Slashdot Mirror
Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Revealed In MPAA Emails
vivaoporto writes: Techdirt reports on a plan to run an anti-Google smear campaign via the Today Show and the WSJ discovered in MPAA emails. Despite the resistance of the Hollywood studios to comply with the subpoenas obtained by Google concerning their relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood (whose investigation of the company appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves) one of the few emails that Google have been able to get access to so far was revealed this Thursday in a filling. It's an email between the MPAA and two of Jim Hood's top lawyers in the Mississippi AG's office, discussing the big plan to "hurt" Google.
The lawyers from Hood's office flat out admit that they're expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories. One email reads: "Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The "live buys" should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google's stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed."
As Google notes in its legal filing about this email, the "plan" states that if this effort fails, then the next step will be to file the subpoena (technically a CID or "civil investigatory demand") on Google, written by the MPAA but signed by Hood. This makes it pretty clear that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and that the subpoena had no legitimate purpose behind it, but rather was the final step in a coordinated media campaign to pressure Google to change the way its search engine works.
The lawyers from Hood's office flat out admit that they're expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories. One email reads: "Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The "live buys" should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google's stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed."
As Google notes in its legal filing about this email, the "plan" states that if this effort fails, then the next step will be to file the subpoena (technically a CID or "civil investigatory demand") on Google, written by the MPAA but signed by Hood. This makes it pretty clear that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and that the subpoena had no legitimate purpose behind it, but rather was the final step in a coordinated media campaign to pressure Google to change the way its search engine works.
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.
Just want to know. Maybe if we chip in, we could get one that works for us for a change.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is a size limit to corporations, beyond which they can't be controlled, and if they fail it brings down the whole country. It is in the national interest to keep corporations below that size limit. This should be discussed, nationally. If only we could convince the huge multi-national corporations that control our news industry to allow it.
I wish I could be shocked at this behavior but this is standard operating procedure in America. The government has long been owned by the corporations, stuff like this just removes all doubt. The AG is conspiring openly to wipe out billions of dollars in Google's market value and for most of America this will merit a "ho-hum". The copyright mafia is out of control, writing their own laws and then conspiring with law enforcement to destroy their rivals. Something should be done but nothing will, as long as political campaigns are funded by corporate donations the political class will do their bidding. I guess Google just hasn't been giving the appropriate bribes.
Enigma
This AG is already (in)famous for his use of obviously flawed forensic testimony to convict innocent people - even in death penalty cases.
This is definitely grounds for impeachment and dismissal, followed by criminal charges.
I'm shocked these kinds of emails linger around and don't get deleted, or at least PGP encrypted.
when that old spoiled meatbag Rupert Murdoch dies.
"Revealed in a filling"?
I guess Google wasn't exaggerating when they said getting disclosure from the MPAA was like pulling teeth...
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 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.
How is this 1) legal, 2) accepted? Doesn't this directly fall under false advertising?
Here in Denmark, smear campaigns generally don't happen. You do not talk bad about other people or products - you instead talk about what you're doing better. And if you do smear competitors, you will lose face in the public eye.
It seems that in the US, that's entirely opposite. So bizarre.
Exhibit 1: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179098/ag-mpaa-emails.pdf
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.