SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and internet censorship laws.

[Albert Doyle]

Wolf Blitzer said the kids used the internet to learn about pressure cooker bombs. They'll use this to justify CISPA.

[Magda Hassan]

Wolf Blitzer said the kids used the internet to learn about pressure cooker bombs. They'll use this to justify CISPA.

Yeah, but he would be the sort to probably burn books as well.

[Lauren Johnson]

Wolf Blitzer said the kids used the internet to learn about pressure cooker bombs. They'll use this to justify CISPA.

Yeah, but he would be the sort to probably burn books as well.

Well, how about this. NPR was "reporting" how much the internet sleuths, according to investigators, had interferred with the investigation by all of their endless analysis of photos and video. Although this was not said, the obvious solution is to outlaw something or other on the internet because that would be interferring with an investigation. Oh, wait. And since the a federal agency is involved, it would have to be a federal offence. And we know how those turn out.

Just my speculation.

[Magda Hassan]

Wolf Blitzer said the kids used the internet to learn about pressure cooker bombs. They'll use this to justify CISPA.

Yeah, but he would be the sort to probably burn books as well.

Well, how about this. NPR was "reporting" how much the internet sleuths, according to investigators, had interferred with the investigation by all of their endless analysis of photos and video. Although this was not said, the obvious solution is to outlaw something or other on the internet because that would be interferring with an investigation. Oh, wait. And since the a federal agency is involved, it would have to be a federal offence. And we know how those turn out.

Just my speculation.

NPR ain't what it used to be either....

[Magda Hassan]

Megaupload says US trying to change rules to allow prosecution

Government is tacitly admitting it can't prosecute now, Megaupload says.

by Timothy B. Lee - Apr 20 2013, 6:50am AUSEST

The shuttered file-sharing site Megaupload has accused the United States government of trying to change criminal court procedures to make it easier to prosecute the firm for copyright infringement. In addition to naming CEO Kim Dotcom as a defendant in the criminal case, the US government also named Megaupload, a corporation based in Hong Kong, as a separate defendant.
Megaupload has argued that US law doesn't allow criminal prosecution of corporations based entirely overseas. Federal rules require notice of an indictment to be sent to a corporation's last known US address. But Megaupload has never had a US address, the firm argues, so it can't be prosecuted.
Judge Liam O'Grady rejected that argument in October, reasoning that the government may be able to satisfy the notice requirement by serving papers on Kim Dotcom after he has been extradited to the United States.
On Thursday, Megaupload pressed its case again by pointing to a letter that Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer wrote to the chair of the Advisory Committee on the Criminal Rules, which is part of the judicial branch. The government's attempts to change the criminal rules are an implicit admission that Megaupload is actually correct on the law, the company argues.
"When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure entered into force in March 1946, organizations, including corporations, were rarely charged as defendants in and of themselves," Breuer wrote. "Organizations, such as domestic corporations, were established, conducted activities, and expectedly maintained a presence in the United States."
Today, in contrast, "the economy is global. Electronic communications continue to displace ordinary mail. Organizations can maintain no office or agent in the United States, yet conduct both real and virtual activities here. This new reality has affected federal criminal practice fundamentally."
Breuer argues that the rules should be updated to allow for an alternative process for serving notice on corporations that do not maintain a US address. A footnote mentions the Megaupload case as an example.
Megaupload argues that Breuer's letter basically concedes the Hong Kong company's argument. According to Megaupload, the letter "contradicts the Government's repeated contention that it can validly serve Megauploada wholly foreign entity that has never had an office in the United Stateswithout regard for Rule 4's mailing requirement. To the contrary, the Government explicitly acknowledges in the letter that it has a "duty" under the current Rule to mail a copy of the summons to a corporate defendant's last known address within the district or to its principal place of business elsewhere in the United States."
"By seeking to have the mailing requirement eliminated, the Government implicitly admits it cannot validly serve Megaupload consistent with Rule 4 as currently written," Megaupload claims.
The issue matters because the United States has frozen millions of dollars in assets belonging to Megaupload. The asset freeze is what completely shut Megaupload down, making it impossible for the company to pay its legal bills, hire employees, or run servers. (Although, it hasn't stopped founder Dotcom from raising money for a new company, launched at an over-the-top party at his New Zealand mansion.) Getting the case against Megaupload dropped wouldn't save Dotcom from extradition, but recovering company assets might cover some legal costs while Megaupload's founder and other officials fight their own court battles.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/...osecution/

