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.

Comments

Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[mwvdlee]

How about an Attorney General knowingly siding with illicit corporate interests?

Re:Shocking

[meerling]

I'd bet that's extremely illegal. I'm pretty sure the word "conspiracy" is somewhere in the legal description as well. ianal

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Illicit? This is a strong word, citizen-consumer. Do you have the money to back up your words?

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you MPAA, now I finally can pirate films with a clear continuousness.

Re:Shocking

[davester666]

It's not illegal if there is nobody who will investigate it and nobody is ever charged.

Re:Shocking

[datavirtue]

These google smear campaigns have been going on for years...is this the first conspiracy exposed?

Re:Shocking

[RazorSharp]

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are allowed to do pretty much anything. ianal either, but I've read quite a bit about how few restrictions there are on prosecutorial misconduct. Attorney General is one of the offices of government which has no sufficient checks or balances. As far as I know there's no law against an AG using their prosecutorial power in a biased, selective, or abusive manner. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the greatest injustices in America but it's not an issue most people know or care about so it's not something politicians often bring up.

http://popehat.com/2013/06/26/...

http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...

http://popehat.com/2008/07/16/...

http://popehat.com/2008/05/28/...

Re:Shocking

[MrDoh!]

What's the law agency above an Attorney General? This seems to be a fairly clear corruption case surely? Why WAS this AG following orders from the MPAA? Was monies given to him for.. election? (dunno how it works, I'm a Brit). And if there's not a state law on these kind of shenanigans, surely there has to be something higher up? No idea what law technically is being broken here, but if this had gone through, Billions knocked off Google's stock price, who could they sue over this? Or is that why it was being done this way, as the AG is immune from lawsuits?

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

It's certainly actionable in civil court. I was accused once of libel and tortuous interference with business relationships, which sounds exactly like what this letter was proposing. Google should sue Hood for $1 billion; they can certainly afford the lawyers. Of course, they'll never collect it all, but by effectively bankrupting the badguys, they might make people like the MPAA goons think twice before engaging in unlawful conduct like this again.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an Attorney General knowingly siding with illicit corporate interests?

You're obviously unaware of the reputation that Mississippi has for anti-business practices, especially big out of state businesses that refuse to pay to play. Mississippi is run by wealthy family dynasties with patronage networks connecting law firms, state and local governments going back generations, so it's natural for the MPAA to launch their attacks from Mississippi because they understand and respect the political payola and the corrupt traditions of Mississippi as they do their own. There isn't a single multi national corporation with any significant presence in Mississippi, that ought to tell you all that you need to know.

Re:Shocking

[Locke2005]

You don't need a prosecutor or DA to file a civil suite for libel and restraint of trade. All you need is lawyers, and I'm pretty sure Google has a lot of those.

Re:Shocking

[AmiMoJo]

Who is next up the chain to complain to? I'm not in the US, I'm asking... The FBI maybe. Could someone file a crime report with them?

Re:Shocking

[Nethemas the Great]

Pretty much no one.

Re: Now that Slashdot is in full decline, first po

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, you failed.

How much is an AG these days?

[Opportunist]

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?

[amoeba1911]

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?

[Opportunist]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[Beeftopia]

The problem is that we can't provide cushy sinecures for them after they complete their government service.

Looking at the Revolving Door can be truly startling.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[aaron4801]

We pay their salaries, but lobbyists pay more. Hood himself has raised over $400k this year, through the end of May.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[fustakrakich]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[Quasimodem]

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?

[d33tah]

How about we start a Kickstarter campaign to bribe them into actually working? :3

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[QuietLagoon]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[ciaran2014]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[blind biker]

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?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[ultranova]

Apparently these hoes are for sale, so what's left to be determined is the price.

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:How much is an AG these days?

[DamonHD]

... 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?

[Applehu Akbar]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[sjames]

This is WAYYYYYYY beyond lobbying. This is a state AG committing state resources to a private business vendetta.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[meerling]

"Integrity" and "Politicians". Can those two words actually exist in the same sentence without something like "lack of", "non-existent", or even "laughable" also being included?

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

These aren't just "domain experts", their also highly biased. Many of them flat-out lie and manipulate real science and statistics to "inform" the politicians. If these biases were biased towards humanity that would be one thing, but lobbyists are often promoting whatever their corporate masters are directing them to.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

You have to realize that those are all different wishes for which you have to pay different whores. So the whole package comes pretty expensive. If you don't have artists you can rob with "Hollywood Accounting" and "Record Contracts", it might be too expensive for you.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Kokuyo]

I don't think your comparison is fair to prostitutes.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about they change the law so they have to get in line like everyone else. No over diner/drinks or walking straight through the door while the masses wait in line.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[ewibble]

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 mechanism to raise objections to your point of view. The only exception to this is national security however even then the conversion should eventually be released once the information is no longer critical.

I am not for the statement: you have nothing to worry about, if you have nothing to hide, but when it comes to people who's decisions can easily effect hundreds of millions of peoples lives, then the "information" they are being given should be up for public scrutiny.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Removing the money from lobbying is what is needed. At the moment the person withe the biggest wallet gets the most attention. Further improvements could be garnered by reducing campaign durations and restructuring how they may be financed.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[meglon]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[dinfinity]

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 opinion of the person they are talking to in the process? Pretty much the opposite of what the core task of a lobbyist is?

Any 'explanation' by a lobbyist should be deemed extremely suspect and unreliable, to the point that it is better to not consider the 'explanation' at all. Browsing the web on the subject for the time it requires to read or hear the statement by the lobbyist is probably more informative.

Lobbying in principle shouldn't be disallowed, but given the extreme bias of the lobbyists (small or big), very little good can come of it. Countries would be much better off in investing in more research into the subjects at hand and attaining unbiased or at least equally biased information.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Politicians should have domain experts on staff, or on retainer, whom they pay to inform them on an issue. If the domain experts are lobbyists funded by a third party, they're serving the interests of that third party rather than those of the politician (and indirectly, the people).

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[blind biker]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[Opportunist]

"I have here your son. He can be alive tomorrow provided you..."

That kind?

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Opportunist]

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:How much is an AG these days?

[fustakrakich]

It only goes as far as it has to.

"I don't like violence... I'm a businessman. Blood is a big expense"

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Opportunist]

It would be interesting what kind of money such a fundraiser can collect. Somehow I can see this getting a LOT of money.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

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:How much is an AG these days?

[ciaran2014]

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 of how the patent holders and the software developers were interacting. And it's not like there's a book they could each read and be experts in a week or two, and they can't have experts an every topic in the staff. 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.).

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[ciaran2014]

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) 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 you make a law saying that all meetings have to be recorded? What about meetings outside of office hours?

I wouldn't necessarily be against such laws, but it's going to be difficult to find a formula that's practical.

"Ban lobbying" isn't that great a solution.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[ciaran2014]

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 not come up during their term.

    And should they really make laws affecting software developers, patent owners, and software users without talking to some people from these three groups? 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?

    I think it's right that politicians talk to groups that represent the stakeholders. (But where it goes wrong is that some stakeholders get too much time, and others get none. In my example, the former would be big patent owners, and the latter would be users of software.)

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[guruevi]

So why don't they hire experts instead of relying on paid-for-someone-else "experts"?

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[ciaran2014]

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 unbiased.

And, when politicians want to know what small businesses think of a proposal, why not talk to someone who small businesses have chosen to work for them as a representative? That's a lobbyist, and it's the exact person they should talk to.

The problem is that certain lobbyists are getting listened to too much (big businesses), and others not at all (consumers, SMEs, citizens).

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[datavirtue]

The price is power, not money.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Dutch Gun]

The funniest jokes tend to have a grain of truth in them.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[znrt]

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 monitoring of politicians. the fact that this so obvious and necessary feature isn't implemented already just means it's not wanted at all.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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 shouldn't have any extra rights beyond the pooled rights of the individual members. But should these people LOSE any of their rights, just because they're working together?

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? A corporate lobbyist is just a representative of those ten thousand people when they're acting on this particular common interest.

The legal system treats corporations as pseudo-people because it's a convenient way to interact with the people making up the corporation when they're acting as a group.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

But corporations are not people.

See my post, above, pointing out that corporations are groups of people, with all the rights guaranteed to people, who don't lose those rights just because they're acting together for a common purpose.

The legal system DOES, in some situations, treat corporations as pseudo-people. But that's just a convenient way to interact with the corporation's members/stockholders/what-have-you when they're acting together to advance the common purpose that the corporation was chartered to handle.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Harlequin80]

Does the US not have the equivalent of these?
http://periodicdisclosures.aec...
https://www.parliament.qld.gov...
http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/

A recent ICAC investigation captured a sitting premier and forced his resignation over a bottle of wine...

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

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? A corporate lobbyist is just a representative of those ten thousand people when they're acting on this particular common interest.

The legal system treats corporations as pseudo-people because it's a convenient way to interact with the people making up the corporation when they're acting as a group.

The corporate lobbyist does not speak for those 10,000 people - that's a fantasy. The lobbyist speaks for the one or few people who own that company of 10,000, which may (but probably won't) coincide with the aggregate of those 10,000 people. So, now we've given those one or few people in the board of directors the influence of 10,000, while each of those people still just has the voice of one.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[dinfinity]

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 knowledge in the world'. For instance: Hire some external consultants.

Politicians should be seeking out parties that can inform them on subjects they do not have a proper grasp on. Tell me, which non-malicious politician in his right mind would seek information on a matter from any party who has anything to gain from that matter being legislated one way or another?

"I'm going to have to vote on a law to forbid vacuum cleaners, of which I know nothing. I know, let me talk to the people at Vacuums & Stuff Inc. (providing you suckage since 1923!) and then ask The Society For All Things Broomlike after that."
It's ridiculous.

I mean, it's not as if in any field the only knowledgeable people are people who stand to gain from certain legislation in that field. For something as important as lawmaking, spending some extra cash on independent consultants or, again, research into the matter at hand to greatly reduce corruption seems warranted to me.

Also it seems like a much better solution than what you propose. Frankly, your 'solution' (keep pretty much everything the same) is shit. And proven so.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[KGIII]

No! Keep them idle with doing busy shit. The last thing you want is them to be doing something "constructive."

No, that is not a joke.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Nyder]

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 think we can start a Kickstarter for this.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to fool yourself into thinking that you were there for some altruistic purposes.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

IOr maybe, if I have to skirt the issue, a "working girl/guy".

Dishonest politicians that will sell their services to the highest bidder despite the fact their job requires that they serve their constituents - that'll do nicely. Or scum.

There are all sorts of people who sell their services. Some have absolutely no scruples about what they sell - or to whom. Some lobbyists are scum. And some marketers. Some prostitutes are scum?

Prostitute is a term that gets it's negative connotations from the dishonest and morally bankrupted self-righteous who like to blame people who sell their sexual services for the guilt their own desires brings them. And to perpetuate the myth that when the sex part of the brain wants something that they believe is wrong, they can act on those desires and dishonestly dodge the responsibility - because it's not the fault of the person the who owns the brain. (quick cover the table legs or grandpa will hump the table, no, grandpa needs a smack on the peepee with a birch).

