Google Sues Mississippi Attorney General For Conspiring With Movie Industry

Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by Crimey+McBiggles · 2014-12-20 10:05 · Score: 4, Informative

This comment has so little context, it's asinine. Are you implying that the public favors lawsuits against oil companies over those confronting online piracy? If so, are you suggesting that the collateral damage caused by oil companies (such as damaging the environment) is greater than that caused by search companies (incidentally providing results that lead to downloads that violate copyright)?

--
Crimey

Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:06 · Score: 0

lol if you think all companies are equal.

Related article... by QuietLagoon · 2014-12-20 10:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Lawyers Create Big Paydays by Coaxing Attorneys General to Sue

.
Looks like the state Attorneys General are the newest benefactor of policital contributions in the ongoing purchasing of our government by special interests.

Re:Related article... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:56 · Score: 0

Not special interests in that case, unless you consider lawyers in and of themselves one .... more like a really iffy bounty system which the AG offers for winnable cases, only to lawyers, more specifically lawyers who pay campaign contributions and provide jobs for the right people.
Re:Related article... by Crashmarik · 2014-12-20 11:37 · Score: 2

You don't consider Lawyers the Ultimate Special Interest ?

haha by Charliemopps · 2014-12-20 10:14 · 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 by lucm · 2014-12-20 10:35 · Score: 4, 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.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:55 · Score: 0

TIL: tossing onto the internet of information obtained by hacking into systems is 'free speech'.
By that logic the distribution of a software product that is very much non-GPL but nevertheless contains GPLed components, is also free speech, and the EFF arguing otherwise and invoking copyright law are just trying to squash my freedoms.
Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 11:02 · Score: 0

Nope, evidence of criminal or unlawful activity is nothing like a computer program listing.
Please try again.
Best to avoid making it about the GPL.
Re:haha by bwcbwc · 2014-12-20 14:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Google is lobbying the AG's themselves, but they seem to be on the defensive. From Ars: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

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.

--
We are the 198 proof..
Re:haha by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-12-20 19:59 · Score: 1

No, they will be too busy wondering how she ended up in the state pen for violation of federal law.
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), that a committed prosecutor can always find something to convict you of.
Re:haha by TropicalCoder · 2014-12-21 02:15 · Score: 1

Statement from Attorney General Jim Hood/a>
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! That is what Mr. Hood would have us believe. That is just so disingenuous that he loses any shred of credibility.
In fact, his entire statement follows in this vein. He only makes a single reference to intellectual property in passing, and the entire blog is focused on blaming Google for promoting all the ills of our society for their own enrichment.
To paraphrase Mr. Hood, It would be a discredit to the public interest not to question MPAA's actions and consider the consequences.
In fact, the Sony emails document a collusion of the MPAA with the state attorneys to subvert the laws of the nation. All these areas are governed by federal law. The state attorneys should simply pass their concerns on to Congress, and get back to dealing with issues that fall squarely within their jurisdiction.
Mr. Hood dismisses the MPAA's corrupting the agenda of the state attorneys is just a "a salacious Hollywood tale"? No, this is very real, and a very serious issue. Don't those state attorneys have more important things to deal with than the MPAA's agenda? The CID the state attorney launched was according to a plan hatched by the MPAA, and not about the children at all. Just a shakedown in attempt to force Google to do the MPAA's bidding.
"some of its more excitable people have sued trying to stop the State of Mississippi for daring to ask some questions."
What in the heck is that supposed to mean - "some of its more excitable people"? There was nothing in that sentence to even match the pronoun (some of its) . Talk about excited people, Mr. Hood is so excited that he is spouting gibberish. The state attorneys collusion with the MPAA has been exposed and "excitable people" have sued? This is a very serious issue. Google is reacting to mafia-like shakedown in a very calm and rational way. If this happened to me I would go berserk. "daring to ask some questions" These weren't just some questions. They were a shocking overreach, open-ended questions that were unanswerable because they didn't even make any sense.
.
"I am calling a time out, so that cooler heads may prevail."
What an astonishing thing to say. What is Mr. Hood trying to imply with this statement? That Google's lawyers are hot-heads for filling for an injunction against this shakedown? Mr. Hood is calling a time out because he has been exposed. Well clearly he needs one. He needs time to consult with his MPAA friends to plan a strategy as to how to shape this in the press. He certainly isn't handling it very well so far.
"I will reach out to legal counsel Google's board of directors to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the issues affecting consumers that we attorneys general have pointed out in a series of eight letters to Google."
A peaceful resolution: Is he saying he is going to back off and apologize? I certainly hope so.
Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 07:46 · 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:haha by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 12:05 · Score: 0

"A peaceful resolution: Is he saying he is going to back off and apologize? I certainly hope so. "
Not I. A corruption probe is what I want to see. This kind of crap gets let off the hook far too often and it's why fewer and fewer people have no respect for the law. As long as those at the top can break the law and get away with it, there is no hope for the rest of society.
Re:haha by ganjadude · 2014-12-22 04:55 · Score: 1

state pen != federal incarceration

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:19 · 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:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by hawguy · 2014-12-20 10:21 · Score: 5, Informative

And between Exxon and Google, guess which one has a private jumbo jet for its executives...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

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:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by Trepidity · 2014-12-20 10:22 · Score: 2

If it were Exxon vs. the attorney general of Alabama, I'd be hoping for a way they could both lose...

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Dear Mississippi by Snufu · 2014-12-20 10:30 · Score: 4, 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:Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:36 · 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 by Will.Woodhull · 2014-12-20 11:00 · Score: 4, 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.

--
Will
Re:Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 12:14 · Score: 0

Feels like business as usual.
Re:Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 13:22 · Score: 0

The problem with obama and hillary is that they were/will be "the first" of sorts in their poisition. And will have the same problem as the FCC and other organ leaders; They probably wont do anything too radical to piss of their past and potential future employers..
Re:Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 13:51 · Score: 0

The USA is a republic full of trolls that abuse office - not a real democracy.
A true democracy would favour giving everyone a vote for every opportuntunity
instead of relying on elected 'representatives' to go cheat and do what they
like after they got elected.
With the rise of the internet, I expected every home to have a vote button
on every issue which would have also been published.
Anyone would be allowed to raise issues to vote on.
Compound all that with USA charities which are nothing of the sort.
They are abused as vehicles to hide funding from minority interest groups
that seek to influence the elected trolls in office, who will happily
accept the money and do what they are bought to do.
The problems start when USA charities shield crocporations from revealing their funding sources.
A simple act such as naming your donor would do great harm to these
practices. I mean the donor's name is already on the bank statement and/or on the books and computerised - so why not just
print it out and and upload to prevent financial abuses through use of charities?!
I'd rather politicians were out flipping burgers than accepting lobby money
that may dry up if those who coughed up the money had the spot lights shone on them
and their nefarious relations with the politician.
Re:Dear Mississippi by Nyder · 2014-12-20 14:38 · Score: 1

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.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:Dear Mississippi by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-12-20 15:43 · Score: 1

