Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Via Today Show And WSJ
from the editorial-independence? dept
If you talk to the reporters who work for various big media companies, they insist that they have true editorial independence from the business side of their companies. They insist that the news coverage isn't designed to reflect the business interests of their owners. Of course, most people have always suspected this was bullshit -- and you could see evidence of this in things like the fact that the big TV networks refused to cover the SOPA protests. But -- until now -- there's never necessarily been a smoking gun with evidence of how such business interests influences the editorial side.Earlier this month, we 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. 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. Beyond influencing other Attorneys General (using misleading fake "setups" of searches for "bad" material) and paying for fake anti-Google research, 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:
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.In other words, Jim Hood and the MPAA were out and out planning a coordinated media attack on Google using the editorial properties that supposedly claim to have editorial independence from the business side. Notice that with the WSJ piece, they flat out admit that the editorial will be based on the ideas that "we" have developed. If you work for the WSJ, your editorial independence just got shot down. Remember when CBS stepped in and interfered editorially with CNET for giving an award to Dish at the same time that CBS was in a legal fight over that same device? That resulted in reporters quitting.
This is worse.
This is an out and out case where the MPAA is admitting to a plan whereby it will use mainstream media properties to run bogus and misleading stories to "attack" Google, to further the MPAA's (believed, but misleadingly so) business interests. Is this really how the Today Show and the WSJ pick their editorial topics?
The "plan" goes even further after that, getting the MPAA to find (and almost certainly pay for) a lawyer to work with the "shareholder" previously identified to file legal filings against Google.
Following the media blitz, you want Bill Guidera and Rick Smotkin to work with the PR firm to identify a lawyer specializing in SEC matters to work with a stockholder. This lawyer should be able to the [sic] identify the appropriate regulatory filing to be made against Google.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. As Google points out, this makes it pretty clear (1) that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and (2) 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. It's pretty damning:
The document thus shows that the CID was not the foundation of a legitimate investigation—rather, it was a “final step” that would be issued only “if necessary” to further pressure Google to capitulate to the demands of AG Hood and his supporters.The court has yet to rule on what else Hollywood needs to turn over, but just from what's coming out already, serious questions are being raised (1) about Jim Hood and his office and what they were up to as well as (2) the editorial independence of the media arms of the MPAA studios, including both NBCUniversal ("the Today Show") and NewsCorp. (the Wall Street Journal).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: editorial independence, jim hood, media, mississippi, news, smear campaign, today show, wsj
Companies: comcast, google, mpaa, nbc universal, newscorp
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal grand jury
Wonder how GOOG traded between the time period in question until the hack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal grand jury
If the court does not refer all involved to federal authorities and ask for an intensive investigation then there is a serious problem with the way things work and all laws become invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
I don't want to hijack this story away from focusing on Hood or the MafiAA, but this needs to be said.
Whether you like it or not, this is exactly the sort of crony capitalism and regulatory capture she warned about in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She called these people "moochers" for seeking legislative or legal favours from our elected (or appointed) representatives in return for bribes or other corrupt considerations.
You may not like how she said it, or approve of her as a person (we all have our flaws), but this was her message. A freely functioning democracy doesn't allow favoritism. Ours is broken and she was warning us as far back as the 1940s. The truth hurts, I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
Yeah she also claimed that all corporate leaders would be proper and good corporate citizens and never abuse their positions of power. So, yeah, wrong, and fuck her for being so naive to think that its the *institution* that predicates the good or bad behavior, and not the fact that all of human history shows that *all* people will become corrupt given the chance and the means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
Compared to what the Economist wrote 1851, and my stance today, she's a radical monopoly apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
Even William F. Buckley called "Atlas Shrugged" "One thousand pages of ideological fabulism...". If you want to get into a useful and functional view of Libertarianism read Adam Smith. He is much clearer about solutions, and he doesn't dress his work up as crappy fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all the Ayn Rand haters out there ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal grand jury
Or maybe both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THIS IS A WISH LIST.
"If you work for the WSJ, your editorial independence just got shot down."
HARDLY,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
Planning this detailed is enough to get convictions for conspiracy to commit murder, to commit bank robbery, to commit terrorist attack (just ask the FBI).
So why is it not sufficient in your mind to prove collusion between an AG and a business interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
So something actually did happen after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
It's always a shame when someone intent on committing a crime is found out beforehand and stopped prior to actually committing the crime. It would be so much better for everyone if they'd just have waited so we would have a real verified victim to avenge.
I wonder why cops hand out all those traffic tickets. Wouldn't it be better to just allow the carnage to happen, then clean up the mess and incarcerate the offenders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
If an Attorney General, under color of state law, deprives anyone of their civil rights then it is a federal crime. Google's basic allegation is that General Hood was retaliating for Google's refusal to censor their search results.
And stock market manipulation by an Attorney General is just … … tacky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THIS IS A WISH LIST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal grand jury
Does the SEC know about this little bit of chicanery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal grand jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
• …
• Manipulating the market prices of securities "
Depends on who you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even on Techdirt many people won't follow you. Dotcom has a first meaning which is far more commonly understood than the second meaning as this guy's name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom's main definition is not as the guy's name. It's still use to refer to online sites, and it's still regularly used to refer to the bust of 2002.
one current example:
US Senate's DOTCOM act of 2015
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150727_the_senate_should_take_the_dotcom_act_off_cruz_control/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never mind that some of the cases dismissed out of hand clearly max out the scale of murder or corruption. Some of the dismissals are for stuff that just can't be any more murderous or corrupt.
No Grand Jury will ever be assembled or instructed in a manner where they'd even think of indicting Hood.
If murder will not go before court as a rule, why should corruption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Naaah. Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would be his best defense. After thinking on it overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually it's "Corporate Oligarchy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The crooks care for their own. But of course they prefer it to have them on the taxpayers' payroll.
Sort of like the common cuckoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Sadly The MPAA owns the Gov. Nothing can be done."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been as "unplugged" as I can be for years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been as "unplugged" as I can be for years...
Search for ISP+YourZipCode. There are lots of small mom-n-pop ISPs (like mine) that deserve your support, even in the metro areas. So many people immediately go corporate for services without thinking of the consequences, apparently because they think 'it's better'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've been as "unplugged" as I can be for years...
I've used a mom&pop ISP for years. But they get their feed through a major phone company.
The MAFIAA are the big 8 media conglomerates worldwide. They own most phone companies, TV and radio stations, newspapers, and the movie and music studios. I'm trying to find or create an alternative to them, because once they control the Internet they'll tighten the screws and narrow political debate to what it was 50 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've been as "unplugged" as I can be for years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've been as "unplugged" as I can be for years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Home Address
Am I the only one who finds this ironic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Veteran Prosecutor to Lead DOJ's Public Integrity Section”, by Jenna Greene, Legal Times, May 7, 2015
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Integrity' should never follow 'DoJ', unless the sentence or title also includes such words as 'has no' or 'utterly lacks'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, they are wearing way too much makeup these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My favorite was the article on Snowden that on the front page sounded like it was for him, and then when you turned to the next page to continue reading suddenly the article in essence said he was aiding terrorists and should be locked up. #Towtheline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flipping MAFIAA strikes again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course completely ignoring the fact that Google already does much more than the law demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So? That's the way capitalism works. He who writes the biggest check wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The tax payer has written the biggest check to Hood, and Hood has cashed it. He is on government payroll. Hood is selling himself multiple times and that's fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's the way capitalism works.
It has nothing to do with capitalism. All societies suffer from corruption to some degree or other.
Ours just seems to be getting worse lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption getting worse.
Right now, it seems companies are still unused to the new leaky information model so were seeing a lot of of their malfeasant behavior that they're used to doing without consequence.
Optimistically, this will prove an influence to reduce corruption due to fear of consequence. Cynically, I suspect they'll just start internet disinformation programs of their own in order to obfuscate real news that leaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corruption getting worse.
What we're seeing here - the exposure of the rats in the barley silo - is one of the main reasons that the POTUS had to insure that the latest copyright deal - or "trade deal" to the uninformed - gets made into law as soon as possible through his introduction of Fast Track - or Anti-democratic secret legislation initiation program.
The Internet's days, as we know it, are numbered, and the public, unaware of all but hollywood produced propaganda, are helpless to prevent it.
The internet has already set the plan back more than a decade and the perps in power are not getting any younger.
What's the point of Ruling the World if your too old and feeble to enjoy it.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's the way capitalism works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if the true losses to piracy are greater than the combined salaries of everyone involved in trying to stop it? I bet you it's not. Maybe it's a big government funded make work project for out of work lawyers and someone forgot to tell anyone about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not just about a bunch of corporations representing the interests of their shareholders.
It is about control over the behavior and believes of entire populations.
None of the corruption and abuse we see in government would be possible if the media wasn't still dominated by bloodsuckers like Rupert Murdoch.
There is no editorial independence. Oligarchs do not buy media to inform and enlighten the citizenry. They do it to protect and expand their empires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasn't RICO made for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wasn't RICO made for this?
Its purpose was to aid in bringing down the competition.
The MAFIA was simply not on board back then and thus posed a threat to the Corporate Power Players.
Its no longer a threat, now that its a partner.
I expect all of this "Hollywood VS the Google Monster" talk will be "Look Over There!!!" fixed in the very near future by something like an (NSA orchestrated) ISIS massacre of US kids, and then forgotten altogether forever after, followed by a number of Judicial "Suicides".
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wasn't RICO made for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wasn't RICO made for this?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like they are Pushing It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A pin drop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A pin drop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A pin drop
There has to be some kind of software available to "paste-up" a typical newsletter format for printing.
Might actually restart the notion of a Free Press.
Of course, copyright laws would be totally against it, exactly as designed.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that explains things…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's nice but...
I mean, I'm sure all of that is perfectly above board and legal, and won't even get a second glance in court, from judge or jury, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's nice but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's nice but...
Not a single person will be willing to actually prosecute or even bring charges against Hood, and the entire matter will as a result just be brushed under the rug as a perfect example of the high-court/low-court 'justice' system we have in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's nice but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's nice but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's nice but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In that way they may be able to offload the dirt on the strawmen officially! This will cause MPAAs image to bleed further, but will the corporate media they have "good connections" in actually cover this story? Likely MPAA will suffer huge rage among computer users and fringe media, while the mainstream media will ignore it and thus the broader public will stay in the dark. The mainstream media have some large moral holes in their angling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google is pro-innovation and MPAA is anti-innovation.
Google is pro-freedom and MPAA is anti-freedom.
See how easy it is to label things?
And lets not forget that one person doing something allegedly wrong doesn't mean it's okay for another person doing something allegedly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain how Google is "pro-piracy." How are they facilitating copyright infringement any more than any other net search engine outfit is?
You do understand there are other net search engine outfits out there, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, its not, of course.
What Google is though, is uncooperative.
It will not join the Fascist Fold and follow their Corporate Government Masters orders unquestioningly like all the other Top 500 US Corporations have done.
If the perps in power could, they would have framed Google for Child Molestation, Promoting the sale of Child Pornography and Snuff Films, and added printing Terrorist Treatises for good measure.
They had to settle for "infringement".
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we have all here seen, time after time, how these same corporations refuse to do the simple little things that any good company would automatically do to stop infringement utterly overnight - offer a quality product, on time, at a decent price, in a manner that the public wants.
Infringement is a make believe "crime" they created, in order to have an excuse to demand the initiation of legislation - and phony trade deals - that would eventually give them control of the internet and public domain and turn copyright laws into an eternal corporate ownership right, and public censorship process.
They are criminals of the first water, as this article shows most clearly, and if the process of peer to peer file trading is a crime, then it is the corporations who started it that should be charged with its inception and perpetration.
Until then, I refuse to see the copying and trading with others, of something I and they have over-paid for in full, as a crime at all.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree! But you forgot to mention that Google eats babies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This comment is actually the thing that is most amazing to me: this is the way copyright maximalists thing. They actually think that Google is "pro-piracy" and thus it makes sense to literally "attack Google."
But that's not how Google thinks at all. And, this isn't a "defend Google" comment at all. Google wants to make a profit and will be cut throat in doing so, but it does so by *providing search results that people want.* It's not what Google wants, it's what users want.
Contrary to this comment above, there's no one at Google or any of its so-called "astroturf groups" saying "how can we attack the MPAA." Because that doesn't make any sense at all. The "attack" focus is entirely one-sided. Google is focused on "how do we make our search better so we can make more money in ads with more people using it with higher margins."