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[AmiMoJo]

That might actually be a good way to get some publicity for this thing. I'm sure it will get shut down pretty quickly, but at least the news stories it will generate would embarrass the AG and maybe take him a step closer to being kicked out.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[epine]

yet most people somehow attribute to "whore" a worse meaning

Somehow?

Our market-value vigilance over who is zooming whom dates back a good six-million years.

Nowadays we get more upset when someone unworthy buys a home on our street, but the underlying sentiments were once the same.

This modern "whore" make-over as a small proprietor with high integrity is primarily a byproduct of dense urbanization, where there's an infinite number of fish in the sea to whitewash our old instincts—instincts pre-dating fire, language, cities, and agriculture.

"Somehow" you sound like you just fell off the turnip truck, five minutes ago.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[dywolf]

Removing money and "gifts" from the equation would also do a lot.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[beastofburdon]

Of course they can, but the sarcasm tag is implied if not explicitly presented.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Druegan]

No, Lobbying *is* evil, and it has nothing to do with "domain experts explaining an issue" to someone who isn't an expert.

It has everything to do with purchasing influence.

An industry or special interest group has far more resources at its disposal than the average citizen, and thus can hire people to do nothing more than promote their interests. So much so, that they routinely employ people to do nothing *but* promote their interests 24/7/365 to anyone in a position of power that might make decisions affecting those interests.

There is no responsibility for being truthful, or accurate, or recommending a "best policy" in this lobbying.. The responsibility is solely to "convince the lawmaker to do their employer's bidding."

A lawmaker relying on such a "domain expert" is not remotely going to have "good data" from which to make decisions. Garbage in, Garbage out.

Further, an "Elected Representative" has a limited amount of "influence time". They can either spend that paying attention to their constituants, or they can spend it paying attention to the lobbyists who are paid to suck up to them, and who often are bearing gifts and other, more subtle, enticements.

This undermines the basic premise of democratic representation. The voices of the individual citizens are drowned out amongst the clamor of a sea of yes-men and suckups bearing bribes and false "experts" pushing agendas. And with a nod and a wink and a round of golf, the "interests of the public" disappear never to be seen again.

No. It should be made a felony to pay someone to speak to an elected official on your behalf, or to receive money for such "service" on behalf of someone else. If a representative needs an "expert" on a subject, there are *plenty* of sources that can be tapped without the contamination of lobbyists.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[ultranova]

I would disagree with this. As has been proven by high rollers on both the right and left. You're immoral billionaire's money is just as good to these 'hoes as corporate money.

Because a billionaire is just as much a product of the system than a company is. Nobody makes a billion dollars through their own work, they make it by extracting value from other people's work. Which means their wealth is a product of and dependent on the system, thus they can be trusted to be utterly loyal to the system - slaves with golden chains, but slaves nonetheless.

Kings might have had it better than peasants, but neither could opt out of feudalism. It wasn't until capitalism - a new system - began making inroads that new opportunities opened up. And now capitalism is worn at the seams, at least in the developed world, and a seemingly neverending cascade of problems defy attempts to solve them through means acceptable to the system, which has caused a predictable retreat into fundamentalism - in this case free-market fundamentalism - for many who are heavily invested in the system. Whether this is the final crisis of capitalism, or whether it can ride out the storm once again by lifting the rest of the world to the developed status remains to be seen - but either way, it won't last forever any more than any previous system has.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Opportunist]

Only if you also exclude "structural". Because our politicians actually have structural integrity.

Unfortunately. If they didn't, fewer would exist.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Opportunist]

Lobbies targeting voters can far easier be countered, especially with something like the internet at our disposal. Since it's unlikely that money could do the talking in such a case (and if, at least for a change everyone would get something out of it), what's left is propaganda.

And that will at the very least ensure that things will be talked about instead of hushed up, which allows us to at least weed out the most heinous crimes like TTIP.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[Opportunist]

Lobbying is, essentially, a necessity. Nobody, and certainly not politician, is an expert in everything. He needs someone to inform him.

The big problem with lobbying in its current form is that this information is, to put it mildly, a wee bit lopsided. At best politicians only get a skewed and one sided point of view on a topic from a lobbyist. At worst they also get bribes in different forms.

What we'd need is a system of experts that act as advisers. That's not really easier to realize either. Because every human being has an opinion. And few have the incredible integrity to argue against their own case just to present the facts of the other side.

Re:How much is an AG these days?

[blind biker]

Just in case, I want to go on record saying that I agree with all you wrote, 100%.

Too big to fail

[currently_awake]

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.

Re:Too big to fail

[Anonymous Coward]

A discussion about this problem would be great, but it would be better still if someone had a reasonable solution that we could discuss. Setting size caps is no simple matter. For example, the size at which Google becomes a menace is quite different from the size at which the MPAA did. And, how exactly do you measure size in a manner that won't be gamed? The same principle applies to governments. North Korea had too much power when it was yet very small, but the United States managed to get pretty large and wealthy before it became more of a problem than a solution.

Re:Too big to fail

[Anonymous Coward]

A discussion about this problem would be great, but it would be better still if someone had a reasonable solution that we could discuss.

We already have reasonable solutions. They're called court ordered breakups.

Setting size caps is no simple matter. For example, the size at which Google becomes a menace is quite different from the size at which the MPAA did. And, how exactly do you measure size in a manner that won't be gamed?

