|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM SOPA MPAA continuing advancement
|The Google Blog
The MPAA’s Attempt to Revive SOPA Through A State Attorney General
Posted: Thursday, December 18, 2014
Posted by Kent Walker, SVP and General Counsel
We are deeply concerned about recent reports that the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA) led a secret, coordinated campaign to
revive the failed SOPA legislation through other means, and helped
manufacture legal arguments in connection with an investigation by
Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood.
Almost three years ago, millions of Americans helped stop a piece of
congressional legislation—supported by the MPAA—called the Stop
Online Piracy Act (SOPA). If passed, SOPA would have led to censorship
across the web. No wonder that 115,000 websites—including
Google—participated in a protest, and over the course of a single
day, Congress received more than 8 million phone calls and 4 million
emails, as well as getting 10 million petition signatures.
Here is what recent press reports have revealed over the past few days
about the MPAA’s campaign:
The MPAA conspired to achieve SOPA’s goals through non-legislative
According to The Verge, “at the beginning of this year, the MPAA and
six studios … joined together to begin a new campaign” to figure
how it could secretly revive SOPA. It “joined together to begin a
new campaign” to achieve wholesale site-blocking by
“[convincing] state prosecutors to take up the fight against
[Google].” The movie studios “budgeted $500,000 a year towards
providing legal support”—and the MPAA later sought up to $1.175
million for this campaign.
The MPAA pointed its guns at Google
With that money, the MPAA then hired its long-time law firm Jenner &
Block to go after Google while also funding an astroturf group—the
Digital Citizens Alliance—with the same goal of attacking Google.
(Source: The New York Times).
The MPAA did the legal legwork for the Mississippi State Attorney
The MPAA then pitched Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood, an
admitted SOPA supporter, and Attorney General Hood sent Google a letter
making numerous accusations about the company. The letter was signed by
General Hood but was actually drafted by an attorney at Jenner &
Block—the MPAA’s law firm. As the New York Times has reported,
the letter was only minimally edited by the state Attorney General
before he signed it. Here is what the document showed about its true
We've redacted the name of the attorney to protect her privacy
Even though Google takes industry-leading measures in dealing with
problematic content on our services, Attorney General Hood proceeded to
send Google a sweeping 79-page subpoena, covering a variety of topics
over which he lacks jurisdiction. The Verge reported that the MPAA and
its members discussed such subpoenas and certainly knew about this
subpoena’s existence before it was even sent to Google.
Attorney General Hood told the Huffington Post earlier this week that
the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making,” and that he
“has never asked [the] MPAA a legal question” and “isn't
sure which lawyers they employ.” And yet today the Huffington Post
and the Verge revealed that Attorney General Hood had numerous
conversations with both MPAA staff and Jenner & Block attorneys about
While we of course have serious legal concerns about all of this, one
disappointing part of this story is what this all means for the MPAA
itself, an organization founded in part “to promote and defend the
First Amendment and artists' right to free expression.” Why, then,
is it trying to secretly censor the Internet?
UPDATE - Friday, December 19: Because Attorney General Hood's 79-page
subpoena constitutes an unjustified attack that violates
well-established U.S. laws governing Internet platforms and online
intermediaries, we are today asking a federal court to set that subpoena
aside (our brief is here). We are also asking those with a hand in this
campaign to preserve all relevant documents. We regret having to take
this matter to court, and we are doing so only after years of efforts to
explain both the merits of our position and the extensive steps we've
taken on our platforms.
OwlBoyDecember 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM
I wonder why the MPAA can't go about things in less over-reaching
Adam HowardDecember 19, 2014 at 6:37 AM
I swear I may have to boycott every movie associated with MPAA.
FACT = There is no law that says Paramount Pictures, Disney,
Sony, Warner Brothers, ect... Must associate or register with The MPAA.
It's time we place our money were our mouth is and show them,
we're not going to accept this.
JackDecember 18, 2014 at 7:42 PM
The MPAA isn't trying to censor the internet - they are trying to
defend their intellectual property which Google compromises by
deliberately turning a blind eye to certain apps and content on YouTube.
Here is an example of an app from the Google Play Store that facilitates
While technically apps like these break no laws in the USA (because
all they do is link to pirated content on someone else's servers) - it's
still sleazy and not right that Google "looks the other way" in the ruse
of "freedom". It's all about these kind of apps making more $$$ money
for Google. Stop with the freedom nonsense and do what's right.
MVDecember 18, 2014 at 10:25 PM
The MPAA is claiming to "defend their intellectual property
rights", but the effect of their choices and decisions is to make harder
and/or more expensive communication in which they have no intellectual
They do that because it gives them business advantage, not so
much against pirates because those are by definition already breaking
existing laws, and are not suddenly going to become law-abiding More
important is their ability to use existing and new laws against those
who want to communicate without the companies represented by the MPAA
getting any benefit.
And while the MPAA has every right to lobby for changes that
benefit its members, we should automatically be suspicious of any
attempt to pass new laws that privilege some existing companies relative
to society as a whole. We should be particularly suspicious when such
laws and methods are conceived, drawn up, and put into effect without
public discussion or input, or when "improved" versions ignore the major
flaws of existing laws, when those flaws benefit the companies who
support the "improvements."