There's a very big key difference in strategies here. Google's is "how do we make more money buy building a better product for our users." The MPAA's is "how do we tear down this company we don't like."
The differences are striking.
To argue that the MPAA is doing something that is "no different" than what Google has done is wrong. Is Google aggressive in using its political connections to help it make more money. You bet. But it's not using those political connections to attack companies. Very, very different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it's more in the vein of "How do we counter this threat to our business model", which is where things go out of skew.
What the entire content industry should be saying is "How can we re-align our business model with the technology-driven changes in consumer habits?".
That, of course, would likely require the current top brass to step aside for the good of all, not least the industry itself.
Since this kind of altruistic consideration is anathema to the corporate creed, they take the Titanic option, which means they'll rather stay on the bridge and ram that cursed iceberg than stand aside and save both themselves and everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But not much since then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moot Points
Is Hood as AG free?
Who foots the bill for the 'Media blitz'?
Is this a case of loser pays? MPAA and AG Hood?
I'm know I'm missing something here... Google picked the fight maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moot Points
As to where the money is coming from: there is a reason "Hollywood accounting" does not show profits for block busters. All the artists' money goes into bribes increasing the political power of the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moot Points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moot Points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDDD FTW!
Thanks, and please keep it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: damn baby eater
Those with skeletons in the closet ought to be more careful before provoking that baby-eating, racist, tax-dodging, radioactive monster-incubating Google company.
Google has been remarkably tolerant so far, but if they want to get the word out about something, they sure have a lot of eyeballs looking at lots of nice blank white space.
Those fascist, book-burning, commie torturers at Google are fully capable of defending themselves.
Google can bite, if it wants to.
Keep that in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could be worse, they could be dealing with Google's competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could be worse, they could be dealing with Google's competition
That looks so weird but, nowadays, I guess it's true. You'd think it were Yahoo! and Bing (you know, search engines), but I suppose it'll soon include automobile mfgrs, couriers, geographical atlas publishers, Welcome Wagon, realtors, broadcasters, news agencies, and Consumer Reports. Based on MafiAA whining, I'd guess they'll take on Netflix next. I wonder if we could convince them to replace our non-functioning gov'ts too.
How do they do business? Which one are we talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could be worse, they could be dealing with Google's competition
Because they are already working with Google's competition.
The MPAA is singled out here - and it's justifiable, since they're the worst offender - but they didn't act alone in bribing Jim Hood to go after Google.
Another partner in Project Goliath was an organization called FairSearch. This is an anti-Google coalition started by competing search engines (Expedia, TripAdvisor, etc.), Oracle, and Microsoft. They're also the ones who are behind the Google antitrust case in the EU.
Read about them here:
http://www.fairsearch.org/about/
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4216026/who-is-fairsearch
And, there's also organizations like Arts+Labs. It is funded mostly by major telecoms, and was later joined by music organizations like BMI and the SGA. It was set up as an anti-Net Neutrality organization, and later went on to support SOPA.
Read about them here:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=arts%2Blabs
http://fredbenenson.com/2008/09/26/arts-labs- astroturfing-content-filtering/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/announcing-the-unofficial_ b_478036.html
Here's an interesting tidbit: Chris Castle (of Music Technology Policy/Trichordist infamy) being interviewed as part of Arts+Labs, pretty much admitting that they're an astroturf organization:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXIoJVFmKvQ
Of course, like a classic astroturf group, they seem to have disbanded after their policy advocacy failed; their site is offline.
...There's a lot more of course, but I think you get the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could be worse, they could be dealing with Google's competition
“Documents in Sony leak show how state attorney general was cozy with Hollywood”, by Russell Brandom, The Verge, Dec 18, 2014
(Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, Russell Brandon's story in The Verge does not provide links to the full text of this “other email” and “other documents” so we can evaluate them for ourselves. I just quickly looked through the New York Times documents and related article linked from The Verge story, and they don't seem to be there. I believe they may possibly be available at Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Could be worse, they could be dealing with Google's competition
That is just one supporting email though. I have no idea what other “other emails” and “other documents” that The Verge story relies on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption
Please consider:
Isaiah 1:4
Job 36:18
Proverbs 17:8
Proverbs 17:23
Proverbs 29:4
Ecclesiastes 7:7
And there are plenty more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
which 40 AGs ?
http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/mississippi_ag_hood_gets_40_other_ags_to_support_goog le_appeal/
If your state AG is involved, email the dummy!