Again, we already have the laws and the method. Anti-trust laws to break up the MPAA inherently. Anti-competitive Monopoly laws to break up Google if it becomes a monopoly and anti-competitive. The last part "in a manner that won't be gamed" has everything to do with a large percentage (30%? 80%?) of the populace that believe that any legal action on one's property cannot cumulatively be illegal, that the free market itself is a good that can inherently resolve issues of trusts and anti-competitive behavior (monopoly or not), and that generally "greed is good". The first is absurd because obviously the limits of freedom are "until another's nose" and merely being about property instead of flesh doesn't change things. The second is only true if one looks at the system as a whole or allows for a long time (read potentially a century, given the size of many corporations war chests); ie, it's an unreasonable standard to argue against government intervention. The last is, well, probably the biggest one since it's part and parcel of who is gaming, why they're gaming, and the lack of outrage to actually do something about the gaming.

I mean, honestly, look at the tenor of the whole /. thread. It's one of acceptance that it's the way things work. Where's at least the, probably ineffectual, demands to "write your Congressmen"? Where's the much more effectual, but more time consuming, action of protests (and invariably riots) that involve tens of millions of people? Yea, not happening. That's the pessimist in mean recognizing that too many people either support such actions or are at least neutral about it, even if it were to effect them. Democracy (although not the Rule of Law or a Republic) at work.

Re: Too big to fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the other half of the equation is government that is too big

Re:Too big to fail

[Beeftopia]

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."

Today, the financial sector dwarfs defense in its lobbying efforts. 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

[phantomfive]

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:Too big to fail

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Irrelevant. Corporations don't have to literally buy the country in order to distort national policy. They only need to influence a few, select decision makers. Decision makers trying to support two households, to run continuous re-election campaigns, and to prepare back-up plans in case they don't get re-elected. Those decision makers can often be subverted for less than the salary of a corporate board member, never mind CEO.

Or do you think a near-majority of congress honestly believes that copyright should last forever-minus-one-day?

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

There's a pretty big difference between 'distorting' and 'co-opting,' bro.

Re:Too big to fail

[Beeftopia]

They don't have to buy the country, just the government. And all that's required to do that is merely to spend enough to influence a sufficient number of the 535 legislators who make its laws.

The same dynamic works at the state and local levels.

All corporations allocate a certain amount to lobby/invest in government. Those investments typically have a very high rate of return. Another more in-depth analysis is here.

Re:Too big to fail

[radarskiy]

"Back in the Founders day, there was the East India Tea Company, but still governments were unquestioningly the shot callers."

Back in the Founders day, the East India Company literally owned the armies and the governments for a major part of India.

Re:Too big to fail

[radarskiy]

Okay, so the US is still larger than a corporation.

However, the largest corporate revenue (Walmart, $468 billion/year) would come in at #12 among nations, between Australia ($498 billion/year) and India($440 billion/year).

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

That's good, I like that you're showing numbers. A lot of people don't do that.

Those numbers are like comparing apples and oranges. Revenue for countries is like profits for companies.

That is, the Australian government has $498 billion to spend on whatever, but Walmart gives most of its $468 billion on suppliers. Walmart's operating income is only $27billion.

Re:Too big to fail

[Demonoid-Penguin]

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.

Please don't post when you're still recovering from a serious head injury.

The revenue of the USA is not the revenue of the US government. Not even fucking close. If you don't understand that, or it's relevance - speak to your doctor.

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

Woah, calm down and think a little.

The 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 Government.

Re:Too big to fail

[Demonoid-Penguin]

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.

Woah, calm down and think a little. The 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 Government.

You lie, you dodge, and now you suggest I should stop, that I am "emotionally carried away", and that I need to think.

Patently and demonstrably you are an unrepentant liar. You could have claimed a typo. But you didn't. Not hard to recognise your reasons for asking others to back off - you were out on a limb and now you're shifting ground.

If you're trying to make winning argument with critical thinkers don't abuse logic.

The conclusion you're trying to rebut is that corporations can co-opt government. The premise is that corporations can do that when they reach a certain size. Note that premise could mean a plural.
You'd have to demonstrate that corporations can't conspire to co-opt the government. So your stance is that their combined revenue doesn't exceed 3.5 trillion. And I'm the one who needs to stop and think?

Your opponents only needs to demonstrate that you're wrong about it just being a simple comparison of total revenue. And you are wrong. Can you see why? Hint; it's a stupid argument, chosen without thought in an emotional moment (!!Onose my gov is not composed of mortals!!). And I'm the one that needs to calm down?

To co-opt a government you don't need to match it's revenue. That is a demonstrated fact.

As an analogy - If I (theoretically) wanted to control a corporation I don't need to match it's revenue - I only need to exert sufficient pressure on it's pain points. If it has a weak board I'd only need to influence a few controlling members. If it was dependant on a small number of clients or suppliers - that's a pain point.

Governments get co-opted all the time - that's a historical fact. If you can't think of any you're not looking very hard.

There's a difference between a buy-out at a price determined by all shareholders and executives, and redirecting a company by external force. The latter is exactly what MPAA has been caught planning.
Would it work? Most likely - dickhead lawyers leaving incriminating documents around happens all the time, it's not a measure for determining whether the MPPA couldn't do what they planned. Do note that the MPAA doesn't have the revenue of Google - they don't need to. They can simply use the old "my enemies enemy is my friend" - as is shown in the email.

Re:Too big to fail

[epine]

That is, the Australian government has $498 billion to spend on whatever, but Walmart gives most of its $468 billion on suppliers.

That's the least comprehension of "whatever" I've ever seen. But you're not first. It's a 100,000-way tie.

The vast majority of government expenditures are written into law, and the benefits go right back to the same people who provided the revenues. A government enjoys great discretion in how it expends, but not much discretion at all concerning what it expends upon.

Certainly in the circular flow, the government's "friends" skim a lot of cream. And why shouldn't they? They're all upstanding businessmen (and businesswomen) engaged in the profit motive, possessed of the oldest, most conservative, barnyard business model:

1) Pick winning horse.
2) Milk cow.