[Magda Hassan]

New Zealand police will have to return any digital material seized during a raid on Megauploads founder Kim Dotcom's mansion not related to his prosecution, a judge has ruled.
Police stormed the internet mogul's Auckland home last January in a raid that was later decreed unlawful by High Court Chief Justice Helen Winkelman who is presiding over the case.
She ruled that all of the digital material that was seized in the illegal police operation as part of a US investigation into allegations of online piracy should be returned to Dotcom if it does not directly pertain to the case against him.

Police will now have to sift through all the data taken during the operation and separate out the irrelevant data in a "lengthy and expensive process."

Winkelman also said New Zealand police were obliged to provide Dotcom with copies of any digital equipment already sent to the FBI in connection with a probe into allegations of mass internet piracy against the internet tycoon.

US authorities have claimed video streaming website Megaupload stole over $175 million from copyright holders and a further $500 million through the sharing of pirated films and TV shows. The video sharing site was shut down in January 2012 by the US State Department in connection with the allegations against its founder.
The charges set against Dotcom which include racketeering, fraud, money-laundering and copyright theft, carry a maximum sentence of 20 years.
Kim Dotcom denies all of the allegations set against him and is currently free on bail in New Zealand awaiting his extradition trail in August.

Back in March Dotcom was granted the right to sue the Zealand secret services agency. It was found that the Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB) were illegally eavesdropping on the tycoon prior to his arrest in the raid in January 2012.
The ruling forced New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key to issue a public apology to Dotcom last month, although he claims he has no knowledge that the GCSB snooped on the internet mogul. A subsequent inquiry released in April revealed that another 88 New Zealanders may have been illegally monitored, though details of the cases have not been released.
http://rt.com/news/kim-dotcom-police-return-038/

[Magda Hassan]

NZ police affidavits show use of PRISM for surveillance

By Juha Saarinen on Aug 23, 2013 5:46 AM (16 hours ago)
Filed under Security

Live traffic capture.

Police affidavits related to the raid on Kim Dotcom's Mega mansion appear to show that New Zealand police and spy agencies are able to tap directly into United States surveillance systems such as PRISM to capture email and other traffic.
The discovery was made by blogger Keith Ng who wrote on his On Point blog that the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) requested assistance from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), the country's signals intelligence unit, which is charge of surveilling the Pacific region under the Five-Eyes agreement.
A list of so-called selectors or search terms were provided to GCSB by the police [PDF, redacted] for the surveillance of emails and other data traffic generated by Dotcom and his Megaupload associates.
'Selectors' is the term used for the National Security Agency (NSA) XKEYSCORE categorisation system that Australia and New Zealand contribute to and which was leaked by Edward Snowden as part of his series of PRISM revelations.
Some "selectors of interest" have been redacted out, but others such as Kim Dotcom's email addresses, the mail proxy server used for some of the accounts and websites, remain in the documents.
Megaupload co-founders Bram van der Kolk and Sven Ecthernach was were also targeted for electronic surveillance, ditto Dotcom's wife Mona.
Dotcom's mansion was raided by NZ police last year for crimes related to online piracy, based on indictments filed in the US.
One note on the reports generated from the surveillance points to the system used capturing real-time traffic.
Several of the documents are classified as "CONFIDENTIAL COMINT/NEW ZEALAND EYES ONLY" with one being marked as "SECRET/COMINT/REL TO NZL, AUS, CAN, GBR, USA".
The spying on Dotcom, his wife and van der Kolk was deemed to be illegal as all three are residents of New Zealand and the GCSB is precluded by current law from intercepting their communications.
In the United States, declassified government documents have been released to the Electronic Frontier Fourndation that show the NSA operates an eavesdropping program that has direct access to internet communications.
The documents are part of a statement by the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) which berates the NSA for misleading the tribunal on the extent of domestic spying on innocent people, saying such collection was unconstitutional.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/354407,nz-...lance.aspx

[Peter Lemkin]

JANUARY 14, 2014 | BY MITCH STOLTZ EFF



To Safeguard the Public Domain (and the Public Interest), Fix Copyright's Crazy Penalties




In the week leading up the two-year anniversary of the SOPA blackout protests, EFF and others are talking about key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day, we'll take on a different piece, exploring what's at stake and and what we need to do to make sure the law promotes creativity and innovation. We've put together a page where you can read and endorse the principles yourself. Let's send a message to DC, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Brussels, and wherever else folks are making new copyright rules: We're from the Internet, and we're here to help.
What if a single parking ticket carried a fine of up to a year's salary? What if there were no way to know consistently how much the fine would be before you got it? And what if any one of hundreds of private citizens could decide to write you a ticket? What would happen? People would start avoiding public parking, and stay home more often. Business would decline. The number of false or unfair tickets would rise. Everyone would lose confidence in the systemand in the lawas parking became a huge gamble.
Something very close to this scenario is a reality in copyright law. Copyright holders who sue for infringement can ask for "statutory damages" and, if they win, let a jury decide how big of a penalty the defendant will have to payanywhere from $200 to $150,000 per copyrighted work. That's a big problem for Internet users, and everyone else who wants to use creative works in lawful but non-traditional ways. Authors of remix video and fan fiction, bloggers, coders, entrepreneurs and others who create, inform, and empower on the fuzzy edges of copyright law must gamble every day. They risk unpredictable, potentially devastating penalties if a court disagrees with their well-intentioned efforts.
People from across the spectrum of opinion on copyrightincluding many who generally support more restrictive copyright lawagree that copyright damages are broken and need fixing. In today's House Judiciary Committee hearing on the scope of copyright, Professors David Nimmer and Glynn Lunney agreed on almost nothingbut both agreed that copyright's penalty regime makes no sense today.
Different from almost all other areas of the law, plaintiffs in copyright cases don't have to present anyevidence that they were harmed. And aside from setting some broad ranges of amounts for "willful" and "innocent" infringement, the only guidance that the Copyright Act gives to juries in picking an amount is to say that it should be "just."
So, not surprisingly, penalties in actual cases are hugely unpredictable. Sometimes judges and juries try to set a penalty at approximately the value of the infringing goods, or the loss suffered by the plaintiff. When the defendant is a repeat infringer or behaved egregiously, some courts award a small multiple of actual harm, such as double or triple damages, much like in other areas of the law.
Other times, judges and juries set massive penalties with no relationship to either the actual harm caused or the degree of moral condemnation that the defendant deserves. A website owner who copied two copyrighted poems, earning no profit and causing no more than minuscule economic harm, was ordered to pay $300,000.1 More famously, single mother Jammie Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $222,000 for sharing 24 songs online, even though the trial judge believed that the record labels' actual harm was about $50.20.
Without guidelines, the penalties awarded change radically from case to case. One music industry company that sued three different defendants in separate suits for the same type of infringement won $10,000 per song in one case, $30,000 in another, and $50,000 in a third.3
This uncertainty, and the possibility of ridiculously high penalties, is toxic to creativity and innovation. High and unpredictable copyright damages are why many filmmakers struggle to obtain the liability insurance their financial backers require. They're part of why entrepreneurs with new products for using and interacting with creative work don't get funded. And they're a big reason why innovative companies like Aereo, Dish, Pandora, and software developers large and small must spend so much time and money on copyright lawyers instead of artists and engineers.
Massive penalties are also one of the main reasons why so many shady lawyers have turned to copyright trolling. Threats of six-figure penalties for sharing a movie or song are credible, because they have actually happened. For a home Internet subscriber, paying a troll $3,000 to go away can look like a better option than gambling with $150,000. Copyright damages can turn a failing movie into a lucrative shakedown schemewith a cost in human misery. It's no wonder the public has a low opinion of copyright law.
People should be able to use copyrighted work in ways that benefit us all, without worrying that a court will bankrupt them if the court later decides they crossed a fuzzy line. And copyright's penalties should have some connection to actual harm, to keep trolls from using copyright suits as a shady business model. As Congress continues talking about fixing copyright, the penalties should be one of the first things they look at.

[LIST=|INDENT=-3]
[*]1.Macklin v. Mueck
[/LIST]

[Magda Hassan]

Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google

from the holy-fuck dept

Okay, it's no secret that the MPAA hates Google. It doesn't take a psychology expert to figure that out. But in the last few days, some of the leaks from the Sony Pictures hack have revealed the depths of that hatred, raising serious questions about how the MPAA abuses the legal process in corrupt and dangerous ways. The most serious charge -- unfortunately completely buried by this report at The Verge -- is that it appears the MPAA and the major Hollywood studios directly funded various state Attorneys General in their efforts to attack and shame Google. Think about that for a second.

There's a lot of background here that's important (beyond just the MPAA really hates Google). First, as you know, the MPAA has certainly not given up on its SOPA desire to get certain websites completely blocked. The leaked emails reveal a lot more about that (which we'll get to). Second, a year ago, the MPAA hired a pitbull of an anti-piracy lawyer in naming Steve Fabrizio its General Counsel. Fabrizio has spent the last decade and a half or so deeply involved in litigating a bunch of anti-piracy battles at both the RIAA and the MPAA/RIAA's favorite big law firm, Jenner & Block. This is not a guy you hire if you're looking to innovate. This is a guy you hire if you want to get into knock-down, dirty legal fights.

Third, there is the role of state Attorneys General. A recent NY Times article detailed how lobbyists have figured out ways to effectively "lobby" state Attorneys General to do their bidding. Frequently, this is around getting the state AGs to drop investigations (and potential lawsuits) against companies. The article is somewhat eye-opening, as it's hard to distinguish much of what's discussed from straight up bribery. There is talk of lavish events, travel and dinners all paid for by corporate lobbyists for state AGs, often followed soon after with dropped, or reduced investigations. In one case, an AG told staff not to start an investigation into a public company without first getting his approval. Campaign funding is a big part of it as well, as these lobbyists dump lots of money into AG campaigns. And it's no secret that the state Attorney General position is often seen as a stepping stone to a Governorship or US Senate job.

We've discussed in the past that state Attorneys General are often the biggest grandstanders, as their main goal in certain investigations seems to be about generating headlines for themselves, rather than any real legal basis. More than four years ago, we wrote about Topix CEO Chris Tolles' experience being hounded by state Attorneys' General so they could get a bunch of headlines out of something in which everyone admitted Topix wasn't actually doing anything illegal. Along those lines, we've noted that popular tech companies have increasingly been a target for state AGs -- because they're almost sure to generate headlines. We've also noted that state AGs have been pushing for changes to federal laws, like Section 230 of the CDA, to allow them to further go after big tech companies for things like actions of their users.

Not surprisingly, Google has been a popular target for some state AGs. In the past, we've written about state Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma blaming Google for videos made by users, and about Texas' Attorney General going after Google for supposed antitrust violations (based on the same claims that the FTC later dropped entirely). But the state Attorney General with the biggest chip on his shoulder for Google has absolutely been Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who seemed to think that it was Google's fault that he could find counterfeit goods via search. A few months later, he was back blaming Google for infringement online as well.

This was no accident. What's come out of the Sony Pictures Leak is not just that the MPAA was buddying up to state Attorneys General, but that the MPAA was funding some of this activity and actively supporting the investigation. The leaked emails reveal that rather than seeing that NY Times article about corporate/AG corruption as a warning sign, the MPAA viewed it as a playbook. But not for preventing investigations but for encouraging and funding them. This appears to go way beyond that NY Times article. This isn't campaign donations or inviting AGs to speak at lavish events and paying for the travel. This is flat out paying AGs to investigate Google (even on issues unrelated to copyright infringement) and then promising to get extra press attention to those articles.