"...States participating include: Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.eff.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So MPAA is planing a stock fraud?
I'm pretty sure, if Google finds anyone who knew about this and that person did have any stocks in *any* tech company that competes with Google (e.g. everyone else), they can argue insider trading which is securities fraud.
In the U.S., this seems to come with quite harsh prison sentences.
Let thge games begin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So MPAA is planing a stock fraud?
Then again, In the US2.0, envelopes filled with photo-shopped pictures of judges in bed with toddlers, goats and geese usually comes with no charges being laid at all, and cases being summarily dismissed for lack of recently destroyed evidence.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for Positive Action!!
Lets see now. Probably best way to start the ball rolling would be to massively blow up something really public-poignant like a very popular ride at Disneyland - and make a "citizen-witness" cell phone vid for mass publication and exposure.
Is there a Despicable-Me-Minions Ride built yet?
Gotta make sure to kill at least 15 kids though, or else it won't have the necessary "Pearl Harbor Oompph" needed to get the public to "demand a military response" against the Evil Masked Muslim Murder Horde, in retaliation.
It might be best to kill at least a dozen kids early on, and have their bodies dumped at the explosion sight by fake first responders, to insure the minimum death count is achieved.
They'll also need an absolutely undeniable link to ISIS, like a video of a black-masked man happily claiming full responsibility for the massacre on national TV within minutes of the blast, using tons of familiar Movie-Muslim dialogue slogans and with the obligatory ISIS "wiggly snakes" flag blowing prominently in the background.
Wouldn't hurt to have the NSA start sending out a bunch of brown paper, image-filled envelopes to some very naughty judges, pertaining to their sexual proclivities with barn yard animals, with a message about how the images would soon be released to various Hollywood friendly websites and TV networks, should they not cease and desist all further Google-favorable decisions on this and other matters listed in the message.
I suppose sticking a hefty five digit graft check; made out to their secret off-shore bank accounts, would not be overkill as regards additional incentive to get these uncooperative and soon to be unemployed judges to toe the line, and to let them all know that even their most important secrets are already known by the Hollywood Government.
After all, HollyGov can just have the bill for all of this, taken care of by the Hollywood Attorneys-General Graft Department, so that it comes out of the tax payer's pocket eventually anyways.
Regardless, it is definitely a Time for Action-Movie Action!
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a test.
I just got a "Message will be held for moderation" notice. Here's hoping....
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a test.
That sucks.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a test.
My post was held back for two full days, and apparently I DID NOT forget to sign the thing, so maybe it was not flagged for moderation by the moderator-bot, but by a hoomun bean!
Unless of course, the post contained some special trigger-word that was a pre-set for auto-moderation.
Strange behavior indeed for techdirt.... looks like some things are changing....
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is a test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a test.
I'm absolutely certain that you really meant to say something with that statement, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it might be.
How can "test" - which does not exist - and the post "this is a test" be filtered out if its right there in front of you... unfiltered.... you did respond to it without having to un-filter it, right?
I thought this was pretty straight forward, but apparently some find this difficult to wrap their heads around, so....
The post that was held back for moderation for 2 days, is above "This is a test", because it was posted 8 minutes before "This is a test", and is titled "Time for Positive Action!!" It was posted Saturday and published Monday.
The post "This is a test", was made because I was surprised to see my message held for moderation, as the simple two line post plainly states.
I assumed I had neglected to sign it and add my email address, as happens occasionally, since name and addy are no longer automatically inserted into the fields.
I titled that post "This is a test" because it was basically a test to see if all my posts were now to be flagged for moderation.
The post "Re: This is a test", was posted on the 26th, Sunday, when I realized that my original post - "Time for Positive Action!!" - was still unpublished and my assumption at that point was that the techdirt folks did not do moderation work during the weekend, even though my post was apparently Bot-Flagged for moderation on Saturday.
The post titled "Re: Re: This is a test" was posted on the 27th - Monday - when the moderated post was finally published, and it was posted because I was surprised to see that it was indeed signed.
Had I posted it unsigned, it would have been a possible candidate for moderation, but because it was signed, I decided it must have had some words in it that caused the Moderator Bot to flag it - since the techdirt boys apparently don't do moderation on the weekends.
