from the second-rule-is-don't-write-anything-down dept.
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
Related Stories
According to a report at TorentFreak, Google has gotten so fed up with the MPAA making snarky remarks about them that they have ended cooperation on anti-piracy measures:
After delivering a major blow to torrent sites during October, Google must've thought the MPAA would be pleased. Instead, however, the MPAA issued a 'snarky' press release. According to a leaked email, the press release so infuriated Google's top brass that the company ended cooperation with the MPAA.
Each week Google removes millions of ‘infringing’ links from search engine results at rightsholders’ request, 9.1 million during the last documented week alone. In the main Google removes these links within hours of receiving a complaint, a record few other large sites can match.
But no matter what Google does, no matter how it tweaks its search algorithms, it’s never been enough for the MPAA. For years the movie group has been piling on the pressure and whenever Google announces a new change, the MPAA (and often RIAA) tell the press that more can be done.
EFF - As Hollywood Funds a SOPA Revival Through State Officials, Google (And The Internet) Respond
Almost three years ago, millions of Internet users joined together to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a disastrous bill that would have balkanized the Internet in the name of copyright and trademark enforcement. Over the past week, we've been tracking a host of revelations about an insidious campaign to accomplish the goals of SOPA by other means. The latest development: Google has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of an overbroad and punitive subpoena seeking an extraordinary quantity of information about the company and its users. The subpoena, Google warns, is based on legal theories that could have disastrous consequences for the open Internet.
The subpoena was issued after months of battles between Google and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood. According to the lawsuit, Hood has been using his office to pressure Google to restrict content accessible through the search engine. Indeed, among other things, he sought "a “24-hour link through which attorneys general[]” can request that links to particular websites be removed from search results "within hours,” presumably without judicial review or an opportunity for operators of the target websites to be heard." As Google states, "The Attorney General may prefer a pre-filtered Internet—but the Constitution and Congress have denied him the authority to mandate it."
The subpoena itself is bad enough, but here's what's really disturbing: the real force behind it appears to be the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which has been quietly supporting state-level prosecutors in various efforts to target the company and the open Internet. The clear aim of that campaign—dubbed "Project Goliath" in MPAA emails made public through the recent high profile breach of Sony's corporate network—is to achieve the goals of the defeated SOPA blacklist proposal without the public oversight of the legislative process. Previously, Google had responded with a sharply worded notice and a petition titled #ZombieSOPA.
To be clear though: Google may be the target today, but the real target is the open Internet, which depends on free and uncensored platforms to survive. Any campaign to censor the Internet is cause for concern—and a secret one is all the more so. The public has clearly and unambiguously denounced the SOPA effort; it's shameful to see its backers try to revive its goals by dodging the scrutiny of the democratic process.
Also reported at Ars Technica -
Tech groups send Miss. AG a “friendly reminder” about how bad SOPA was
Mississippi AG backs off Google investigation pushed by MPAA
Google moves to halt investigation by Mississippi AG, cites MPAA lobbying
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
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
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 27 2015, @10:53PM
I have many reasons to ourchase compact discs rather than download. Among them is that I am a musician, and I have many close friends who are musicians. Some of them sell out every ticket to their live performances.
Even so they are all of very modest means. This leads me to wonder why they arent wealthy given that they sell so many recordings.
Canada taxes blank recordable CD media to compensate musicians for downloading. I lived in Canada for a number of years, my music while not mainstream is quite popular there, yetnno one every sent me my royalty check. Perhaps they dont have my current mailing address? If so you could really help a brother out by telling me how to file it.
Thanks! -- Mike
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:14PM
Silly person - you thought that CD tax was to help musicians. That's not the way governments work. That money is for their rich friends - in this case, the big shots who run the record labels. When these sociopaths get the money, they kick some of it back to the politicians so they get re-elected so they can come up with another scam to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. That's called capitalism.
You don't count and never did. Giving money to you is socialism. Even if you do all the work.
On a more serious note: Jon Stewart had it right when he said something like "Modern democracy means socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor." That's why the rich get the handouts (e.g. bank bailouts - the thing Stewart was commenting on) and the poor get the losses (taxes to cover those bailouts).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:23PM
Even if it did go to actual musicians and such, it's still insane to have the government charge a tax on something like blank CDs for absolutely everyone just because some people may 'abuse' it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:46AM
Not at all. I've paid my fees and therefore get to download all available recorded music.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday July 28 2015, @06:52PM
Not at all. I've paid my fees and therefore get to download all available recorded music.
From the Wikipedia page for Private Copying Levy:
"Currently, private copy royalties are generated in the US by the sale of "blank CDs and personal audio devices, media centers, satellite radio devices, and car audio systems that have recording capabilities.".
