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

Related Stories

Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign 23 comments

Earlier this month, [TechDirt] noted that the Hollywood studios were all resisting subpoenas from Google concerning their super cozy relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose highly questionable "investigation" of Google appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves. The entire "investigation" seemed to clearly be an attempt to mislead the public into believing that it was somehow illegal for Google's search engine to find stuff that people didn't like online. A court has already ruled that Hood pretty clearly acted in bad faith to deprive Google of its First Amendment rights. As the case has continued, Google has sought much more detail on just how much of the investigation was run by the MPAA and the studios -- and Hollywood has vigorously resisted, claiming that they really had nothing to do with all of this, which was a laughable assertion.

However, in a filing on Thursday, Google revealed one of the few emails that they have been able to get access to so far, and it's stunning.

To read some of the content of the e-mail (which really is stunning, if only for how openly the MPAA is doing this), read more here: TechDirt article

takyon: Dec. 12: Google Ends MPAA Anti-Piracy Cooperation
Dec. 23: As Hollywood Funds a SOPA Revival Through State Officials, Google (And The Internet) Respond
Jul. 3: Google Scolds MPAA on Cozy Relationship With the Mississippi Attorney General


Original Submission

Mississippi AG Jim Hood Goes After Google for "G Suite for Education" Personal Data Handling 6 comments

Mississippi's Attorney General is going after Google again, this time for its handling of students' personal data:

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is sparring with Google once more. Last year, Hood and Google wound down a court dispute over Hood's investigation into how Google handles certain kinds of online content, from illegal drug ads to pirated movies. E-mails from the 2014 Sony hack showed that Hood's investigation was spurred on, in part, by lobbyists from the Motion Picture Association of America.

Now Hood has a new bone to pick with the search giant. Yesterday, Hood filed a lawsuit (PDF) against Google in Lowndes County Chancery Court, saying that the company is gathering personal data on students who use Google's G Suite for Education, (previously called Google Apps for Education). In a statement, Hood said that "due to the multitude of unclear statements provided by Google," his investigators don't know exactly what information is being collected.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has criticized Google in the past for its tracking, storage, and data mining of student data.

Previously: Google Scolds MPAA on Cozy Relationship With the Mississippi Attorney General
Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign
Google: First Amendment Doesn't Protect MPAA's Secrets
Google Quietly Takes Gag Off Mississippi AG After Wrecking Ads Probe


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: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday July 04 2015, @11:40AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Saturday July 04 2015, @11:40AM (#204990)

    when do "donations" to a campaign become bribes? ever? there is something very wrong with our system. it's a sickness, it's corruption and it's only getting worse.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by BsAtHome on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:01PM

      by BsAtHome (889) on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:01PM (#204995)

      They are bribes. There is no other word for it.

      If you actually want donations not to be bribes, then either nothing of any monetary value (goods, services or money) may be passed between parties, or the receiving party may not hold any power in the three-part divided power structure (executive. legislature and judiciary).

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:19PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:19PM (#204997) Journal

        when do "donations" to a campaign become bribes?... it's a sickness, it's corruption and it's only getting worse.

        They are bribes.

        Why? I mean... what is it that switches a donation into a bribe?

        Suppose one makes an absolute anonymous donation to a political party... would it still be a bribe?
        Or, why is making a donation to Greenpeace different from making a donation to a political party, what makes the specific difference?

        My point: looking into the causes of the disease may help sketch a cure. Asserting every donation is a bribe it's a lazy diagnosis that doesn’t help.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:54PM

          by Gravis (4596) on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:54PM (#205002)

          My point: looking into the causes of the disease may help sketch a cure.

          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. this would break the two party system into something more fair and that's not good for career politicians, so they will never agree to it.

          • (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
            • (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.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:38PM

          by BsAtHome (889) on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:38PM (#205009)

          Last time I looked, Greenpeace was not a political party or part of any government. So your argument falls apart on that issue(*).

          The problem is very basic: power corrupts.