Here's the Verge's summary of a key email (which the Verge doesn't even seem to realize why it's so damning):

May 8, 2014: Fabrizio to group. "We've had success to date in motivating the AGs; however as they approach the CID phase, the AGs will need greater levels of legal support." He outlines two options, ranging from $585,000 to $1.175 million, which includes legal support for AGs (through Jenner) and optional investigation and analysis of ("ammunition / evidence against") Goliath. Both options include at least $85,000 for communication (e.g. "Respond to / rebut Goliath's public advocacy, amplify negative Goliath news, [and] seed media stories based on investigation and AG actions.").

"Goliath" is the MPAA's rather transparent "codename" for Google. CID stands for a "civil investigative demand" -- which is a form of an administrative subpoena, demanding information from a company, related to an investigation.

What seems to come out from these emails is that the MPAA, in coordination with the major Hollywood studios, agreed to willfully pay tons of money indirectly to state AGs (and Hood in particular) to get them to investigate Google (using the time and labor of the MPAA's favorite law firm -- and the one that Fabrizio just left). That goes way beyond anything discussed in that NY Times articles, and certainly smacks of serious illegality. It's difficult to see how this isn't bribing a public official to attack a company they dislike.

Not only that, but it shows that the MPAA and the studios were aware of Hood's plans well before they happened, suggesting that he or his office has been coordinating with Hollywood on their plans and that the specific CIDs are actually written by the MPAA's lawyers themselves:

A report from the previous February suggests that the Goliath group drafted civil investigative demands (similar to a subpoena) to be issued by the attorneys general. "Some subset of AGs (3-5, but Hood alone if necessary) should move toward issuing CIDs before mid-May," the email says.

And, more recent emails (from just in October) show that they know that another CID is apparently coming and that the MPAA intends to use that CID for negotiating leverage against Google. This follows a claim that Google was pissed off at the MPAA for mocking its recent search algorithm changes to further push down sites that may link to infringing materials (it's not like we didn't warn everyone that the MPAA wouldn't be satisfied with Google's changes). Either way, the MPAA's Fabrizio brushes off concerns that Google has, telling the studios not to worry, that Google should be more willing to talk after Hood sends out his next CID:

After a dispute over Google's most recent anti-piracy measures in October, Fabrizio suggested further action may be yet to come. "We believe Google is overreacting and dramatically so. Their reaction seems tactical (or childish)," the email reads. "Following the issuance of the CID [civil investigative demand] by [Mississippi attorney general Jim] Hood (which may create yet another uproar by Google), we may be in a position for more serious discussions with Google."

While the Verge report is focused on the "sexy" topic of the MPAA having an "anti-Google' (er... "Goliath") working group, the real story here is that it appears that this infatuation with taking down Google has extended to funding state politicians in their investigations and attacks on Google, even when it's on totally unrelated issues (the initial CID was about counterfeit drugs -- which is an issue that the MPAA likes to mock Google over by totally misrepresenting some actual, but historical, bad behavior).

And beyond that, the MPAA is showing that part of its plan is to fund "media stories based on" the Attorneys General investigations. Remember, so much AG activity these days is driven by what's going to get them into the headlines. Setting aside nearly $100,000 from the MPAA to get a state AG some headlines for an investigation paid for by the MPAA, using administrative subpoenas written by the MPAA... all designed to attack a company they don't like (which actually has done pretty much exactly what they'd been asking for in downranking sites that lead to infringing works), is really stunning.

I get that it's natural to dislike a company or organization that has undermined your business model. It happens. But there are different ways to respond to it. One is to innovate and compete. Another is to use the legal process to throw hurdles in their path. This is the distinction between "market entrepreneurs" and "political entrepreneurs" that Andy Kessler has described. What the MPAA appears to have done in the last few months, however, certainly suggests that the organization, with the help of the major studios, went beyond just lobbying and political pressure, to actually funding elected officials to try to attack a company they didn't like. And, at the very least, this also has to raise serious questions about Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and who he takes orders from. Is he really "protecting" the people of Mississippi? Or is he focused on gobbling up Hollywood's money and promotion?

