Well the EFF isn't pulling any punches with this press release. Particularly interesting are: "It [the subpoena] also appeared to be served in retaliation for Google’s refusal to comply with the Attorney General’s prior demands..." and "Later documents suggest that the MPAA and Attorney General Hood were working together to plan an anti-Google smear campaign."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.