Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday July 04 2015, @10:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the he's-a-very-naughty-boy dept.

Google's continuing legal battle with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), initiated after WikiLeaks published leaked Sony emails, now includes documents provided to the court showing a cozy relationship between the MPAA and Mississippi's Attorney General, Jim Hood. Hood has argued that Google violates the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act by facilitating the distribution of illegal drugs and copyright-infringing content. But Google claims it is immune to state enforcement action under the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and sees the MPAA as lobbying and prodding the Attorney General into attacking Google:

In a new filing at a Washington District Court, Google has called out the MPAA for its "cozy" relationship with [the Mississippi Attorney General]. In addition to helping him draft anti-piracy measures, Google highlights that the Hollywood group organized fundraisers, donated money, and sent rather jovial emails to the Attorney General's staff. Late last year leaked documents from the Sony hack revealed that the MPAA helped Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood to revive SOPA-like censorship efforts in the United States. In a retaliatory move Google sued the Attorney General, hoping to find out more about the secret plan. The company also demanded internal communication from the MPAA and its lawfirm Jenner & Block.

After the Hollywood group and its lawyers refused to provide all information Google asked for, a separate legal battle began with both sides using rather strong language to state their case. The MPAA accused Google of facilitating piracy and objected to a request to transfer the case to Mississippi, where the underlying case was started. According to the movie industry group and its lawyers they are merely bystanders who want to resolve the matter in a Washington court.

This week Google responded to the MPAA opposition with a scathing reply, which outs the cozy relationship between the MPAA and the Attorney General's office. "Their rhetoric does not match reality," Google responds (pdf) to the request not to transfer the case. "The MPAA and Jenner are no strangers to Mississippi."

According to Google it's clear that the MPAA and its law firm were in "intimate contact" with the Attorney General, offered monetary donations, hosted fundraisers and also helped him to draft legal paperwork. "According to the Subpoenaed Parties, they are strangers to Mississippi. But documents produced last week by the MPAA tell a very different story. The Subpoenaed Parties and their representatives made repeated visits to AG Hood's office in Mississippi to guide his anti-Google work. Even when they weren't physically at AG Hood's office, they may as well have been, getting together with him in Denver and Santa Monica and holding a fundraising dinner for him in New Orleans."

And there is more. The emails the MPAA recently produced also reveal "remarkably cozy and constant communications" between the MPAA and the Attorney General's office. In one email the MPAA's Brian Cohen greeted one of Hood's staffers with "Hello my favorite" offering to share pictures of his vacation in New Zealand via Dropbox. In another email discussing a meeting with the AG's staff, MPAA's Cohen writes "OMG we spent 3 hours." According to Google [...] "This pattern of sustained, intimate contact is hardly the mark of a party that merely 'communicated with Attorney General Hood' 'previously,' as the MPAA characterizes itself."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:42PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:42PM (#205011) Journal

    the problem there is that the cure is known but is rejected because it levels the playing field by giving all candidates equal amounts of money.

    How is this a solution?
    How can you stop a myriad of parties with zillions of candidates being formed, just to get some easy bucks? (it did happen elsewhere, US won't be an exception)
    Yes, it would be merrier this way, everybody throws a party, but... at least stop calling it a solution, call it carnival (no, the current electoral process is not a carnival, it's a farce)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:58PM

    by Francis (5544) on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:58PM (#205025)

    You can't bribe somebody that's got enough money. Bribes would be far easier to identify as they couldn't be passed off as political donations.

    As far as myriad parties showing up just to take the money, that's rather unlikely. Normally in a system like that you have to have enough support to get on the ballot. Once on the ballot you get the same money as the other candidates. Additionally, in the US we have a system where few 3rd party candidates are able to win anyways. The most likely outcome would be that you have more unorthodox candidates running that the parties don't support.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:04PM (#205027)

    Here is how we do it (a bit simplified) in France:
    1. Political parties are financed by the State in proportion to their results at (the first of the two rounds of) the last election at the lower chamber (Assemblée Nationale), they also receive monies by elected representatives in parliement (both lower and higher chambers, Assemblée Nationale and Sénat) and by groups (parties and coalitions) in those assemblies.
    A party needs its candidates each to achieve at least 1% of the votes in 50 constituencies to be financed.
    So no fake parties seeking money.

    2. Physical persons (aka not moral persons (companies…), not alien countries) can donate, but to a limit (4500 €/year). Checks (or trackability) are mandatory above a certain amount.

    3. Campaign expenditures are limited.

    4. TV exposures (ads, talks, polls…) are limited and proportional to last election’s results.

    It’s not perfect and it’s modified after each scandal.

    But, most of all: Judges are not elected. Attorney general (procureurs) are not elected. Police chiefs are not elected. School boards are not elected.… Hm, do you elect the Fire Marshall? ’cause we don’t either.

  • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday July 05 2015, @06:12PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Sunday July 05 2015, @06:12PM (#205337)

    How can you stop a myriad of parties with zillions of candidates being formed, just to get some easy bucks?

    the same way you get on the voting ballot: you need to get X signatures to petition for official recognition. when you are recognized as a candidate, you are then funded. obviously, all spending will need to be audited to ensure it's being used properly.