          That is one of the reasons why a democracy has and needs elections to "change the guard at the helm". When you change the playing field by using "payed-for" politics, at any level of governmental branch, then you are is essence subverting the underlying principles of the democratic process. Behold the reader to assess the system of governance and influences of money in their respective country.

          (*) Not that bribery cannot happen in private enterprise or daily life. There is a fine line between "donating for the better of..." and "blocking the other from...". For these issues we (idealistically) have the three governmental branches to strike a well-informed balance between the good of the commons vs the good of the single.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:02PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:02PM (#205014) Journal

            Last time I looked, Greenpeace was not a political party or part of any government. So your argument falls apart on that issue(*).
            The problem is very basic: power corrupts.

            In spite of being just an NGO, Greenpeace doesn't seem to be powerless, it does have some effect on peoples life - more that, let's say, US Pirate's party. So, once again, what are genuine donations and when one can consider donation as bribes?

            So your argument falls apart on that issue(*).

            It wasn't an argument, it was a question. As also a question was:

            Suppose one makes an absolute anonymous donation to a political party... would it still be a bribe?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:36PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:36PM (#205019)

              > In spite of being just an NGO, Greenpeace doesn't seem to be powerless, it does have some effect on peoples life

              That is such weak tea that you really should be ashamed of trying to double down on it. All organizations in a society have power. Exxon has enormous power - does buying gasoline constitute a bribe? Of course not.

              As for your original question of whether anonymous donations constitute bribes - not if they are truly anonymous, or at least anonymously revocable. In the modern american political system campaign contributions buy access - people who give money go to the front of the line to argue their case and non-donors may never make it out of line. Anonymous contributions make it impossible to prioritize like that. In one of this books Lawrence Lessig talks about a south florida election for county judges where the rules were such that contributions were not anonymous but they all went into a "black box" account and could be anonymously revoked afterwards. The net result was that the net contributions were zero.

        • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:01PM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:01PM (#205013)

          If you make a donation to Greenpeace and expect them to give you any special treatment, then it is also a bribe.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:17PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:17PM (#205018) Journal

            If you make a donation to Greenpeace and expect them to give you any special treatment, then it is also a bribe.

            (or ransom money; anyway...) There you have it! As long as one could detach the donation from expectations of special treatment, what's wrong with the donations?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:43PM

              by kaszz (4211) on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:43PM (#205020) Journal

              Donations gives an unbalanced power advantage to one party..because money!
              Not because they are actually good or have wide support.

              And you know how strong the correlation between insight and brains vs money is..

            • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:01PM

              by Francis (5544) on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:01PM (#205026)

              The other issue is that even when the politicians really aren't doing things for money, it shifts the agenda in ways that might not be desirable. From things that are important, but unpopular, to things that might be less popular, but are likely to bring in a lot of donations.

              All the money in politics just causes a lot of trouble and the sooner there are rules in place to remove it, the better. They'd still be pandering, but they'd have to pander for votes rather than money that they use to buy votes with slick ad campaigns that less known candidates can't afford to compete with.

        • (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."

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Saturday July 04 2015, @04:10PM

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday July 04 2015, @04:10PM (#205043)

      Vote Bernie Sanders - the only candidate who candidly speaks about money in politics. All other candidates, Rand Paul included, refuse to, because they are funded by major corporations like Goldmann Sachs.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:32AM (#205155)

      When SCOTUS recognizes that allowing campaign contributions for more than the poorest citizen can afford is a violation of the equal protection clause.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:45PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday July 04 2015, @02:45PM (#205021) Journal

    Maybe we have found the enemy of the stat^H^HInternet then? or at least more than one? :P

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:45PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:45PM (#205035) Journal

      Is Reddit an enemy of the Internet?

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:56PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Saturday July 04 2015, @03:56PM (#205040) Journal

        They harbor many assholes but I wouldn't think of the site in that way. Now an organization that is prepared to sacrifice the justice of individuals in a state and freedom for personal profit. That's another ballgame.

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 05 2015, @09:26AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday July 05 2015, @09:26AM (#205237) Journal

      What is the stInternet?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.