JackDecember 18, 2014 at 10:36 PM
And Google can do more than offer a blind eye to apps that
facilitate piracy and be more aware of the flood of pirated material on
YouTube recently. Ahh but if Google was more "proactive" in their
policies about copyright infringement - it would hurt their bottom line
$$$$$. See there's a bit of a conflict of interest there. IMO Google is
more concerned with protecting their bottom line (their balance sheet) -
then they are of being the goodwill ambassador of internet freedom. As I
mentioned they use the freedom excuse as a ruse.
Mark DavisDecember 18, 2014 at 11:25 PM
"the MPAA then hired... while also funding an astroturf
Methinks me smells an astroturfer...
JackDecember 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Wrong. I have no affiliation with the MPAA or any astroturf
group. Just a common sense individual that can step back and see the
entire issue for what it is. I have no horse in this race - just trying
to look at it objectively. I don't see it as the MPAA is 100% at fault
and Google is the white knight that is going to save internet freedom
James SeeDecember 19, 2014 at 12:47 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
James SeeDecember 19, 2014 at 12:50 AM
The thing is whether Google's motivations are noble or a shrewd
protection of commercial interests is irrelevant to whether or not the
legislation MPAA and its affiliates and bought-off politicians
previously lobbied for and subsequently tried in various guises to ram
through outside of the normal legitimate channels is a good idea for
anybody except the MPAA.
You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that uses the internet
to feel particularly concerned for the plight of the MPAA enough that
they would willingly support and let sail through legislation that will
have significant detrimental impact upon the entire internet globally to
address a supposed wrong that MPAA and it's members claim to have
suffered. If supporting google's stance in blocking and publicly shaming
SOPA and those who lobby for it also helps Google's commercial interests
that's really not going to sway anybody since in this instance, Google's
interests align with those of the general public. It doesn't make Google
angels, it doesn't mean their interests and the general public will
always align or that they are above scrutiny but it does mean that MPAA
crying that google will make money unless SOPA gets through means
nothing to the people who will be adversely affected by SOPA (everyone
except the MPAA).
The things with astro-turf is, it doesn't really have a smell,
but it looks and feels very different to the real thing.
daveDecember 19, 2014 at 12:53 AM
I really don't care about the MAFIAA or their supposed lost
revenues or their conspiracy theories about how much money Google is
supposedly making from running ads on content the MAFIAA dislikes. I
care about freedom of the Internet from censorship, including MAFIAA
censorship, and from MAFIAA funded astroturf front groups like the
"Digital Citizens Alliance". I view Google as a company that favors
freedom, takes "don't be evil" seriously, and I think the American
people stand with it and with the forces of freedom, justice, and
liberty against the jackbooted fascist, totalitarian forces of control
and censorship, of which the MAFIAA is in the lead.
If the MAFIAA wants to be SOPAed again, all it has to do is
continue with its' present trajectory. The next Internet strike/blackout
will only be larger and more forceful than the 2012 version. Bottom line
is the MAFIAA has to be learnt that the Internet is private property,
and they don't own it or control it, so they need to get their filthy
hands off our private property, off our Internet,
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 1:48 AM
Well when Google knowingly allows an app in the Google Play
store that facilitates piracy - and is asked by several parties to
remove said app but refuses in the name of "freedom" - then I don't
blame the MPAA to ask the ISPs to block that particular app. Not at all.
What else can they do if Google refuses to do anything? It's like Google
is being a "leach" by profiting off of an app that rips off other
people's work. I say more power to content owners if they can get the
ISPs to block apps like that.
Now looking at it from another perspective - in the past there
have been several unauthorized YouTube apps for certain devices - which
Google threatened legal action to get shut down. You see Google is like
everyone else - they don't like it when people can deprive them of
revenue by watching an unauthorized YouTube app without ads. If Google's
is so into freedoms - why not just let the unauthorized YouTube apps
stay up? Ohhhh wait a minute you mean Google doesn't like getting their
content ripped off - hey it's "freedom" isn't it? Well, well, well a bit
hypicritical isn't it? Why is that app that I posted a link to still in
the Play store? Do you think it's about "freedom" LOL It's because
Google used that app to promote the sales of Google TV at the detriment
to the content providers. They even went as far as to make it a
"featured app for Google TV". Google was asked to take the app down and
refused - so now Google is crying because the MPAA was forced to contact
the ISPs to try and get the app blocked. Ah excuse me but I'm not
shedding any tears for Google......
James SeeDecember 19, 2014 at 2:28 AM
Well Jack my dear, you see once again how it has little to do
with google being angels or hypocrites and everything to do with a nasty
piece of legislation being foisted upon everybody. I say this as someone
who isn't themselves an American but am still equally concerned about
SOPA passing as it will allow a small group of people to reshape the
internet as they see fit and use the considerable weight of the american
legal system to enforce it when they're challenged. There's also the
nasty habit my country's government has of thinking 'America did it' is
good enough rationale for implementing policy so I've as much at stake
as Americans do in this regard since shit flows downhill.
Ultimately, this is about whether or not SOPA or any of it's
other guises is beneficial to anybody other than those proposing it and
lobbying for it. It seems pretty clear that it isn't, so whether google
is a white knight or a company who like the MPAA members is protecting
it's income makes no difference in this equation.
The lack of willingness to engage with the matter on this level,
and the clandestine efforts to force legislation through despite public
opposition is a good indicator that the MPAA are well and truly aware
that what they'r proposing is a raw deal for everyone else and hence the
need for smoke and mirrors.
JerryDecember 19, 2014 at 6:41 AM
The entire premise of intellectual property rights if the
biggest joke in decades. It basically tries to tell you that if you buy
something, you don't own it. You just bought the right to use it, but
it's technically not yours to do whatever you want. "DO NOT MAKE ILLEGAL
COPIES OF THIS DISC"
I'm sorry, but if you buy a disc, you should be able to do what
you want with it. The digital age has changed the game, and the MPAA
doesn't understand that. The boundaries of "property" has changed, and
with intellectual property, they can extend those boundaries however far
they want. Tell you what to do with something YOU paid for.
They just can't accept the fact that digital property is not the
same as physical property, and the digital era is an unfortunate turn
for the movie industries, but that's just the way it is. They need to
accept it. Things change, business changes, times change. Some for the
better of certain individuals, and some not for the better.
This isn't even about money anyway, it's all about ego. Studies
have shown the movie industry isn't even losing money to piracy.
thomasnruthDecember 19, 2014 at 7:20 PM
Go screw yourself Jack.
John DeerDecember 18, 2014 at 8:33 PM
The above story is partly about internet censorship, which the MPAA
has been seeking for over 10 years. But that's NOT actually the problem;
it's only an after effect of the REAL issue. The problem is and always
has been the copyright laws that "attempt" to protect people's work.
Protecting someone's work is and always has been a somewhat fruitless
endeavour, especially with today’s technological capabilities.
It‘s just another way of paying into a system that doesn't actually
work. The very concept of having copyright laws is an old-age mentality.
The future of the world and technology awaits for the abolishment of
copyright laws. Only then can progress be unshackled for the ACTUAL
benefit of mankind as opposed to the financial benefit of a few. One day
the movie studios and the MPAA will be found criminally responsible for
the damages that they've already incurred on the ordinary citizen, but
that’s a whole other story. ….Google keep up the good fight, and
don't let the MPAA(or the NSA for that matter) push you into a
freedomless corner! You are the current people's champion for a reason,
so please don't let us down!
SilverTrumpet999December 18, 2014 at 10:55 PM
In an age of costless copying, there is no place for generational
ownership of ideas.
We need a robust public domain. Works must enter it well within one
generation at the pace of today's society and culture. Current copyright
law is madness. A return to rational copyright is required: five years
free, required registration, one paid extension for a maximum of 10
years. Fourteen years was enough for the age of the printing press!
Ryan SnyderDecember 18, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Is it wrong to enforce accountability on the web? I would not say
that I support this legislation outright, but I have a tough time
arguing against the fact that downloading movies and other protected
content online is unjust and should be illegal. A happy medium needs to
be reached where individual rights are protected, but people are held
responsible for what they do while sitting behind a computer.
Ronald PneumanneDecember 19, 2014 at 3:33 AM
Objectively wrong. The attorney general has colluded behind
closed doors with a nefarious lobbyist group and lied to the public
about it. He did so to implement broad stroke censorship at the request
of the MPAA who do not have any authority to police the internet. Nor
does the attorney general have jurisdiction to be serving Google
subpoenas. Anyone who supports this in any way shape or form is a fool
and should be ashamed of themselves on a personal level. This is
Ryan SnyderDecember 19, 2014 at 4:37 PM
To your point, the MPAA does not have the authority to police
the internet, nor should they. But who does? The government is the first
answer, but they are not equipped, in structure or in flexibility, to
take on such a huge role. Google is in a pivotal position here, but I
fear that they are missing the truth in some of the MPAA's cries. In
their pursuit of a "free" internet, I hope they realize that this is not
mutually exclusive with an internet in which people are held accountable
for illegal actions.
Maybe "policing" the internet is not the right way to look at
it, but looking 15 years down the road I hope you can see the sense in
some form of accountability. It is my hope that Google realizes that if
they are willing to bend, then they can have an influential position in
working with the government to create a system that is fair for all.
Their absolutist approach will not work, just like calling everyone who
supports a piece of legislation a fool.
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM
Google should do as required by law and not an inch more,
because the more they give into the movie and recording businesses
(MPAA/RIAA) the more the MPAA/RIAA will come running back asking for
more... and more... and more... and more.
The MPAA want to make the internet into their own private garden
and treat all its citizens as cash cows, nothing more, while Google sees
the full potential of the internet and wants it to be free.
People who break the laws should be held accountable, Google has
no business playing enforcer for a greed and outdated bunch of crooks
who seem to like corrupting AGs all over the US.
Looking 15 years down the road, if the MPAA's wishlist comes
even half true would be a nightmare for freedom, something out of a
depressing futuristic movie that Hollywood has done in the past. The
only true win is if Google puts it's foot down and kicks the bad guys
(in this case, the MPAA) in the nuts.
" It is my hope that Google realizes that if they are willing to
Google has done nothing wrong and thus should not bend, they
should however make the people who put constant pressure on Google bend
over for trying borderline illegal ways to make Google bend.
Ryan SnyderDecember 19, 2014 at 5:21 PM
Imploring Google to "not give an inch" is a short-sighted view
of the situation when they have the influence to direct the course of
the future of the internet. As I am sure you would agree, laws governing
the internet are both outdated and inadequate, especially to enforce
accountability. I am suggesting that they bring their own constructive
input to this debate, and I think you are missing the point by
criticizing the MPAA/RIAA for skirting the law, while encouraging Google
to do the same throughout your comment.
It will always be the MPAA's prerogative to maximize
profitability for their industry, so your claim that they are "cash
cows" is a bit redundant and misguided, as is the earlier comment
calling them nefarious.
I would say that Google needs to work towards a sustainable
long-term solution to the problem of accountability online, not that
they need to "kick the MPAA in the nuts".
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 6:55 PM
> Imploring Google to "not give an inch" is a short-sighted view
> of the situation when they have the influence to direct the
> course of the future of the internet.
The internet being a "good" for the people is in direct contrast
with what the MPAA and their elk have in mind for the internet.
When you have the former head of Sony say something like:
"I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the
Internet," said Sony Pictures Entertainment chief executive officer
Michael Lynton. "Period." (Google it)
it just goes to show their way of thinking. These dinosaurs
don't want to change and only want to stick to "tried and true methods"
that worked 30 years back, that is not the future.
> especially to enforce accountability.
It is not Googles job to take on "enforcement of
accountability", Google is a search engine, it's job is to return
results for a given search, regardless if some people disagree with the
returned result's result.
>I think you are missing the point by criticizing the MPAA/RIAA
>for skirting the law, while encouraging Google to do the same
Kindly point me to where I asked Google to skirt the law or
encouraged Google to do so. I have said time and again Google should
follow the law to its full extent... and not a millimeter more.
Companies (the MPAA included) should be heavily, criminally, penalized
for skirting the law.
> It will always be the MPAA's prerogative to maximize
> profitability for their industry
Yes, but they are supposed to do it legally... and not poison
our legal systems or our officials when doing so.
The MPAA are scum, the stuff that is below the bottom of the
barrel as we have seen time and again, and as we have seen in this case
while "co operating" with Google, were at the same time working on a
plan to backstab Google.The internet they would like to build is an
internet that no sane person would like.
> I would say that Google needs to work towards a sustainable
> long-term solution to the problem of accountability online,
Again, not Google's job.
This actually would make a lot more sense:
I would say that the MPAA and the studios they represent need to
work towards a sustainable long-term solution to the problem of changing
their business models for the online world...
CruckDecember 19, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Thou doth protest too much.
Francisco GeorgeDecember 19, 2014 at 1:23 AM
The people who think that MPAA and Copyright are for protecting the
creator's work are naive or do suffer an intense Stockholm Syndrome.
thomasnruthDecember 19, 2014 at 7:22 PM
Agreed. And when the MPAA sues someone and wins judgement, who
gets the money? LOL... sure not the artist.
PhoenyxDecember 19, 2014 at 4:06 AM
If the MPAA had written an entirely new bill, then I would at least
have the respect to hear their side of the argument. This is just
Adam HowardDecember 19, 2014 at 6:32 AM
I swear I may have to boycott every movie associated with MPAA.
FACT = There is no law that says Paramount Pictures, Disney, Sony,
Warner Brothers, ect... Must associate or register with The MPAA.
It's time we place our money were our mouth is and show them, we're
not going to accept this.
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 6:41 AM
I blame Google itself for finding itself in this mess.
Hold on a second, this is my reasoning:
The MPAA are a pack of parasites, and should be treated as such, but
Google has been trying to pacify (in recent years) them and go above and
beyond what the law requires Google to do thinking that would make the
MPAA happy but... all the MPAA has done is come back with more demands.
From the very beginning Google should have done EXACTLY how much the
law demanded Google do and not an inch... actually, forget inch, make
that a millimeter.., more that what the law required Google to do and
then fight the MPAA on each and every millimeter that the MPAA wanted
The MPAA will never be satisfied till they can control Google and
any other company that does not do what the MPAA wish... and hopefully
pay the MPAA for that privilege.
While I would like to say the MPAA buying lawmen is a new low, this
has unfortunately been going on for quite a while and the only question
is: what was the price for Jim Hood? How much less does an AG go for
compared to for example an elected official like Lamar Smith (who penned
SOPA/PIPA if memory serves me right) ?
But I digress, hopefully Google will take off their dunce cap and
treat the MPAA the way they need to be treated, openly, with a firm
hand, and with the gloves off. Or history has a nasty habit of doing
TropicalCoderDecember 20, 2014 at 11:49 AM
"the MPAA buying lawmen is a new low"
Nothing new here...
Former Senator Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion
Picture Association of America, feeling betrayed after the defeat of
SOPA and PIPA in spite of having paid millions in "bribes" to
congressmen and senators, said to them, "Those who count on 'Hollywood'
for support need to understand that this industry is watching very
carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake.
Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk
and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Many
feel this is a brazen admission of bribery. It has staggering
implications to say the least. Honest politicians should feel outraged
with his attitude and turn their backs to him.
