Slashdot Mirror
Google Sues Mississippi Attorney General For Conspiring With Movie Industry
ideonexus writes: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has called for a "time out" in his perpetual fight with Google in response to the company filing a lawsuit against him for conspiring with the movie industry to persecute the search giant. Leaked Sony Pictures Entertainment emails and documents obtained under FOIA requests this week have exposed how the Motion Picture Association of America was colluding with and lobbying state prosecutors to go after Google, even going so far as to "assigned a team of lawyers to prepare draft subpoenas and legal briefs for the attorneys general" to make it easier for them to persecute the company. Here's the full complaint (PDF).
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
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.
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....
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.
> 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.)
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).