be.
Nothing would make my day more than seeing the MPAA get mauled publicly.
Re: (Score:2)
Because its even worse in other countries?
Re: (Score:3)