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 6:47 AM
Attorney General Hood told the Huffington Post earlier this week
that the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making,” and
that he “has never asked [the] MPAA a legal question” and
“isn't sure which lawyers they employ.” And yet today the
Huffington Post and the Verge revealed that Attorney General Hood had
numerous conversations with both MPAA staff and Jenner & Block attorneys
about this matter.
Caught like a rat in a trap. No offense to the actual rodents.
I'm also quite surprised at the volume of astroturfing (MPAA
workers/supporters acting as "civilians") in this comments section, but
I guess they had to do something now that they secret plans (that they
hoped would never be brought to light) are open for the world to read,
analyze, and take in without a MPAA filter over it.
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 10:08 AM
It seems to me that the people who cry loudest about having
their "liberties" violated when they read stuff like this about the MPAA
- are those that don't want to bother paying for their premium video
content and instead revert to apps/sites such as IceFilms, 1Channel,
Showbox, XBMC, etc. I am not a fan of those apps and as such when I read
the recent article about what the MPAA did it didn't really bother me at
all. I'm smart enough to see that this Blog (by Google's legal
department) is an attempted "smokescreen" to deflect the focus away from
Google's own questionable behavior by attempting to creating a
"hysteria" of sorts about the MPAA violating people's freedoms. If I may
ask - In what way do you feel threatened by what the MPAA did? It's not
like they spied on people's email. Do you perceive it as a personal
threat if the MPAA requests ISPs to block shady apps like 1Channel? If
so why do you feel that way?
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Google is a search engine, it's job is to find links and display
those links to people who requested those links. It's job is not to help
an out of date industry stick with old business models and fight the
Thanks for mentioning icedfilms,1channel,showbox I had no idea
of those services but I...googled it ;)
thomasnruthDecember 19, 2014 at 7:25 PM
The MPAA is nothing but a bunch of liars, thieves, and communist
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Another really good article that outlines the corruption that flows
from the MPAA:
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM
DarkhaloxDecember 19, 2014 at 8:04 AM
If SOPA was to pass I think it would be just like the drug war. They
would force their laws down our throats. The people as a majority refuse
to accept those laws. The people break the law. The government spends
stupid amounts of money on enforcing those laws to no effect.
Then your starting a digital war on freedom and if they thought the
Sony hack was bad they are in for a treat when you piss off the American
The world is leaving the MPAA dinosaurs behind and they are crying
like a 4 year old in the cereal isle!
Jason GreyDecember 19, 2014 at 12:20 PM
Unfortunately they are crying like billionaires in the cereal
isle complaining "If I can't get the cereal I want, I'll buy the store
and no one can have cereal"
Fred SteffenDecember 19, 2014 at 11:15 AM
I'm not saying stealing digital content is right. It's not. However,
it's being done. So instead of trying to shackle the internet, how about
you lower prices, make it more reasonable to buy than steal?
In our current digital age, every song isn't worth a dollar, and
every movie isn't worth $20 in a digital download. People like me just
won't buy it. Others will just steal it. The "real" cost of the movie
copy is the cost of storing the bits and sending them over the wire. Put
your price more in line with that, people will pay to use your service
instead of risking malware/viruses from a torrent download.
Plus, you'll make a TON of money! Ever hear of supply and demand?
There's a magic spot you're missing.
nithinDecember 19, 2014 at 11:28 AM
best thing ever I received a iTunes Card Code at no cost! You can
get one too from http://linkbitty.com/freeitunes2014
bianryspazzDecember 19, 2014 at 11:32 AM
Liberty and freedom sometimes come at a cost in many ways. The MPAA
et. all will need to find another means to protect their property. All
the laws are already there to allow them to do just that.
The three internet commandments:
The internet shall remain anonymous.
Internet providers shall remain utilities.
If the first two commandments are broken the current network shall
be abandonded and our brothers and sisters will band together in
creating a new true internet.
xDecember 19, 2014 at 11:41 AM
TIL : "Jack" sounds like an MPAA lawyer , nice try lawyer Jack
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM
Sorry but you're wrong. Google Fanboy? Nice try.
xDecember 19, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Your lawyers tell you to say that "Jack"?
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 11:59 AM
Well, well, well. I just tried a Google search for "Showbox app" -
and sure enough the very first search results are links to this
notorious app that is probably one of the biggest concerns to the
content providers. Take a look see here:
What a joke - Google publishes a blog about internet freedoms being
violated in an attempt to mask their behavior such as this. And all the
Showbox fans that don't consider it proper to pay for their content
coming runing out of the closet to offer support for "poor" Google and
the right for fredom! Ha I find this rather amusing. The only reason the
Showbox app isn't in the Google Play Store is because it's actually
illegal in the USA. This being that they actually store the pirated
content on their own servers. I happen to know that the proprietor of
Showbox resides in Russia - that's why it's difficult for USA
authorities to effectively deal with scams like this. But because
Showbox is an Android app it benefits Google's bottom line $$$$ by
having it so readily listed at the top of the search results. Yeah
Google - the altruistic crusader for everyone's "freedoms" is at it
NeversphereDecember 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason GreyDecember 19, 2014 at 12:34 PM
I honestly don't see why the responsibility is being laid upon
Google to censor "violating" results. Firstly, they are a search engine;
if there is offending content out there, it's the responsibility of the
pursuing party to take care of it. Not the search engine that found it.