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 understand at least a little bit how capitalism works. The things you mention about trust busting are anti-capitalist, and we need voters to send the non-capitalists home.
I'm not talking about de-regulation and free market and libertarianism - those are facets of capitalism that can be, and will be, debated by an informed public. I'm talking about a basic understanding of these types of situations:
1) I drive 45 miles one way to work because it's the best job I can find in my area. Now I get trained to handle an additional "job". Why am I not paid more?
The answer is most likely that if you were, as a group, paid more, your business would move to a poorer part of the country, or the world, and you would be out the best job in the area. Or for fuck's sake figure out what skills you need to apply at a better job and go apply. There's no cost to apply to a reputable business, so go do it.
2) We will always have "the rich" in capitalism.
Even if we start out equal tomorrow, there will be people who make good decisions and bad ones, and lucky ones, and we will have back the rich and the poor. The trick here is to remember that pricing your employees out of your market as a general rule does not go well. Unless your market is overseas, and exchange rates suggest that is a poor decision. Specifically, anything that negatively impacts the middle class is an economical time bomb. Screwing the rich is something they will not forgive - but convincing them it is an investment in future profit will fly among the members who follow your argument.
I could go on, but it's clear you don't understand Capitalism, which is the basic economy. It is a modified Capitalism, not a pure one, but you have to understand it. You also do not understand the politics of getting elected. We need a straight up old school confidence man who will then have a "bully pulpit" -- a phrase coined by Teddy -- to push his/her agenda.
So here's where I get all preachy, and I'll be concise to the point of eliminating some data. America was built on the idea that if you're not doing provable harm, then you should be left alone. If you are committing crime after crime, but in no way suspected, then the Government should not read your papers, nor put you in jail without a lawful trial, unless a Court agrees that you are clearly suspect.
The Industrial Revolution inspired many abuses, and most were proven, and laws or regulations passed to prevent such. Gradually, the abuses evened out but many still remain. In different words, if you can prove that your employer is harming you, you have a case. We still have unions and we still have class action lawyers, and a lot of other things that, in a perfect America, would not exist.
But this is not a perfect America. This is one where you must be guilty before any serious investigation is done. We have crack dealers and prostitutes and murderers and red light runners and drunk drivers and counterfeiters and meth labs - why? Because they are legal? No, because we do not authorize law enforcement to knock on every door and search if a crime is being committed.
As an aside, keep your national surveillance comments to yourselves, I know the objections and you didn't undermine my point about having crack dealers and prostitutes and murderers and red light runners and drunk drivers and counterfeiters and meth labs so just STFU.
Same for businesses. Regardless of whether businesses are people, business is run by people, and
Re:Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 16:07 · Score: 0

I think it's you who don't understand capitalism. You seem to think anything which is not extreme communism is capitalism. That's not the case.
Re:Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 21:16 · Score: 0

... we need a Mommy in the White House ...

I'm all for 'hope and change'; what could go wrong? Congress surely won't conspire to void the policies of the US president?
Re: Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 22:19 · 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: Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 01:55 · Score: 0

Your attempt to sound like somebody passing on sage hard-earned advice to a naive person really didn't work very well you know. Neither did making excuses for the abuses any imperfections inherent in our economic system, whatever you want to call it.
I would point out to you that taking a risk and starting a business is in a fact extremely difficult these days precisely because people who already done it have lobbied to make it that way. Henry Ford went bankrupt, what, six or seven times before he found success? Today he wouldn't get past the first one thanks to conservatives and their "bankruptcy reform" which, like so many other alleged reforms, only targeted individuals and not corporations for harsher treatment.
Corporations may be run by people who have natural rights, but unless you feel like getting rid of limited liability, tax breaks, and the other very numerous and costly benefits given to corporations, which are after all creations of law and have no natural rights, don't start telling me or anybody else the regulating in this somehow violation of people's rights.
You really ought to look at your history. It used to be, right here in this country, that corporations could exist only for a single purpose, for a limited time, could not own other corporations, and could be forcibly dissolved if they were found not to be acting in the public interest. That sort of thing made them behave themselves. Naturally, rich people didn't like that very much. it was the Standard Oil Company get started this business of having states compete with each other to see who would have the least restrictive and therefore from a working person's point of view, worst and most useless corporate regulations. It has been a downhill spiral ever since.
So as somebody who understands capitalism a hell of a lot better than you do, both from experience and knowing the history that they don't teach in schools (on purpose), let me just say that from my point of view corporations can damned well do as they're told.
I don't wish to burden anyone with useless regulations, but it is time to end of this silly naive notion that somehow regulating the economy is trampling on somebody's rights. That's especially true when the entities in question has been given massive benefits that natural people do not have.
By the way, being grateful to anyone for starting a company or employing you is a subservient attitude unworthy of an actual person. Employment is an exchange of labor for money. Period. Never allow yourself to feel grateful to somebody for participating in an economic exchange. That's how you end up getting paid less than your worth.
Re:Dear Mississippi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-24 10:46 · Score: 0