Note that is only in the US, many other nations have higher and lower taxes for more or less categories of items. Perhaps they should be providing us with download credits, as you would be hard pressed to find examples of them actually paying artists. In fact, you might realize the artists mentioned in the OP are being charged a tax for the blank media used to record and sell their own music!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @02:45AM
Despite what conservatives and reactionaries constantly claim, that's not a property inherent i government, but merely blatant corruption.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:20PM
My son has been a few bands, cut some CDs, opened for some very popular bands, toured the states, has award winning music videos, etc. Has not received a cent from the record labels. I say torrent what you want and donate directly to the artist, like I do.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Snotnose on Monday July 27 2015, @11:32PM
I've wanted a system to only reward the artists since the 80s. Back in the day I used to buy an album and make a cassette tape of it. Sometimes I'd make mixtapes for my friends. Not to try to hook up with them (I had cocaine for that :), but because I thought the music was good, never got played on the radio, and deserved to be known more widely.
I always felt a little bit guilty giving these tapes away (I seemed to be the Guy Who Knew Bands Nobody Else Did, like Metallica and Queensryche). Then in the 90s they started charging a tax on blank cassettes and my guilt went away. Replaced by anger, knowing that tax went to bigwigs who couldn't tune a guitar, let alone play it, and the bands got bupkiss.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:59AM
All the local musicians here, the ones who know my face, know I'm contributing positively (with $$$) to the music scene here, and they happily fling me URLs to torrents which would technically be illegal (even if by downloading that music it leads me to purchasing the CD, and thus has in reality been free advertising). That tells me the moral right is with me, no matter what the MAFIAA say.
Anyway, enough seriousness, here's some Fast Show: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYmvrtrq7I
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Tuesday July 28 2015, @08:48AM
I say torrent what you want and donate directly to the artist, like I do.
Another way to "donate" to artists, is to buy the CDs and apparel at the concerts.
Most of the time, the proceeds go directly to the artists.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:26PM
Join the union to collect what they have negotiated??
http://www.ascap.com/members/payment/whocollect.aspx [ascap.com]
There are others too, but ASCAP is the big one -- formed in the early days of radio,
http://www.ascap.com/about/ [ascap.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:31AM
I know about ASCAP, and I support them.
But if that tax only goes towards ascap members and not to ALL canadian musicians then the tax itself is in clear violation of the law. I dont know which one but I will find out; I know a canadian public interest solicitor while this isnt his kind of law he could refer me to one.
A badly contrived example would be for the US to collect a tax on the purchase of used cars then to give all that money to United Auto Workers. There are many other laborers who lose out one one doesnt buy new.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:14AM
The auto makers sure made out like a bandit on California's "Cash for Clunkers" program where politicians used taxpayer money to take used automobiles and SUV's off the market.
Having spent California's money for things like this, we exhaust our treasury, then we have Governor Brown approaching the microphone to plead with the California Taxpayers to "work with him" by passing a sales tax increase.
Guess what... we approved it!
We will actually willingly pay additional tax to support higher prices! All the special interests have to do is let their pleas be said through a microphone - nicely. "Say YES" they intone.... and we do.
I think we will do damned near anything the "microphone people" tell us to do.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:33AM
He is a close friend of one of my close friends.
I readily agree that Jerry doesnt make a whole lot of sense. But even so he is a deeply insightful political thinker.
Reaaly, he should have been a journalist.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @06:08AM
Ah, the media tax. Some places also tax memory in MP3 players and the like. I recall seeing an article some years ago, in which the author traced the money. What little was paid out did mostly go to the big companies. IIRC most of the money went to fund the bureaucracy in charge of collecting the money. Pournelle's Iron Law in action.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @07:51AM
For years, the Canadian Private Copying Collective just took in the money and kept it [and of course, paid themselves quite handsomely for doing so]. Eventually somebody noticed, and now they actually do distribute some of the funds they receive.
For you to receive money for your work [either as a performer or a songwriter], you have to join one of it's 'subagencies' [depending on which 'rights' you have], and then they decide what fraction of all the money they collect each year should be yours.
Likely, that number rounds to $0.00.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:44PM
I would not do so if the money really goes to the artists.
But after receiving my first check - or lack thereof - I would have standing to haul them into court soma forensic accountant could uncook their books.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:36AM
Here's one story "Warner Music's Royalty Statements: Works Of Fiction"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/1957497156.shtml [techdirt.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 28 2015, @08:10AM
Then again, the fact that they are using illogic like "you can buy drugs in parks, therefore parks should be made illegal" and "children can buy scissors with which they can stab people to death, therefore scissors should be made illegal" tells you there are of diminished mental faculties. (OK, they don't use precisely those, but they use the equivalent against search engines rather than parks and scissors.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:00AM
People have always suspected the fix was in, but with all these kinds of revelations of proof the fix is in I wonder how long before a threshhold is reached and the whole thing collapses.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:10PM
So: take one big pot. Add crooked politicians, avaricious monopolist industry heads, and greedy lawyers. Add pornographers and /their/ lawyers, and stir. What do you get? Shit soup.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday July 28 2015, @01:28PM
Excellent - may I quote you?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by maliqua on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:34PM
That would even make Mr Lahey proud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcQW04AQ_Ok [youtube.com]