Secondly, they have no responsibility to even listen to the MPAA. What
they have done so far has gone well above and beyond what they are
"supposed" to do. They created a platform that users create their own
works on. By the logic that you're pursuing Google with, blaming Google
for an app that links to pirated content is like getting angry at the
hardware store because someone cut the lock off your fence with a pair
of their bolt cutters.
While I will admit that piracy is a very large problem, it's a
problem that the MPAA and it's associated organizations/companies needs
to address. You don't blame the company that made the cameras, you take
care of the actual issue that was recorded by them.
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 12:40 PM
"it's a problem that the MPAA and it's associated
organizations/companies needs to address. You don't blame the company
that made the cameras, you take care of the actual issue that was
recorded by them."
That sounds too much like work, the MPAA would rather everyone
else do the work for them... for free of course.
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM
Jason thank you for your reply - but I must respectfully
disagree. Google is not going well above and beyond what they are
supposed to do when they make apps such as 1Channel a "Featured App for
Google TV" in their Play Store:
The UK has actually banned the 1Channel web sites and Spain is
now prosecuting webmasters that knowingly link to pirated material. So
Google is smarter than the UK and Spain? Don't kid yourself Google will
do as little as possible to meet required laws while at the same time
doing as much as they can to promote questionable apps & web sites as
long as they consider it as contributing to their bottom line. It's not
an easy solution for authorities to shut down operations like this
because they reside outside the USA - and the servers involved are
located in various countries that aren't concerned about it.
TJDecember 19, 2014 at 1:24 PM
Jack....just stop. You are not selling anyone here. You have
been exposed. Anything you post from here is tainted by your affiliation
(to put it mildly) with the MPAA. Newsflash we don't care about you not
being able to buy the new Bugatti because someone pirated the latest POS
movie Yours is a racket industry. Are going to give me my money back
when your product is trash? I didn't think so!
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 1:44 PM
Awww concerned that the MPAA will block your favorite pirate
app? Please excuse me if I don't shed a thousand tears over your
dilemna... now carry on. But in the future you might consider actually
paying for content instead of stealing something that you don't own.
eZee.seDecember 19, 2014 at 1:47 PM
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 2:00 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 2:04 PM
eZee.se there was a good comment below that YouTube video that
No matter how they put it, pirating gives access to something
without going through the subscriptions or price tags accompanying the
song, game, movie, etc. This is damaging to an industry and there is
little to no reason to pirate unless you just turned 14 and want to feel
you're rebelling against some unjust system Kids, please do community
service instead, it's a much better use of your time. **
Perhaps it's not too late and you can learn from it?
Jason GreyDecember 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM
Jack, I get that you're upset about apps like 1Channel, but it's
user created content and it has nothing to do with my original point.
Google is not responsible for policing the internet.
They have absolutely gone well above and beyond what they are
supposed to do, because the MPAA is NOT a legal authority over anything.
It's like me complaining to Nike for their worker laws in China. Nike
doesn't even have to acknowledge that I tried talking to them, let alone
change any of their business practices or policies because I said they
were illegal (even if I'm right).
If the government were to get involved on the other hand and
specifically tell Google to comply with some ridiculous standards of
censorship, then they would be doing exactly what the MPAA wants. You
can throw as much crap at Google as you want, but at the end of the day,
they have literally zero responsibility to comply with the MPAA. The
part about "above and beyond" that I'm referring to, is the countless
takedown requests and threatened lawsuits that they have to deal with
every single day from bloated, useless organizations that represent
billion dollar companies. It costs Google as a company, time, resources,
and money to even accommodate those requests. So yes, they are going
above and beyond what they are required to do, which is absolutely
nothing until the government gets involved.
JackDecember 19, 2014 at 4:29 PM
Google might of done what they are legally required to do - but
it's in Google's best business interest to not piss off the content
providers. Google needs the content providers for the Play Store,
YouTube and their new Android TV platform. When you get mistrust between
Google & the Content providers you get failed business ventures such as
Google TV - and now the new Nexus Android TV player has a scarcity of
apps compared to the competition. So by turning a blind eye to apps that
facilitate piracy - in essence Google is biting the hand that feeds
Also if Google is free to do whatever they want until the
government tells them to stop - the MPAA can do what it wants to protect
it's iown interests also. If you read the comments in the Google Play
store about the 1Channel app - it doesn't work for "some" people - I
have information that this is because some ISPs are blocking it. IMO I
don't see anything wrong with that either. Google isn't the MPAA's boss
- it kind of made my day when I realized that some ISPs are blocking
that app -;) It's nothing but a scam.......
Brent CottonDecember 19, 2014 at 8:44 PM
Based on your arguments it seems to me that content providers
should be doing everything they can to get on Google's platforms. If
Google is facilitating piracy via 3rd party apps, but protects it's own
content by banning apps that infringe on it's youtube ads ect. then
content providers should be getting on Google platforms for the
protection, and then work with Google who then has added incentive.
Problem solved, you're welcome.
xDecember 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM
No wonder Jack (no longer in quotes ,since he was courageous enough
to use his real name) is so adamant about the MPAA cause !
He ran the place !
Here's Jacks bio : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti
Not biased at all huh Jack?
George PytlikDecember 19, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Brent CottonDecember 19, 2014 at 8:34 PM
your link says he's dead?
