Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Revealed In MPAA Emails

Posted by samzenpus on from the put-everything-down-in-writing dept.

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.

14 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Shocking by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. How much is an AG these days? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:How much is an AG these days? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:How much is an AG these days? by Quasimodem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:How much is an AG these days? by ciaran2014 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    4. Re:How much is an AG these days? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:How much is an AG these days? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Passing laws which make lobbying a criminal offence would seem to be a good start ...

      It would also be unconstitutional.

      The Right to Petition IS the right of lobbying, and is constitutionally protected. (That's why anti-lobbying laws keep getting struck down when challenged.)

      In the US it's part of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You'll also find it in Article 44 of the EU's Charter of Human Rights, Germany's 1949 Fundamental Law, England's Bill of Rights of 1689, Petition of Right of 1628, and Magna Carta (1215).

      It's a fundamental part of Western Law: ANYBODY gets to ask their legislature to adjust the law to make it better for them (if they can get the legislators' attention) and not be penalized for doing so.

      It's also a REALLY BAD IDEA to try to interfere with this fundamental right (and also with the fundamental right to support the political candidates of one's choice). The big money / big power people can always find ways to influence and finance the politicians of their choice. The only thing such laws do is make it harder on the "big mass of little guys". So they institutionalize elite-class favoritism and corruption, rather than retard it.

      If you want to attack corruption the place to do it is the selection of the officials: Elections, and exposure of malfeasance to the electorate.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  3. Too big to fail by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Welcome to America by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. Already famous by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  6. Re:I don't think it's a ho-hum by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.