Wrong question.
From another, clearer analysis of the situation:
"In my 10 years as attorney general, I have dealt with a lot of large corporate wrongdoers. I must say that yours is the first I have encountered to have no corporate conscience for the safety of its customers, the viability of its fellow corporations or the negative economic impact on the nation which has allowed your company to flourish."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Another Chris Dodd faux pas by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:31 · 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:Another Chris Dodd faux pas by jonwil · 2014-12-20 12:30 · Score: 1

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:Another Chris Dodd faux pas by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 13:54 · Score: 0

Hollywood is not what it was in the 40s. Back then studios owned had the actors on contract and owned the theaters. If you wanted to see a Marx Brothers movie, it was going to be a Paramount picture and you had to see it as a Loew's theater. Nowadays studios pretty much just provide the marketing and financing, with everybody essentially being free agents.
dom
Re:Another Chris Dodd faux pas by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-12-20 16:01 · Score: 1

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:Another Chris Dodd faux pas by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 01:41 · Score: 0

Wait and see.
Re:Another Chris Dodd faux pas by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 20:14 · Score: 0

Yeah..... about that.
http://i.imgur.com/MCXxTyg.jpg
the feds are not going after anything MPAA related. not going to happen.

The dude looks like a stereotypical redneck by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:33 · Score: 0

What is it with the southern states? The dude's eyes don't even point in the same fucking direction, yet somehow he got elected Attorney General for this shithole state. How on earth does someone become elected to such a position? HURR DURR THA CAWNSTITUUUUSHIN, AH SEUW TEH GOOGEL, AH BE IN THE PAWCKET UV DEM COR-PUR-AY-SHINS HURF TURF

Re:The dude looks like a stereotypical redneck by ihtoit · 2014-12-20 10:39 · Score: 2

uh, two words for ya: George Bush.
Need any more?

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:The dude looks like a stereotypical redneck by demonlapin · 2014-12-20 11:09 · Score: 3, Informative

The AG is a Democrat, and he is attempting to repeat the extraordinarily profitable strategy used by one of his predecessors to enrich friends and allies at the expense of a large business - in that case, the tobacco industry, here Google. He was funded by plaintiff's attorneys eager for a cut of a large settlement check, and elected by people who like to sue those with more money than themselves.

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.
Re:The dude looks like a stereotypical redneck by demonlapin · 2014-12-20 11:10 · Score: 2

The AG is a Democrat.
Re:The dude looks like a stereotypical redneck by ihtoit · 2014-12-20 17:02 · Score: 1

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.

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Re:The dude looks like a stereotypical redneck by demonlapin · 2014-12-20 18:08 · Score: 1

His voters didn't vote for George Bush.

Hmmmm.... I'd want to sue his ass too. by ogdenk · 2014-12-20 10:36 · Score: 4, 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.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by lucm · 2014-12-20 10:36 · Score: 1

Have you been to Wyoming?

--
lucm, indeed.

In case you're wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:39 · 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 that establish?

Re:In case you're wondering by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-12-20 12:02 · Score: 1

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".
So would I.
Especially if I were going to be paid millions and millions of dollars for "helping out".

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:In case you're wondering by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-12-20 15:58 · Score: 1

why does every he-done-bad story involving someone remotely associated with the Republican party lead with "Republican so-and-so...".
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 wrong-doing.
Because Republicans have vilified behavior that Democrats do not see as being wrong. So when a Republican does it, it's hypocritical, but when a Democrat does it it's anti-establishment.
Also, party doesn't really matter here, since this is non-partisan wrong-doing. Republican caught with gay porn is partisan wrong-doing. "Democrat, colluding with typically liberal Hollywood, except when copyright is involved then Hollywood votes Republican, involved in Republican scheme to squash liberal-type information sharing site that doesn't do what libereal-cum-conservative Hollywood wants" doesn't really beg for a party line distinction.

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"
You sound like bribery. Or stepping outside of your appointed duties. Look, in an organized government you can't just go around doing whatever you want. You can pass information to the appropriate people, but you can't just be a renegade. The Judge Magistrate can't just go around knocking on doors and arresting people. That's for barbarians like England.
Re:In case you're wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 02:40 · Score: 0

It matters in that it does not surprise anybody. Democrats are the closest equivalent you americans have to a leftist government, and leftists are all about government-aided monopolies and brainwashing people by corruption of education and control of the media. Not only Sony, but also Google, are leftists, because both aim to control the media that other people see and the way that people think, not surprisingly both are huge donors of the Democrat party, as that party is the one that will grant them laws to keep their dominant position, and then write others to make them even more dominant.
So, this is an inner fight between leftists, which routinely happen AFTER they have won the great war of having the monopoly on culture, and the power to manipulate the thoughts of the population via control of the narration.
The irony of this is that leftists at the bottom supposedly fight against monopoly of culture and brainwashing of the media, yet they vote for the very people that act against their interests, because the latter control the narrative and paint any opposition as the devil/mysoginists/terrorists/whatever and justify any attack as long as it goes against the "right" people. That's what happens for example with gamergate.
With SJWs on the rise, you won't get just defamation and public scorn from the media, but also physical threats and lifes ruined. And in addition to that, for fear to represalies you'll all be forced to follow rules that don't make any sense and are totally counterproductive, resulting in brain drain and the ruin of your country, now ruled by total idiots that don't even know how to read, as socialists fear and loathe people who think.
Source: A person that has lived 30 years under a socialist regime and sees from the outside the enormous amount of dung in american media that has turned americans into morons that have entered a pissing contest to see who is the most "politically correct" person, making them fall on obvious traps such as having to vote for Obama HUSSEIN just because he's black.
In game theory, you can play optimally to maximize profits, but it's far easier and you reap even greater gains if you turn the opponent into a moron that consistently makes the wrong moves because it has the wrong priorities. The richest and the poorest people in Earth have in common that they are lefties, and yet you are supposed to vote "leftie" if you want to end with this disparity, let me laugh.
Re:In case you're wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 03:17 · Score: 0

You don't get 'new' culture under the Republicans if its not how ma great grandaddy did it then its censored for the sake of the 'children'.
Re:In case you're wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 05:13 · Score: 0

... making them fall on obvious traps such as having to vote for Obama HUSSEIN just because he's black.
Grandpa, is that really you? Congrats on your new Slashdot account!

From the article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:39 · Score: 1

FTA... The movie industry, through a nonprofit group it funded called Digital Citizens Alliance, picked the perfect lobbyist to squeeze Mr. Hood: Mike Moore. Mr. Moore was Mr. Hood’s predecessor as Mississippi attorney general and helped start Mr. Hood’s political career. He remains a close friend of the attorney general and travels with him frequently; he has even played a role in helping Mr. Hood get elected as the president of the National Association of Attorneys General, emails obtained by The Times show.

Mr. Moore, in an interview, said he was working pro bono to advise Mr. Hood on how to combat the illegal sale of drugs online. He was then hired, for a fee he would not disclose, by the Digital Citizens Alliance in a similar post. Mr. Moore then became a critical source for the movie industry, according to one email, telling them how Mr. Hood’s inquiry was progressing and even alerting industry executives that Google had been sent a subpoena — before it said it had been told Peggy Lautenschlager, who served as attorney general in Wisconsin, said that the role that the movie industry had played in pushing Mr. Hood, through Mr. Moore and others, was inappropriate. “A private interest is influencing some attorneys general’s offices,” she said. “Tragically, that is how the world operates nowadays.”

Mr. Hood and Mr. Moore said their actions were motivated by wrongdoing by Google, not by any pressure from the movie industry or Microsoft. The Digital Citizens Alliance said it had been public about pushing Google to clean up its search results. Microsoft, which among other efforts has supported FairSearch, a group pushing attorneys general, declined to comment.

“I don’t think there is any secret that there is a group of interested industry people who have a problem and they are concerned about how Google is doing their business,” Mr. Moore said in an interview. “But frankly, Attorney General Hood, and seven or eight others, are concerned about drugs, about child pornography and illegal steroids.”

The groups have also done more than write letters to attorneys general. Executives from the M.P.A.A., for example, urged the group’s members to donate $1,000 each to Mr. Bruning’s campaign for governor in Nebraska.

