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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:59PM (#205042)

    why is making a donation to Greenpeace different from making a donation to a political party, what makes the specific difference?

    Its not different since Greenpeace isn't a registered charity, you can see it as a bribe or supporting terrorists whatever makes you feel better, had you cited an actual charity instead of a corrupt political lobbying group, the answer would be "yes its very different because they're a registered charity the reason they exist is to take funds from the masses and convert them into whatever their cause supports."