Slashdot Mirror
Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Revealed In MPAA Emails
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.
There is a size limit to corporations, beyond which they can't be controlled, and if they fail it brings down the whole country. It is in the national interest to keep corporations below that size limit. This should be discussed, nationally. If only we could convince the huge multi-national corporations that control our news industry to allow it.
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.
Enigma
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.
when that old spoiled meatbag Rupert Murdoch dies.
"Revealed in a filling"?
I guess Google wasn't exaggerating when they said getting disclosure from the MPAA was like pulling teeth...
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.
Anyone who pooh poohed the notion that the IRS has been turned into a political weapon, you only have to look here to see the process in action. Those in power will use every available lever to get at their enemies. The only thing that will curb this kind of abuse is not just to fire them, but prosecute and imprison them.
Google is one of the powerful interest groups that wants to gain control of the information flowing over the internet. Why do any of us pretend otherwise?
People ignoring that in comments her on this thread demonstrate the same naivety as said local government officials.
The Madison Avenue shit-flack who've crowded their way into Google over the past decade are not our friends. nor is there one 'good side' in this conflict. No matter how much 'good stuff' Google is handing you. They've tipped their hand often enough that you are either a patsy or bought out to claim they are the 'good guys.'
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.
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.
Passing laws which make lobbying a criminal offence would seem to be a good start ...
It would also be unconstitutional.
The Right to Petition 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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is WAYYYYYYY beyond lobbying. This is a state AG committing state resources to a private business vendetta.
I'd bet that's extremely illegal. I'm pretty sure the word "conspiracy" is somewhere in the legal description as well. ianal
Thank you MPAA, now I finally can pirate films with a clear continuousness.
It's not illegal if there is nobody who will investigate it and nobody is ever charged.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
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 millions of counts of attempted robbery against the one offering the bribe. If the congressman accepts the bribe, then it should be millions of counts of (not attempted, but actual) robbery for both the briber and the corrupt official.
Lobbying is with words, bribery is with gain.
> Should spokesmen for a corporation with ten thousand stockholders, when speaking on issues related to the corporation's purpose, interaction with laws, and its stockholders' interests, have any less access to the ear of a legislator than the ten thousand stockholders themselves?
Yes. Corporations are not people and all your honey'd words will not change that. Begone, Wormtongue, you have no power here.
Let those ten thousand stockholders cast their votes alongside the other 300-odd million members of the public and then we shall see what the voice of the people has to say.