David HarbageDecember 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
CruckDecember 20, 2014 at 12:13 AM
Don't be evil.
Anthony DiMasiDecember 20, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Post 1/2 (! Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096
First, a few things before I get up on my soap box...
- I have been following the Sony incident and came here by way of
this superb article. I imagine anybody posting here would find it
worth a read:
- I read ALL of the preceding comments.
- I have no idea why Jack is so bent out of shape. Maybe his heart
is two sizes too small? But with all due seriousness, with
comments like, "...apps/sites such as IceFilms, 1Channel, Showbox, XBMC"
and "...the 1Channel app - it doesn't work for "some" people - I have
information that this is because some ISPs are blocking it", it seems
like he is pushing an agenda. I spend a bloody lot of time on the
internet and I haven't heard of ANY of the apps/sites he mentions. And
his grammar and punctuation does not offend me. This in itself is not a
bad thing. I would appreciate more of that in general from human
commentary online. But in this instance it just makes it seem less like
somebody voicing their opinion and more like what everybody else above
thinks it sounds like... In any event, you have had your stand on the
soap box. Please get down and let the rest of us have our turns.
WHEW! Now that that's out of the way....
The evidence against the AG is pretty damning. Now, I'm quite sure
this sort of thing happens quite frequently in politics, American or
otherwise. It's just that somebody got caught with their hand in the
cookie jar here and can't admit it. At least Amy Pascal had the decency
to admit it and apologize, however insincere that token apology actually
is. But she wasn't doing what, essentially, boils down to bribing
elected officials to do their bidding.
Legal shadiness aside, public perception is the MPAAs real problem.
I understand that protecting their members' profits is what they're
supposed to be doing. But doing things like hiring companies to monitor
filesharing and suing individuals? That is in very poor taste. And
asking for damages in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars
against your average run-of-the-mill citizen when your execs and
copyright trolling thugs you've hired are making how much? Have you ever
heard of the phrase, "The punishment should fit the crime"? It's no
wonder the public perception of the RIAA/MPAA is so dismal. This sort of
action just adds fuel to the fire.
I can't think of any instance off the top of my head where Google
has gone out of their way to step on the little guy or suppress an
uncensored internet. I vote with my wallet when companies do that.
Does anybody remember the personal spat Steve Jobs had with Adobe,
and how he refused to support YouTube and Flash, and even went so far as
to publish a paper on why Flash was horribly flawed? Or how you can't
even replace a battery yourself in an iPhone? Or how Apple was so
secretive about product/software launches that some companies would be
working on software for a platform that was soon to be discontinued or
phased out, and not notified by Apple? Public perception. I have refused
to buy any Apple products for quite some time now (actually, for the
record, I never have). I hope their business practices will change for
the better now that Jobs has passed, but that is wishful thinking. But
until that day comes (if at all), I'm quite glad for my Google driven
I have many more examples of the above. Of companies that I do not
do business with because of they way they conduct themselves. In short,
people should vote with their wallets more often. Inform others.
Persuade them to do the same. How long would establishments like the
MPAA last if everybody boycotted their member's products? Not very long.
(well, except for maybe Disney, that rat makes a killing at his theme
Anthony DiMasiDecember 20, 2014 at 12:29 AM
And copyright law is so behind the times. SilverTrumpet999's
comment was so spot-on that I'm going to put the whole thing here:
"In an age of costless copying, there is no place for
generational ownership of ideas.
We need a robust public domain. Works must enter it well within
one generation at the pace of today's society and culture. Current
copyright law is madness. A return to rational copyright is required:
five years free, required registration, one paid extension for a maximum
of 10 years. Fourteen years was enough for the age of the printing
Imagine this scenario if you will:
The wheel was just invented and patented. This thing is a
breakthrough. Bleeding edge science. Wow. Just wow. There are others who
are inspired by this invention, and think of other amazing ideas that
could use this. A car! A wheelchair! Etc. But patent law prevents them
from utilizing the wheel.
Patent law really only encourages copyright trolling in today's
age. Did I mention Public Perception? I HATE copyright trolls (remember,
vote with your wallets!). It stifles innovation. We need new ideas and
inventions to draw upon recent innovations. We, as a race, are not doing
ourselves any favors by suing each other and trying skirt around
existing patents on technicalities to avoid lawsuits. Want real
innovation? Re-invent the patent laws, NOT the wheel.
Okay, I'm tired and my train of thought is abandoning me, so I'm
getting off the soap box. KTHXBYE.
TropicalCoderDecember 20, 2014 at 11:18 AM
Politicians have become corrupted by contributions from the
entertainment industry, and now seem to be falling all over each other
in their eagerness to serve their Hollywood directors. The Rights Groups
with their political allies are now so powerful they have governments
the world over jumping to placate their every whim, negotiating secret
treaties just for them, even as they conspire to control our computers
and cripple the internet to enhance their profits.
Every time a change to copyright law is proposed, it is in response
to demands from powerful lobbies. When have you ever seen a grass roots
demand for broadened rights, stricter enforcement, or longer copyright
duration? Never! Legislation reflects neither the will nor priorities of
the majority. People see this happening over and over again, feeling
helpless while watching their rights being eroded away. They are not
organized, have no lobbyists working for them and no money to buy the
politicians with - nor should they need any of that! Their
representatives have failed them.