So, for the record - in case that was too wordy - none of the "*test*" posts were intended to contribute to the discussion, but none of them were filtered out either.
I do hope that clears things up for you.
Now if only I could clear up why the post was flagged and held for two days....
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>" If you work for the WSJ, your editorial independence just got shot down."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITS FUCKING NOT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its an ABUSE of power
If your looking to make changes, be honest and open about everything and every stage, let the public judge your solution upon their merits alone not on how much sugar you pour on it, usually in the form of COMMON SENSE
Dont abuse/transform/manipulate a system to your own ends, where the voice of the one silences the voice of the many......it ends up becoming a spreading top down representation of the 1%..........
You know, the funny thing is, i dont give, or did'nt, give too shits about voicing my opinion in the past, its just, i cant stand others imposing theirs on mine or others,with no CHOICE in the matter.........these people, quite literally, bring opposition upon themselves
Honest, open, and let people decide upon its merits
Bring the right to choose, not the right to manipulate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought it was common knowledge that after Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007, despite his assurances to the contrary, there was no longer editorial independence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The amount of psyops focused on this thread is amazing.
Who'd have thought in the 90's that being a usenet troll would become a billion dollar government funded industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perfect target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perfect target
She will most probably do nothing at all. Hood is the president of the national association of AGs, and 40(!) AGs put in an amicus curiae letter to the court in this case.
The whole Department of Justice is corrupt to the marrow, they have repeatedly demonstrated that with illegal operations and lies and perjury before Congress.
I admit that the whole affair and the letters uncovered up to now are perfect for priming Hood as a fall boy, but I don't think Lynch wants to suggest to the other AGs that she's about to start a trend.
Whether or not he does make a fall boy transition to a well-paid job at the MPAA will pretty much depend on how much of a stink this particular judge will raise, and I'm pretty sure that there is quite a bit of money and career in stock for the judge should he decide to just bury everything reasonably quietly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption is a moral hazard.
* This includes all scenarios in which consequence can be nullified, circumvented, reduced or delayed so that they're out of the scope of the current corporate management.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a baseless smear on journalists at NBC Universal and News Corp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a baseless smear on journalists at NBC Universal and News Corp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a baseless smear on journalists at NBC Universal and News Corp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a baseless smear on journalists at NBC Universal and News Corp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a baseless smear on journalists at NBC Universal and News Corp
Nobody's blaming NBC or WSJ for anything... at this point. However, the fact that the MPAA considered running their campaign via the above media channels does allude to their strategy. That you suddenly decided to white-knight for the sake of corporations that, according to you, did nothing wrong and in fact, aren't the main focus of the story, is particularly suggestive.
You sound like a child who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar - "If you hadn't come in and seen me you wouldn't have known that I'm doing nothing wrong!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the reporters (at least, not all of them)
This has nothing to do with the reporters (aside from those who work for outfits like FOX/NewsCorp, who really, really, really should know better). It's the editors who decide what to print, who gets assigned to stories, and what resources might be made available. Of course, the editors aren't necessarily "taking orders" (some would even, in fact resign, if they ever were) but the ones who tend to lean/decide the "wrong" way, don't get hired, or don't get renewed or promoted, etc...
It's one of the relatively more subtle consequences of media conglomeration / media concentration -- an ever narrower range of opinions are represented. The final nails in the coffin of American journalistic independence might arguably have been the sales of the New York Times, and the Knight-Ridder corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not the reporters (at least, not all of them)
But, yes, I think that it is mainly handled through institutional bias. With the right bosses in place it becomes an unspoken assumption. A workplace culture. Normalized.
It is like politicians insisting that corporate donations do not effect policy. Anyone without a conflict of interest can see that it is self-evidently a corrupt relationship. But many insiders actually believe it. They have to. If they want to keep their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
English
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what sort of pagerank the emails had. We should get a handle on their SEO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“MPAA Argues That Sony Emails Shouldn't Be Used As Evidence In Google Lawsuit”, by Mike Masnick, Techdirt, Jul 6, 2015.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hackers (N. Koreans?!?).