The plea coincided with a fund-raising event for Mr. Bruning in March at Microsoft’s offices in Washington. Campaign finance records show that donations came in from Paramount Pictures, Sony, 21st Century Fox, as well as other movie industry players, each for exactly $1,000.

Mr. Bruning said that he did not solicit the donations, and that they did not influence him.

Mr. Hood’s office did not respond to specific questions about his use of a letter apparently prepared by a movie industry executive as a draft for a warning he sent to Google, or about the role Mr. Moore had played in lobbying his office. But Mr. Hood said in a statement that his office accepted help from outside companies as it investigated wrongdoing.

“If they have expertise to help us catch the bad guys, we gladly accept their help,” his office said. “Google has put their profits ahead of the safety of children and families and this office will continue to fight them with all the expertise at our disposal in an effort to protect the people of Mississippi.”

Persecute vs prosecute by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:40 · Score: 0

Persecute vs prosecute: please learn when to use each. You persecute someone because of their race, religion, sex, political beliefs, etc. You prosecute someone or a company over legal issues.

Re:Persecute vs prosecute by ISoldat53 · 2014-12-20 12:52 · Score: 1

You can persecute with a prosecution.
Re:Persecute vs prosecute by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 01:16 · Score: 0

Then there's "going so far as to assigned".
Re:Persecute vs prosecute by TropicalCoder · 2014-12-21 03:25 · Score: 1

In this case, the MPAA and the state attorneys have been persecuting Google.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Wyoming is just one of those imaginary states like Idaho and East Prussia.

Google play by OzPeter · 2014-12-20 10:45 · 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.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:Google play by Rhyas · 2014-12-20 11:23 · Score: 1

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:Google play by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 15:11 · Score: 0

Not quite what you are asking for: millionshort.com
Re:Google play by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 15:57 · Score: 0

Actually, Google could put whatever trickery the MPAA, RIAA, and the AG are pulling in the #1 position of every single search
Re:Google play by Khyber · 2014-12-20 17:48 · Score: 1

Block ALL results except those exposing the *AA and AG, to take it a step further.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Google play by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 02:47 · Score: 0

Bad luck for you. The MPAA, RIAA, Google, and the corporation that bought among others Ars Technica and Slashdot are all on the same camp and send huge sums of money to the same politicians so that they write laws against your interests, and then aim to force them in the rest of the world.
Re:Google play by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 09:46 · Score: 0

The MPAA/RIAA probably wouldn't mind not showing up in a Google search. These guys just want to go about their scummy actions with as little attention from the public as possible.
Re:Google play by q4Fry · 2014-12-22 04:48 · 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.

Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by Dorianny · 2014-12-20 10:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Of course we would be cheering if they went after oil companies such as Exxon because their business is implicated not only in local environmental destruction but planetary scale pollution as well.

Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? by BitterOak · 2014-12-20 10:48 · Score: 2

I'm not saying I agree that Google was breaking the law here, but in general, when a party feels they have been injured by another party acting unlawfully, isn't it standard practice for the injured party to work with prosecutors? Certainly victims of violent crime like rape, etc. will often meet with someone in the D.A.'s office to help prepare the case. This may have gone a bit further, with lobbyists and contributions, etc., but that's all part of politics. So I still don't really see how Google has a case here.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?

Re:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 11:08 · Score: 0

Google has a case as it has yet to violate any laws. or to use one of your stupid analogies: If I feel injured by you, I can't pay a prosecutor to find a crime you could have prevented and hold you liable for it. In fact you have to have to committed an actual crime against me, which is not what has happened in this case.
Re:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? by Johnny+Loves+Linux · 2014-12-20 11:40 · Score: 4, Informative

> isn't it standard practice for the injured party to work with prosecutors?
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? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 11:54 · 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? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 12:20 · Score: 0