[Magda Hassan]

Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google

from the holy-fuck dept

Okay, it's no secret that the MPAA hates Google. It doesn't take a psychology expert to figure that out. But in the last few days, some of the leaks from the Sony Pictures hack have revealed the depths of that hatred, raising serious questions about how the MPAA abuses the legal process in corrupt and dangerous ways. The most serious charge -- unfortunately completely buried by this report at The Verge -- is that it appears the MPAA and the major Hollywood studios directly funded various state Attorneys General in their efforts to attack and shame Google. Think about that for a second.

There's a lot of background here that's important (beyond just the MPAA really hates Google). First, as you know, the MPAA has certainly not given up on its SOPA desire to get certain websites completely blocked. The leaked emails reveal a lot more about that (which we'll get to). Second, a year ago, the MPAA hired a pitbull of an anti-piracy lawyer in naming Steve Fabrizio its General Counsel. Fabrizio has spent the last decade and a half or so deeply involved in litigating a bunch of anti-piracy battles at both the RIAA and the MPAA/RIAA's favorite big law firm, Jenner & Block. This is not a guy you hire if you're looking to innovate. This is a guy you hire if you want to get into knock-down, dirty legal fights.

Third, there is the role of state Attorneys General. A recent NY Times article detailed how lobbyists have figured out ways to effectively "lobby" state Attorneys General to do their bidding. Frequently, this is around getting the state AGs to drop investigations (and potential lawsuits) against companies. The article is somewhat eye-opening, as it's hard to distinguish much of what's discussed from straight up bribery. There is talk of lavish events, travel and dinners all paid for by corporate lobbyists for state AGs, often followed soon after with dropped, or reduced investigations. In one case, an AG told staff not to start an investigation into a public company without first getting his approval. Campaign funding is a big part of it as well, as these lobbyists dump lots of money into AG campaigns. And it's no secret that the state Attorney General position is often seen as a stepping stone to a Governorship or US Senate job.

We've discussed in the past that state Attorneys General are often the biggest grandstanders, as their main goal in certain investigations seems to be about generating headlines for themselves, rather than any real legal basis. More than four years ago, we wrote about Topix CEO Chris Tolles' experience being hounded by state Attorneys' General so they could get a bunch of headlines out of something in which everyone admitted Topix wasn't actually doing anything illegal. Along those lines, we've noted that popular tech companies have increasingly been a target for state AGs -- because they're almost sure to generate headlines. We've also noted that state AGs have been pushing for changes to federal laws, like Section 230 of the CDA, to allow them to further go after big tech companies for things like actions of their users.

Not surprisingly, Google has been a popular target for some state AGs. In the past, we've written about state Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma blaming Google for videos made by users, and about Texas' Attorney General going after Google for supposed antitrust violations (based on the same claims that the FTC later dropped entirely). But the state Attorney General with the biggest chip on his shoulder for Google has absolutely been Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who seemed to think that it was Google's fault that he could find counterfeit goods via search. A few months later, he was back blaming Google for infringement online as well.

This was no accident. What's come out of the Sony Pictures Leak is not just that the MPAA was buddying up to state Attorneys General, but that the MPAA was funding some of this activity and actively supporting the investigation. The leaked emails reveal that rather than seeing that NY Times article about corporate/AG corruption as a warning sign, the MPAA viewed it as a playbook. But not for preventing investigations but for encouraging and funding them. This appears to go way beyond that NY Times article. This isn't campaign donations or inviting AGs to speak at lavish events and paying for the travel. This is flat out paying AGs to investigate Google (even on issues unrelated to copyright infringement) and then promising to get extra press attention to those articles.