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

I like how your post has concrete facts that clearly make your point. As a bonus, they're backed up by numbers, which really reinforces things. Good job.

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

now you suggest that I am "emotionally carried away"

Well yes, you are lol

As an analogy - If I (theoretically) wanted to control a corporation I don't need to match it's revenue - I only need to exert sufficient pressure on it's pain points. If it has a weak board I'd only need to influence a few controlling members. If it was dependant on a small number of clients or suppliers - that's a pain point.

That's going to be a sick business. In practice you're going to need either a controlling stake or convince enough shareholders to go along with your plan. That's typically how such takeovers happen.

Re:Too big to fail

[radarskiy]

No, revenue is how much money you bring in, no matter what kind of organization.

Expenses are how much money goes out.

The difference is called profit or loss for a company, or surplus or loss for a government, but it's still the difference.

So those figures I directly compared are directly comparable.

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

Do you understand that there is a difference between paying a supplier, and then using the money left over to run your company? One of those cannot be used for bribing government. There are different line items for those on financial reports.

Re:Too big to fail

[dywolf]

(I don't care how many sock puppets you have, you wont succeed in burying objective fact)

The statement "Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot." is patently, provably, and ridiculously false in these United States of America.

It's saying Up is Down, or Black is White.
To say it with a straight face is a master feat of mummery.

To put is simply: it is more than mere BS. it is the purest essence of BS, having been distilled and refined several times to increase its potency to nearly 200 proof.

To say otherwise is a blatant denial of reality, which sadly is the typical gist of your comments.
And pointing it out is not trolling or flamebait.

Re:Too big to fail

[phantomfive]

(I don't care how many sock puppets you have, you wont succeed in burying objective fact)

rotfl I have zero. A post with numbers is more likely to get modded up, where a post that merely says "you are wrong" is more likely to get modded down. Your post was of the latter variety.

Welcome to America

[Enigma2175]

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.

Re:Welcome to America

[Cytotoxic]

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:Welcome to America

[Trailer Trash]

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:Welcome to America

[hjf]

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:Welcome to America

[dinfinity]

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 stimulate quality journalism.

1. Take a basic course on what good journalism is or hell, just look up some resources on it on the web, for instance: http://www.americanpressinstit...
2. Hold the definition(s) of good journalism against 10 different (quality) articles.
3. Cry.

Call me a cynical bastard, but from what I encounter, a maximum of only 5% of the 'quality' articles I read are half-decent when it comes to adhering to core principles of journalism. The basic principle of 'Audi alteram partem', i.e. informing the reader on the views from both sides is so often not followed at all or done in such a mangled, subjective and derisive way that the entire article is still completely one-sided.

I thoroughly believe that sometimes the state of those articles is due to malice, sometimes due to incompetence, but mostly because of the lack of reward for being and motivation to be a good journalist.

Re:Welcome to America

[KGIII]

"PR guy" is, literally, Public Relations or Press Release guy. It is hardly surprising that the news publishes what they get from a press release. Obviously I wish there were more investigative reporting but there was no glorious past where there was a perfect journalism. Yellow journalism has always been the trend, so much so that we have a special name for it. In fact, I dare say we have more access to alternative journalism than we have ever had before. Because we seem inclined to live in an echo chamber and consume our journalism media from a source that confirms our biases we seem to think that everyone does the same and that nothing else is available. Reality is that such is usually available on any given topic and it is just a click away with a search engine and a browser. The people without said search engine and browser combination are not typically on Slashdot.

gotta protect your business

[amoeba1911]

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...

[wertigon]

MPAA: Why is Netflix and all other streaming sites no longer a top link at Google?
Google: Ooooops! Hehe...

Already famous

[Cytotoxic]

This AG is already (in)famous for his use of obviously flawed forensic testimony to convict innocent people - even in death penalty cases.

Re:Already famous

[bluefoxlucid]

Wait, so besides the obvious defamation, conspiracy, and direct attack on a large business not to simply comment on their business in earnest, but to negatively affect their stock price by manufactured slander and libel, this attorney general is also guilty of obstruction of justice?

Dangers of a homogeneous media

[Beeftopia]

"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 lobbyists write sections of laws which apply to themselves or competitors. Also on Wall Street where financial companies can direct prosecution (e.g. Aleynikov) as well as write law. This kind of behavior is a dereliction of duty, and should be treated as such.

Re:Dangers of a homogeneous media

[Bing Tsher E]

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.'

Re:Dangers of a homogeneous media

[Chris Johnson]

'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?

[plazman30]

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.

Re:And Hod hasn't been arrested, why?

[RyoShin]

Who amongst the federal or his state government actually thinks he did something wrong and would want to charge him?

Should probably cancel my WSJ sub for this

[jrnvk]

Interesting. I'm currently checking the WSJ archives to make sure this article didn't get written; if it did, I'll be cancelling my sub immediately.

Re:Should probably cancel my WSJ sub for this

[phantomfive]

Let me know if you find it.

I don't think it's a ho-hum

[rsilvergun]

but what are we going to do about it? We're too diverse and too different. Nothing in the pot actually melts. There are also way too many single issue voters. The Gun Lobby, Gay Rights, Abortion, Cuba (it screws with our presidential election). These things bring folks to the polls to vote and they don't care about economic issues economic issues (which at it's heart this MPAA flap really is).

The reason Germany & the Icelandic countries are doing so well is they're united. Their working class has solidarity. Things are looking up a little. Gay Rights is more or less done. The Left is dropping gun control and Obama opened up Cuba. But looking at crap like this shows me they're just as good at dividing and manipulating us as every...

Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[Enigma2175]

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:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[Kjella]

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 Greens. Suddenly you're not losing just a few swing voters, you can lose voters in any direction.

Forming a new party actually has meaning as a 30% party and two 25+5% parties have the same power, unlike the US system where starting a party competing for the same voters spells doom for everybody. I used to think our system was worse because of all the compromises and coalitions and in-fighting, but really all the US system does is bring all those warring factions together in the same party. All the bargain-making is just done between factions in Congress, not between parties.

And the voters don't get to be a part of that process, here there's different shades of red and blue that shift far more easily in the polls. If the voters think the conservatives aren't being very conservative or the liberals very liberal or don't think you're doing a very good job, there are other parties with similar politics that would be happy to take over. The politicians have to work all the time to convince the voters that their party is the right one, there are relatively few genuinely safe votes. Typically only 50-75% will vote for the same party twice in a row.

So I think it's the system, of course the only way to change the system would be getting an amendment through Congress so.... yeah, you're pretty much stuck with a two-party state that will flaunt a few divisive political issues while making sure their campaign contributors are happy. They're quasi-monopolists on each half of the political spectrum, they got no reason to want to change and the third parties don't have the power to change anything.

Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I'm partially pro-gun and completely pro-gay. This defaulted two party system has been completely corrupted and is fundamentally broken. The original framework doesn't require just two parties, but somehow this is the outcome. I suspect this is because the representation system is a "republic" so has limited participation. The "rich elites" where able to game this to just two real "participants", the Republicans and the Democrats. These elites where once actual humans, but are now corporations who's only goal is quarterly profit and the humans are mere puppets. The corporation will do things no one actual human would normally do. Each puppet applies their full creativity to profit with no capability to see a bigger (or moral) picture of eventual outcomes beyond the next quarterly results. If any one person poisoned a river they would be put away, but a corp can do it with nothing but a fine...so the situation is never morally corrected since the fines rarely come close to the amounts of profit.

Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[unrtst]

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 (1992, Ross Perot). He led the polls in June (39%, versus 31% for bush, and 25% for clinton). He was on all 50 state ballots. He was in the debates. He ended up with 18.9% of the popular vote.

The disbelief that a 3rd party can win is what is harming the 3rd parties the most. The majority of people I talk to do not associate strongly with republican nor democrat, but consider voting independent or 3rd party as "throwing away their vote". That mind set must change. Grow some balls and check a different box. No other changes are needed, though there's lots of other changes that would be beneficial.

IMO, the arguments get quite muddy when shifting between a country wide perspective, and a presidential perspective. They are very different beasts (ex. there isn't a standard and widely broadcast debate for every office seat, but the presidential election has one - one which, IMO, needs some overhauling ever since the LWV stopped running it, and should allow any candidate to join as long as they get on the ballot in at least 50% of the states (or some other reasonable number)).

In short, we the people of the USA need to vote honestly. As it stands, we deserve the bipartisanship that we've put in place.

Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[quantaman]

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. Just like if he was some individual legislator with a big group threatening to flood his district with money for his opponent, it's really easy for powerful interests to manipulate the government by picking off individual legislators.

If you make the parties stronger then the interests have to deal with the party instead of the legislator, and the parties are strong enough (and often incentivized) to tell the powerful interests to screw off.

Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[KGIII]

I am kind of proud that I throw my vote away on third parties almost exclusively. I have voted for the winning candidate (of any federal election) a total of twice in 40 years and have only voted for a wining candidate a handful of times at the state level. It does not make me feel like a 'loser.' In fact, I feel more civic-minded because of this. I vote for the person I feel will best represent my interests. That person just never gets elected and the person who is more aligned with my political views is usually a third party candidate.

Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum

[alvinrod]

I disagree. Canada is just as bad as the U.S. in some regards. For example, if you want to purchase blank media, you're paying a piracy tax to the media companies because they lobbied that legislation successfully. There are plenty of other examples of the Canadian parties bending to the whims of various special interests.

From a purely theoretical stand point, it's a lot easier to lobby/bribe a party (single entity) than it is to bribe a large number of individual representatives. You even point out that the individual MPs are simply expected to vote with their party. Given that most probably don't understand the stuff they're voting on (same thing in the U.S. for most topics and the average Congress critter) voting the party line is an easy cop out, so it only becomes a matter of getting the person pushing the party line in one's pocket.

I think that there are better solutions for dealing with lobbying issues such as enforcing single term limits for every position at a federal level and forbidding collecting campaign contributions or campaigning while holding office. The only way to bribe a representative would be to do so before they are elected and because they can only have a single term, there's no incentive for them to stay bought.

It's going to be a joyous day

[Anonymous Coward]

when that old spoiled meatbag Rupert Murdoch dies.

Re:It's going to be a joyous day

[ihtoit]

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:It's going to be a joyous day

[Bing Tsher E]

The problem is, that would mean creating a monster entity even more powerful to dismantle it. If it were possible to create an entity with a self destruct mechanism built in to do the job, that would be fine. But that's not going to happen. And 'Big Government' is not the answer. It's always one of the problems. Though it's fun to fantasize about it being all wonderful and caring, that's not the deal.

Re:It's going to be a joyous day

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

The US Federal Government should be able to revoke their corporate charter. Throw the DA and crew into a super-max prison. Forced divestiture of the RIAA's clients and assets.

Re:It's going to be a joyous day

[ihtoit]

you mean like the US Supreme Court?

Re:It's going to be a joyous day

[Boronx]

The federal government is more powerful and has proved over and over the value of breaking up big businesses in terms of competition and open media. We somehow keep forgetting that and have to relearn it.