Oh man. I mean, I can understand that the MPAA greases a sleazy lazy corrupt bastard of an attorney general in order to have him pass on stuff they wrote up for him that will be painful for Google. That's ugly and distasteful, but I'd expect nothing less from them.
But then the stuff they write for him is transparent bullshit? Either they are trying to frame Hood and he's too stupid to notice, or they pay millions just to have some third-rate lawyer make their plans go up in flames.
Total waste of money all around. Money that rightfully should go to the artists rather than hare-brained broken revenge schemes.
Re:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 12:39 · 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:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 12:48 · Score: 0

Well, and Google is feeling they have been injured by politically motivated prosecution that even accepted behind the scenes help in the unwarrented harrasement of theirs.
Following from what you said, Google is following standard practice by sueing.
Re:Isn't this how prosecution is supposed to work? by demonlapin · 2014-12-20 14:56 · Score: 2

The MPAA most likely doesn't care about winning - they just want to get the case to proceed to discovery. Hood doesn't care about winning, because he will claim that the tort case he should file is too complex for the small staff of the state AG's office to try. He will then put the case in the hands of a big-time plaintiff's attorney, who will probably be able to find something in all that discovered material to force a big payout. The settlement will be reached, and the AG will have gotten 20% in the hands of someone who will undoubtedly hire him on after he leaves office.

That is exactly what happened with the last guy in that office.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:49 · Score: 0

Gladly live in Wyoming (been there) over (what I hear) is insane humidity in Miss.

How about... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:50 · Score: 0

3 initials: BHO
From (White) House Monkey to (White) Porch Monkey all in a single term!

How's that work? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:52 · Score: 0

"Leaked Sony Pictures Entertainment emails and documents obtained under FOIA requests"

How is a FOIA used to get that? These arn't government documents.

Re:How's that work? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 11:19 · Score: 0

(Leaked Sony Pictures Entertainment emails) AND (documents obtained under FOIA requests)
They are two separate things.
Re:How's that work? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 20:05 · Score: 0

Is illegally-acquired information usable in court? I doubt it because police wouldn't need to get warrants.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:52 · Score: 0

Does anybody even want to live in Mississippi? I'm pretty sure it's the worst state in the Union for a reason..

It seriously depends on what part of the state you're in. Some places are as modern as California or New York.

Other places are basically hillbilly land... without the hills. And everything in between.

Source: Lived in MS for several years.

Moar transparency by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 10:57 · Score: 0

Is it just me or does anyone else think that all corporations must disclose all emails? This could end corruption once and forever!

Who is not 'on the take' by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 11:01 · Score: 0

From local councils to state legislators to congress critters all to the Casa Blanca ... please tell me who is not 'ON THE TAKE' ?

Even the most strict institution such as the Pentagon there are 'revolving doors' to award the retired generals in the defense industries

And we have a high level spook moonlighting in the private 'security' business, haven't we?

The 'take' can come in a variety of manner --- $$$ is but one. It could be sexual favors, it could be high position (like the revolving doors for the retired generals), it could be anything !

And the politicians are not the only one 'on the take'

Even our doctors, yes, the one we go to when we are sick, are enjoying the 'benefits' from pharmaceutical companies --- in the form of 'attending symposiums' which are, in fact, vacations in exotic places

Captcha: foursome

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 11:30 · Score: 0

Does anybody even want to live in Mississippi?

You ever been there? I have, and it's beautiful, nice and green. You probably can't find a better place to have a farm. The soil is as close to perfect you'll ever see. And, you can still shoot trespassers on sight!

Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by Crashmarik · 2014-12-20 11:35 · Score: 3, 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.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Grishnakh · 2014-12-20 11:51 · Score: 1

You probably can't find a better place to have a farm.

Sure, if you don't mind mosquitos the size of horses.

Psh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 11:54 · Score: 0

People like that don't wind up in prison.

Re:Psh by Hognoxious · 2014-12-20 13:12 · Score: 1

On the rare occasions they do, it's to one of those white-collar resort joints.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Psh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 16:58 · Score: 0

the point was why they were in a state pen for violating federal law.
Re:Psh by Hognoxious · 2014-12-21 10:11 · Score: 1

What's that up there? Looks like a stapler ... only it's red!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by peragrin · 2014-12-20 11:57 · Score: 1

Wyoming is great if you value your privacy. I mean the air gaps are huge.