Yes, if it's sufficiently encrypted, or if you've bulletproof security end to end; creation through heat death of the universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: encryption
If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Home address
Am I the only one who finds this ironic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Home address
I strongly considered it myself, when I saw the post the other day, but my personal policy is an awfully light touch on the “report” button here. Perhaps too light—I usually, although not always, limit it to out-and-out commercial spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Home address
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Home address
Is it a lazy cheat on my part, knowing that others around here are likely to hit “report” on posts that I'd rather not see—even though I won't press the button on those things myself? I sometimes wonder about that.
Otoh, I do have some capacity for ignoring things that I wish didn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Home address
I happen to think it's the opposite. One of TD's mantras is "Bad speech is best countered by more speech", which to me means give 'em all the rope they want, the better to hang themselves with.
I'm sympathetic to the view that their noise just gets in the way, but maybe we should have a "Dumbth" button along with insightful, funny, and report, in order to highlight the egregiously trollish posts to make them really stand out for those who want to either ignore or counterattack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Home address
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA SOPA, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA SOPA, etc.
Most of the audience here knows such acronyms so they aren't usually spelled out (this isn't a general news site). Google can help you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sopa
https://www.google.com/search?q=mpaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google can help with MPAA, SOPA
SOPA
MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA SOPA, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try telling the whole story
It certainly isn’t legit to criticize the MPAA’s lobbying and bill-drafting efforts while ignoring the similar but far more massive lobbying by Google and other tech companies to bamboozle and strong-arm Federal politicians into giving them favorable Federal laws— whether or not the outcome was “right” by any particular set of standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try telling the whole story
So Google and other tech companies are also bribing AGs and news organizations to pressure their perceived competition and destroy their stock prices? Is that what you mean by "similar"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a pretty big supposition
Is this a philosophical argument over a conjectural supposition?
Because in the real world, you're going to need to specify what kind of criminal content (are we talking child porn or copyright violations?) and what kind of process is required to identify and remove it.
From what I understand about child porn, for instance, is that media files are analyzed for color spectrum and those with certain properties are flagged and then human beings go through the (countless) flagged files to determine whether or not they constitute child porn. That's not exactly technology, so much as a process with human techs in the middle.
And as has been seen on YouTube, the automated content detection system is lousy with incidents of blocking false positives and still has a substantial number of false negatives. So the technology in this case is dubious at best and pretty much just succeeds at annoying everybody.
So to say that technology exists is a presumption that delves into science fiction. Indulging that, search engines that censor results are going to struggle to compete with search engines that provide more comprehensive results, and will have to counter that with aesthetics, convenience, better search tools and and other features. In other words, it would have to take the Yahoo route to encourage people to go their first, and then choose lesser-featured engines when the engine of choice fails to yield results.
That said, since P2P-related content is omitted from Google search results (whether or not they're criminal) I simply don't go to Google when looking for P2P-related content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try telling the whole story
Really? Which "favorable Federal laws" are we talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Try telling the whole story
“Aaron’s Law Reintroduced: CFAA Didn’t Fix Itself”, by Cindy Cohn, EFF Deeplinks, April 29, 2015
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Try telling the whole story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Try telling the whole story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Try telling the whole story
Pretty much everyone with a brain has recognized the CFAA is bad law, and has been for a long time. If Google's agreeing, that just shows they're not idiots.
Got any more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Try telling the whole story
“Once More, With Feeling: It Wasn't Silicon Valley Or Google That Stopped SOPA/PIPA, It Was The Internet”, by Mike Masnick, Techdirt, Jan 26, 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try telling the whole story
"F"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If little ole copyright issues can lead to this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If little ole copyright issues can lead to this...
That's about the most unbiased politically biased comment I've seen in a while. High praise sir/ma'am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If little ole copyright issues can lead to this...
I think that all news outlets are biased, even TechDirt and The Christian Science Monitor. The questions are to what degree, about what specific issues, and what efforts they make to disclose their biases. Those are what determine if a given news outlet is still useful regardless of its biases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If little ole copyright issues can lead to this...
Japan Today
BBC
Der Spiegel
Canada's CBC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did anyone here watch the serious "The Men Who Built America"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tv portal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movie apps hub
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link
Get Latest Umang app Download Here. You use verious govt app in one app name is umang app
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2018 Live Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AFC Asian Cup 2019 Live Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]