Here's the Verge's summary of a key email (which the Verge doesn't even seem to realize why it's so damning):

May 8, 2014: Fabrizio to group. "We've had success to date in motivating the AGs; however as they approach the CID phase, the AGs will need greater levels of legal support." He outlines two options, ranging from $585,000 to $1.175 million, which includes legal support for AGs (through Jenner) and optional investigation and analysis of ("ammunition / evidence against") Goliath. Both options include at least $85,000 for communication (e.g. "Respond to / rebut Goliath's public advocacy, amplify negative Goliath news, [and] seed media stories based on investigation and AG actions.").

"Goliath" is the MPAA's rather transparent "codename" for Google. CID stands for a "civil investigative demand" -- which is a form of an administrative subpoena, demanding information from a company, related to an investigation.

What seems to come out from these emails is that the MPAA, in coordination with the major Hollywood studios, agreed to willfully pay tons of money indirectly to state AGs (and Hood in particular) to get them to investigate Google (using the time and labor of the MPAA's favorite law firm -- and the one that Fabrizio just left). That goes way beyond anything discussed in that NY Times articles, and certainly smacks of serious illegality. It's difficult to see how this isn't bribing a public official to attack a company they dislike.

Not only that, but it shows that the MPAA and the studios were aware of Hood's plans well before they happened, suggesting that he or his office has been coordinating with Hollywood on their plans and that the specific CIDs are actually written by the MPAA's lawyers themselves:

A report from the previous February suggests that the Goliath group drafted civil investigative demands (similar to a subpoena) to be issued by the attorneys general. "Some subset of AGs (3-5, but Hood alone if necessary) should move toward issuing CIDs before mid-May," the email says.

And, more recent emails (from just in October) show that they know that another CID is apparently coming and that the MPAA intends to use that CID for negotiating leverage against Google. This follows a claim that Google was pissed off at the MPAA for mocking its recent search algorithm changes to further push down sites that may link to infringing materials (it's not like we didn't warn everyone that the MPAA wouldn't be satisfied with Google's changes). Either way, the MPAA's Fabrizio brushes off concerns that Google has, telling the studios not to worry, that Google should be more willing to talk after Hood sends out his next CID:

After a dispute over Google's most recent anti-piracy measures in October, Fabrizio suggested further action may be yet to come. "We believe Google is overreacting and dramatically so. Their reaction seems tactical (or childish)," the email reads. "Following the issuance of the CID [civil investigative demand] by [Mississippi attorney general Jim] Hood (which may create yet another uproar by Google), we may be in a position for more serious discussions with Google."

While the Verge report is focused on the "sexy" topic of the MPAA having an "anti-Google' (er... "Goliath") working group, the real story here is that it appears that this infatuation with taking down Google has extended to funding state politicians in their investigations and attacks on Google, even when it's on totally unrelated issues (the initial CID was about counterfeit drugs -- which is an issue that the MPAA likes to mock Google over by totally misrepresenting some actual, but historical, bad behavior).

And beyond that, the MPAA is showing that part of its plan is to fund "media stories based on" the Attorneys General investigations. Remember, so much AG activity these days is driven by what's going to get them into the headlines. Setting aside nearly $100,000 from the MPAA to get a state AG some headlines for an investigation paid for by the MPAA, using administrative subpoenas written by the MPAA... all designed to attack a company they don't like (which actually has done pretty much exactly what they'd been asking for in downranking sites that lead to infringing works), is really stunning.

I get that it's natural to dislike a company or organization that has undermined your business model. It happens. But there are different ways to respond to it. One is to innovate and compete. Another is to use the legal process to throw hurdles in their path. This is the distinction between "market entrepreneurs" and "political entrepreneurs" that Andy Kessler has described. What the MPAA appears to have done in the last few months, however, certainly suggests that the organization, with the help of the major studios, went beyond just lobbying and political pressure, to actually funding elected officials to try to attack a company they didn't like. And, at the very least, this also has to raise serious questions about Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and who he takes orders from. Is he really "protecting" the people of Mississippi? Or is he focused on gobbling up Hollywood's money and promotion?