Mississippi is just a swamp.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

LOL@ by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 12:00 · Score: 0

The Dems doing anything about this. They only "stand up to business" when they're attacking on behalf of some other industry (often for lawyers, but not exclusively).

Not that the Republicans would do anything, but lets be honest that both sides are equally avaricious and corrupt.

Ahh, the lawyer, America's privledged class by davydagger · 2014-12-20 12:02 · Score: 1

The politically privledged class of the lawyer, of which all rules are bent to revolve around him. There is not "rule of law", rather "law is only meant to protect the lawyers", to include those in office. Everyone elses political status stems from how usefully we are to this lawyer aristocracy.

Re:Ahh, the lawyer, America's privledged class by ISoldat53 · 2014-12-20 12:56 · Score: 2

That's what privilege means, private law."
Re:Ahh, the lawyer, America's privledged class by belthize · 2014-12-20 15:40 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Ahh, the lawyer, America's privledged class by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 19:57 · Score: 0

Lawyers who become Politicians (are there any non-lawyers in High Orifice?) ONLY ever pass laws that will benefit their fellow LAWYERS.
The sooner the plebs realise that and lick the Lawyers (new Lords of the Manor) boots their serfdom will become a hell of a lot easier.
It is IMHO time to take a leaf out of the good book. Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the Temple. Is it not time for lawyers to be thrown out of political office.
There is {cough cough} a precident....

Any time the party is left out of the blurb by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 12:02 · Score: 0

It's a Democrat.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 12:33 · Score: 0

Who do you think pulls the plows!

lol you Exxon haters by camg188 · 2014-12-20 12:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you own any shares in a mutual fund you most likely an Exxon stockholder.

Re:lol you Exxon haters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 15:05 · Score: 0

> If you own any shares in a mutual fund you most likely an Exxon stockholder.
You seem to be confused.
That's not an indictment of "exxon haters" that is an indictment of mutual fund companies for not providing meaningful differences between their funds.
That's assuming it is even true.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 13:08 · Score: 0

Mississippi is just a swamp

Yes. Just like Degobah. An entire planet. All swamp. Every inch.

Re: Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 13:24 · Score: 0

I could find about a dozen places better, including the moon, because well, at least you won't be in Mississippi.

also moon cows make the best ice cream.

Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by elvesrus · 2014-12-20 13:33 · Score: 1

I guess it would depend on how Google powers its data centers.

a "time out"? by guygo · 2014-12-20 13:47 · Score: 1

what is this, Romper Room? everybody on the MPAA side was gung ho until these emails came out. "time out" my aunt tillie. put up or shut up, Mr. AG.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by demonlapin · 2014-12-20 14:31 · Score: 1

At least they have the decency to go dormant when the temperature drops below 70 or so. Cf. Minnesota or Wisconsin.

Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 15:16 · Score: 1

Google didn't spill 12,000 barrels of oil in 2013.

Nor do Google's data centers have a habit of exploding.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Krishnoid · 2014-12-20 16:21 · Score: 1

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 for a while.

Re:You'd cheer were it Exxon instead of Google by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 16:47 · Score: 0, Insightful

LOL the above was a Troll because Exxon is evil, and everyone who works for them should be burned at the stake.

We need a new term Slashtards maybe ?

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-20 19:57 · Score: 0

Mississippi is just a swamp

Yes. Just like Degobah. An entire planet. All swamp. Every inch.

Except in Mississippi, the only forces you hear about are the dark ones, relating either to cops or hurricanes, following the Rule of Two.

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-12-20 20:35 · Score: 1

So you can actually shoot them and hit? Sounds like a win-win!

Re:Who cares? It's the state that time forgot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 04:23 · Score: 0

It is the same in "BUMFUCK" U.S.A.

Simply a war between politicians and lawyers and it is going on EVERYWHERE.

Follow the MONEY!

Slashdot Mirror

Google Sues Mississippi Attorney General For Conspiring With Movie Industry

114 comments