Re:bzzzzzz

[knightghost]

Because its even worse in other countries?

Hurt Google?

[PPH]

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

[PopeRatzo]

https://i.imgur.com/ess6W8Q.jp...

Re:Vast left-wing conspiracies exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Do tell us more about how Mississippi is left-wing.

Ouch

[pr0nbot]

"Revealed in a filling"?

I guess Google wasn't exaggerating when they said getting disclosure from the MPAA was like pulling teeth...

Re:Ouch

[Anomalyst]

"Revealed in a filling"?

I guess Google wasn't exaggerating when they said getting disclosure from the MPAA was like pulling teeth...

I was thinking something along the lines of apple-cinnamon or lemon-meringue. Frak now I'm hungry for pie.

I almost find this hard to believe

[fustakrakich]

What kind of lawyer is dumb enough to leave evidence like this? It doesn't make sense.

Re:I almost find this hard to believe

[Anonymous Coward]

They just make the investigation go away. Much easier than trying to keep all evidence under wraps like the 99% of criminals would have to do.

Re:I almost find this hard to believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they were dumb enough to use gmail for all this correspondence...

Re:I almost find this hard to believe

[fustakrakich]

That's the thing, I can't believe they're dumb enough to use written correspondence of any kind. I guess the chances of getting caught really are that low. Not that getting caught necessarily changes anything. It just gives us something to talk about and forget until the next guy gets caught.. repeat... it's a broken record, oops wait, that's RIAA, this here is an endless film loop.

Remember the IRS "non-scandal"?

[John Jorsett]

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.

Re:Remember the IRS "non-scandal"?

[Tokolosh]

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:Remember the IRS "non-scandal"?

[LiENUS]

Abolish the IRS and the problem vanishes

Who would collect taxes then?

Re:Remember the IRS "non-scandal"?

[Required Snark]

Because government grows on trees, like computers, flat screen TVs, hamburgers, cars, roads, safe drinking water, etc.

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:Remember the IRS "non-scandal"?

[Tokolosh]

The same people who did it before there was an IRS or BIR. Alternatively, flat taxes or VAT.

Re:Remember the IRS "non-scandal"?

[Granular]

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 propose replacing the IRS with an empowered Customs and Border Protection Agency? Do you really trust Homeland Security to collect your taxes? Imagine if the IRS has their own navy (with domestic law enforcement powers), law enforcement, immigration, and emergency government operations, and maintains that the Constitution doesn't matter within 100 miles of the nation's borders and coastlines.

How is this not illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Vast left-wing conspiracies exist

[Headw1nd]

Also WSJ, that liberal rag.

What's their endgame really?

[d33tah]

Sometimes I wonder what kind of world MAFIAA actually imagines. I prefer to assume it's somehow coherent given how much they must have invested into developing this obviously wrong philosophy. Now the question: suppose they actually succeeded and Google went bankrupt. 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?

Re:What's their endgame really?

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

Re:What's their endgame really?

[DNS-and-BIND]

It wasn't just Tom Brokaw, it was Walter Cronkite declaring the Tet Offensive in Vietnam a horrible thing. It wasn't until well after I became an adult that I discovered the Tet Offensive was actually a decisive victory for the anti-Communist forces. The Viet Cong were totally destroyed. Yeah, it was a surprise to me as well.

There was an anecdote by a soldier that had helped in the operation. The Viet Cong had committed many atrocities in the areas it had briefly controlled, and the soldier wondered why a wandering TV crew wasn't covering any of it. "We're not here to help Nixon's war," replied one of the journalists.

Let's not even get into the hippy counter-culture scum who really did want to overthrow the US government and institute a communist system. For real. They weren't joking.

Re:What's their endgame really?

[Fire_Wraith]

In fairness, you have to understand the event in context. The Tet Offensive ended in a decisive military victory for the American and South Vietnamese forces, but this came AFTER people had been told by the U.S. Government/Military that the war was almost won, the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong ability to fight was being destroyed, etc. Everyone had been primed to believe that a massive, country wide offensive/uprising like this wasn't even possible to begin with. That's why it came as such a shock, not because we were defeated military, but because it caused people to lose faith in what they were being told by the government.

Some of this was an intelligence failure on the part of the military leadership, including Gen. Westmoreland, who believed that the NVA was intent on trying to repeat their defeat of the French, by pulling a repeat of Dien Bien Phu. They thought that the siege of Khe Sanh was intended to be that battle, and this is why we fought so damn hard for the place, airlifting in supplies even when it was cut off by land. We did not see the Tet Offensive coming, were taken by surprise, and it cost us significantly in terms of the public's trust and willingness to support the war.

Re:What's their endgame really?

[rhazz]

+1. But they don't want to end Google. The internet is too open and some other start up would take their place. More likely they want control, via established legal mechanisms they can use to modify Google search results, which in some areas they are already achieving (DMCA, right to be forgotten, think of the children, etc).

Disbar the Lawyers Involved

[Anonymous Coward]

The state employee lawyers involved are not working in the public interest. Their actions clearly cross ethical lines (big surprise given their profession). Perhaps if their behavior crosses legal lines, they will be disbarred.

Re:Disbar the Lawyers Involved

[Cytotoxic]

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.

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 even got re-elected after people got to see one of his office's star expert witnesses on video tape manufacturing evidence to frame a defendant by creating bite marks in a murdered 2 year old's face using a dental mold of the defendant's teeth. Did they all go to jail? No. Did they all get disbarred? No. Did anybody get in any sort of trouble at all? Well, after a couple of years they quit using the guy caught on tape for any new cases. They still defend the old ones in court though.

Re:Disbar the Lawyers Involved

[bluefoxlucid]

Video? What?

Re:Disbar the Lawyers Involved

[Cytotoxic]

Here is where I first read about the case with video of the expert witness creating false evidence. It references the video links but no longer seems to be hosting the video. HuffPo has a clip from the video still up.

This was a death penalty case, and the video of the examination was not unearthed until after the defendant was sentenced to death.

Re:Disbar the Lawyers Involved

[Cytotoxic]

BTW - I relied on memory for the original post. It has been a few years. I should not have used the word "murdered", as the evidence seems to point to accidental drowning due to possible negligence by the defendant who was convicted of capital murder. There were other cases from the same time period that involved completely false allegations against two separate men (again, involving death row appeals) using the same expert witnesses. The murders were later tied to a different man who went on to kill again while innocent men languished in jail due to the absolute certain testimony of these forensic "experts".

Excellent detective work

[UberVegeta]

"... one of the few emails that Google have been able to get access to so far was revealed this Thursday in a filling."

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.

Lifting the Veil on Corporate SOP's

[Anonymous Coward]

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; or established auto companies creating a stealth PR campaign against the upstart Tesla or other electric cars as exhibited in the overemphasis of Tesla battery fires; or the propagation of the myth that the hybrid Toyota Prius is worse 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.

Will they still go ahead?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

The MPAA seems so blindingly and stupidly evil they might just go ahead and run this campaign anyway, just change it up a bit. Or just claim Google is making all of this up, and sue them to suppress these emails as potentially fabricated.

How is this legal?

[Jezral]

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.

Re:How is this legal?

[paradxum]

OK, There are many of us american's that feel that way!

The problem is finding out who is ACTUALLY running the smear campaign. 90% of the time the money is filtered through 3rd 4th 5th parties that hide the true originator.

In this case, it's a smear campaign that is designed to look like it's truth coming from the news. Thank god this generation doesn't blindly trust the news media anymore.... I hope.

Re:How is this legal?

[sabbede]

The answer to both - it really isn't. Advertisers can get away with shading the truth when making competitor comparisons, but this is beyond the pale (that's an idiom meaning "really, really, unusually wrong"). Heads will roll, starting with Mississippi's AG.

Re:How is this legal?

[RyoShin]

In the US, bullying isn't a problem so much as it is a national past time. Americans love power, and people with power; one way to increase your own (apparent) power is to decrease the (apparent) power of your rival. And then people will vote for whoever they think has the most apparent power (so long as that person has the right capital letter next to their name on the ballot.)

We do a lot of things weird here. Blow a guy's head off during prime time television? What, you're telling me you only did it once? Do it five times, think of the advertising revenue! Oh, you want to include a scene that shows a woman's nipple for half a second during that same time frame? No, sorry, you have to go to jail now.

I think that America (and Americans) has an incredibly amount of potential, but it's significantly hampered by our weird mix of "morals" and in-fighting over issues which, relative to the country as a whole, are fairly irrelevant but get all the focus.

Re:The Daily Show???

[LiENUS]

'Today Show' != 'The Daily Show'

Re:Chicago written large.

[digsbo]

Hahahahahahaha! You're so eager to launch ad-hominem attacks, you can't even be bothered to read that he addressed the Bush regime implicitly:

It's usually largely in the hands of organized crime, and has been since the Nixon-Kennedy election

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Exhibit 1 - The actual emails

[fredan]

Exhibit 1: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179098/ag-mpaa-emails.pdf

Could Google start a RICO case on this?

[Required Snark]

From my understanding RICO has a really broad reach. If there is a conspiracy to break then law, then RICO applies.

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.

google lawyer special ops

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Given Google's cash on hand?

Should Google be compelled to stop listing illegal streaming sites? Or pay out from the ad revenue they accrue from returning the illegal streaming sites? Because we all know the RIAA has only the artists in mind. But still ... really? Go up against Google? With lawyers? Page throws a billion dollars on the desk and says "do what you gotta do". Boom. The jury finds the defendant much much better funded than the old school music biz gangsters in geriatric suits.

Yeah, but that's the point

[rsilvergun]

You're right about our 2 party system. But it was designed for that. Our entire constitution was written to protect wealthy landowners from the working class. That's why we have a senate, it prevents populist movements from taking off :(. About the only times we've ever seen any reason progress have been when one of the 1% broke ranks (FDR) and after WWII when too many workers had died off and when we were the only country left with working infrastructure...

Re:Yeah, but that's the point

[david_thornley]

The two-party system was not designed for anything; it's a result of our election system. The constitution was written to foster a working democracy, in that all the stuff about protecting wealthy land-owners was outside the Constitution and more easily changed.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is all that stuff about Google not being "diverse enough" also part of the smear campaign?

A good politician...

[FrozenGeek]

... is one who, once bought, stays bought.

Re:Disappointing

[Boronx]

If this are the assholes who primarily benefit from copyright, how wrong is illegal copying?

I Anal

[wasteoid]

Not disappointed in the number of posters sharing with us that they ANAL.

One thing at a time - State AG can't do that

[sabbede]

To say that Google engages in interstate commerce is a bit of an understatement. Sure as hell sounds to me like this AG is trying to regulate what has become a major channel for interstate commerce, thereby exceeding the hell out his authority and violating the f- out of the Constitution.

Please, please do this!!!

[DarthVain]

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:Good luck with that campain

[Lab Rat Jason]

This!

A former boss of mine (who used to work in newspaper) once told me: "Never start a war of words with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

Censorship

[Evan Langlois]

Ah yes, Google refuses to censor the Internet in the interest of corporate america. Let's devalue their stock for not being Big Brother for us. WTF?!