undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnerdy10y ago0 comments

Because the MPAA is often the larger entity in court, and with leverage (copyright law). They have a long, litigious history from DMCA takedowns & expansion to SOPA. They don't mind suing individuals, wholesale [1].

In this particular case it's pretty clear the MPAA and the AG were both out of bounds. Why would the AG, the top lawyer for the state government (and supposedly for the people), need to help the MPAA with a smear campaign? According to Google, AG Hood's office supplied a proposal to the MPAA [2] with an editorial suggesting slumping stock prices, media segments in collaboration with the AG, regulatory lawsuits...

This is a conscious, targeted attack against Google because Hollywood didn't get its way. The project was even codenamed "Project Goliath" (related to the MPAA & affiliates, not the AG) [3].

Google has the resources, capability and will to vigorously defend itself where others may have not.

[1] https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/ [2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath

0 comments

zamalek10y ago

> editorial suggesting slumping stock prices

Is this not fraudulent?

nl10y ago

It would be, except that the proposal wasn't that the editorial would say the Google stock price is slumping.

The proposal was actually for an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google’s stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs

Since it is an editorial, one can pretty easily make the case that a sustained attack on a company by the AGs will have a negative effect on that companies stock price.

I don't like it, but if there is a legal challenge here it won't be on those grounds.

jacquesm10y ago

It'd be very nice if the SEC jumped in.

fnordfnordfnord10y ago

US financial regulators usually have to be shoved in.

onli10y ago

Yeah, of course it is. That is the point.

zamalek10y ago

The reason I doubted is because Google are using the "MPAA is targeting us" attack (subjective at best) instead of taking them to the cleaners with stock market manipulation (written law with precedent). This means that I must be missing something and possibly there is a subtle reason why this isn't stock market manipulation.

At least the article makes it sound like the stock manipulation is ancillary to Google's offense.

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsnerdy10y ago0 comments

This is a conscious, targeted attack against Google because Hollywood didn't get its way. The project was even codenamed "Project Goliath" (related to the MPAA & affiliates, not the AG) [3].

Google has the resources, capability and will to vigorously defend itself where others may have not.

[1] https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/ [2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath

0 comments

zamalek10y ago

> editorial suggesting slumping stock prices

Is this not fraudulent?

nl10y ago

It would be, except that the proposal wasn't that the editorial would say the Google stock price is slumping.

The proposal was actually for an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google’s stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs

Since it is an editorial, one can pretty easily make the case that a sustained attack on a company by the AGs will have a negative effect on that companies stock price.

I don't like it, but if there is a legal challenge here it won't be on those grounds.

jacquesm10y ago

It'd be very nice if the SEC jumped in.

fnordfnordfnord10y ago

US financial regulators usually have to be shoved in.

onli10y ago

Yeah, of course it is. That is the point.

zamalek10y ago

At least the article makes it sound like the stock manipulation is ancillary to Google's offense.

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse