EFF Tells Federal Appeals Court: Google Subpoena Threatens Online Speech(eff.org)
eff.org
EFF Tells Federal Appeals Court: Google Subpoena Threatens Online Speech
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/eff-tells-federal-appeals-court-google-subpoena-threatens-online-speech-and
2 comments
According to the Sony leaks, the MPAA has been directly funding investigations by state attorneys general offices.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141212/12142629419/leake...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141212/12142629419/leake...
In the US, for public figures at least, to prove a libel charge you have to prove that the individual knew the claim was false. EFF can make any claim they want as long as they're not aware its specifically untrue.
See: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
See: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
I don't know Mississippi but in general attorney generals have very little accountability besides elections. And elections are based on money and slogans, they don't get into technical details. He might very well be breaking the law but no one's going to arrest him.
Not in Mississippi, but just as mayors sometimes run for re-election from state and federal prisons..
It sounds like the SEC should investigate this stock price manipulation scheme and look at the transactions of everyone involved for signs of insider trades before his official actions hit the public register.
It sounds like the SEC should investigate this stock price manipulation scheme and look at the transactions of everyone involved for signs of insider trades before his official actions hit the public register.
Many of these movie studios sell their own movies through the Google Play store. Maybe as a first step, they could stop supporting the company that they hate so much?
Google's customers want those movies, and likely wouldn't appreciate Google cutting them off to make a point. And when attorneys general are involved, it's hardly a good time to start resorting to exactly the sort of tactics that would get them accused of abusing a monopoly. At least, not in the one country (the US) that actually has relevant jurisdiction over them. Google needs to be completely above reproach here.
(Notice that I'm not saying it'd be wrong to do so.)
Now, what Google could do without (additional) reprisal would be to have a front-page link to a page raising awareness of this issue. Run their own ads on YouTube and other Google sites. Spell it out in terms everyone can understand, with direct quotes from the most incriminating of documents about the smear campaign. Provide people with an easy way to complain to their congresscritters. See how fast the issue disappears and a new case pops up against the originators of the smear campaign.
(Notice that I'm not saying it'd be wrong to do so.)
Now, what Google could do without (additional) reprisal would be to have a front-page link to a page raising awareness of this issue. Run their own ads on YouTube and other Google sites. Spell it out in terms everyone can understand, with direct quotes from the most incriminating of documents about the smear campaign. Provide people with an easy way to complain to their congresscritters. See how fast the issue disappears and a new case pops up against the originators of the smear campaign.
Parent commenter was saying that if the MPAA hate Google, MPAA-members shouldn't be using Google, not that Google should cut off MPAA/MPAA-members.
Ah, that makes more sense. The wonders of pronouns.
Or the other way around, Google could cut them off or penalize them in their app store in retaliation, citing them as bad customers.
What they should do is require all DCMA notices to be submitted via a webform that has to pass a CAPTCHA. As far as I know, there is nothing that requires Google to accept automated DCMA notices from the MPAA.
Penalize them in search results too. Wonder what chunk of Google's ad revenue comes from movies. Might be small enough to loose for a short time. Do it before a blockbuster release. Unlikely to happen.
Wouldn't your suggestion as well as parent suggestion border on monopolistic abuse?
Wouldn't this be akin to MS telling Dell it's going to yank windows licensing in retaliation for selling red hat.
Wouldn't this be akin to MS telling Dell it's going to yank windows licensing in retaliation for selling red hat.
As the parent, yeah pretty much. :-) It's not necessarily a proper response, but one in line with the thread's OP.
I'd also argue that it's not technically monopolistic, but would certainly have negative consequences to the ??AA "partners" as well as chilling effects on others. But if Google wanted to take a nuclear approach, that'd certainly be one tack.
I'd also argue that it's not technically monopolistic, but would certainly have negative consequences to the ??AA "partners" as well as chilling effects on others. But if Google wanted to take a nuclear approach, that'd certainly be one tack.
Oh there's a ton of legal risk all around. I'd suggest they have their lawyers and many available brains to consider how best use their position as leverage. Personally, I'd be looking into ways to use the leaked documents against Hood and preferably in a way that sets a precedent that's pro-Google. Not just griping but a full on attack on his career or image. It's what he was about to do to them after all.
> Wonder what chunk of Google's ad revenue comes from movies.
The more interesting question is what chunk of movie revenue comes from Google.
The more interesting question is what chunk of movie revenue comes from Google.
I think they're both very interesting in this context. ;)
I quickly read the amicus brief and they do not make any such allegations (that I could tell) in the brief. While unsavory, if they allegations are true, would this indicate unlawful behaviour on the part the the attorney general?
Similarly, would the attorney general have a case for libel if the allegations are untrue? I assume that if the EFF had enough information to show collusion that they would include it in the amicus brief, but perhaps I'm wrong.