A tension will always exist in the bargain between consumers and
content creators. Though they draw their raw material from what came
before and belongs to us all, we grant them an exclusive monopoly for a
limited time that they might have incentive to create their
transformative works. The tension arises from the fact that once a work
is released into the collective experience it lives in this strange
quantum state like Schrodinger's cat. It is both a part of our
collective consciousness while at the same time the creator's exclusive
People become impatient after some time passes to claim that work as
their own, since it is now in fact a part of our cultural heritage.
Other creators cannot help but scoop up a piece of that work when they
reach into the collective consciousness to obtain raw material for their
own work, and thus may come into conflict with the original creator.
Calling it a "bargain" made between the consumer and producer would
give the false impression that some kind of direct negotiation needs to
take place. The term's use is metaphorical. There is no such thing in
actuality, as the content producers have no inherent right to negotiate
terms. They only have a take it or leave it proposition. If they like
the terms we set, they will likely take advantage of our offer and be
fruitful, but only the people can decide how much they are willing to
sacrifice for what they hope to receive in return.
In the "bargain" between the copyright holders and us, our
politicians should be representing the people. Instead, they are
representing the copyright owners and giving away the store! For just
one example, in the USA and many other countries, copyright duration has
expanded from the original 14 years to life plus 70 years. With an
average life expectancy of 78 years and a work created at age 28, that
would mean 120 years that work is withheld from the public domain. Do
creators of transformative works require this as an incentive before
they will create their works? Of course not!
To put the rights groups in control is to have the tail wag the dog.
This can only cause people to become upset and act impulsively to the
detriment of all. A civil society depends on respect for the law in
order to function. The only alternative is a police state. When
politicians start representing the special interests groups who fill
their campaign coffers people lose respect for the laws they create and
civil society begins to break down. Political corruption is a very, very
serious issue with far ranging implications.
Copyrights legislation has become an out of control freight train on
a downward grade. The power of the corporate lobbies needs to be curbed
and their voices muted. The people must be heard.
JackDecember 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM
Everyone that is buying into Google's BS attempt to hide the true
facts with their attempt at creating this subterfuge blog (to incite
false fears of freedoms being taken away) - should read the full reply
of attorney general Hood's response to Google's filing of a lawsuit:
JackDecember 20, 2014 at 2:34 PM
This is an excerpt from Attorney General's Hoods statement (from
the link in my previous post). Please read it carefully:
********* We have accomplished much, but more needs to be done.
For example, although search results vary based on time and location,
today if a child types in the query "buy drugs," the first site
populated is silkroad.org, which suggests alternatives for buying drugs.
The second is canadadrugs.com, which is the same website from which my
undercover agents purchased controlled amphetamines without a
prescription in June of 2012. Our investigators used Google's
autocomplete suggestion to find this website not requiring a
prescription. Not only was this website listed in the search results,
but it was also shown in the results margin as an advertiser. In other
words, Google is raking in advertising dollars off of drug dealers, the
same crime that the company was on probation for under a plea agreement
with the federal government and the Rhode Island Attorney General. In
the seven-page Non-Prosecution Agreement Google entered with the U. S.
Department of Justice, Google agreed to pay half a billion dollars in a
fine to avoid a possible felony. ***********
eZee.seDecember 20, 2014 at 2:35 PM
Read it, so much BS I thought I was reading about farming.
This is not going to blow over for the MPAA or Hood anytime
soon, I couldnt be surprised if this wakes up a lot of the activists who
went to sleep after accomplishing the destruction of SOPA.
eZee.seDecember 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM
*wouldn't not couldnt
How does one do an edit here?
JackDecember 20, 2014 at 2:41 PM
Like Google doesn't do any lobbying to get congress to keep the
laws inadequate so they can get away with their crap? Google's spends
millions on lobbying - so it's evil when the MPAA does lobbbying to try
and protect their interests? Did you get the part of Hood's statement
that Google takes advertising dollars from drug dealers?
eZee.seDecember 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM
"Jack", I'm starting to see a pattern here...
Do you, Hood and any people from the MPAA/RIAA (and other affiliated
scumbag organizations) share the same sheet of talking points (like they
were outlined in the leaked Sony documents) if you are leaving a comment
on the internet?
Besides, this is not lobbying...
lobbying is to get your wishlist of laws passed via our standard
democratic procedures (as tried when the MPAA paid their little critters
for SOPA/PIPA etc), this is, at best, bribery of a public official.
JackDecember 20, 2014 at 3:10 PM
Google wielded it's power with congress to make a lot of the laws
controlling these kind of things inadequate. Such as in the USA it's OK
to link to pirated material (as long as it's not hosted on your own
server). This law is a 'very weak link' in the fight against piracy -
and Google essentially wielded it's clout with congress to have the laws
designed in this manner. In other countries such as Spain and the UK
this kind of unscrupulos activity is illegal.
Now why do you think Google prefers these laws to be "lax"? Do you
think it's because they care about your "freedom"? HA!
It's because this kind of activity increases their $$$$ bottom line.
If you believe any thing different than your just being a Google sheep
with the wool pulled over your eyes.
eZee.seDecember 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM
Nice try, but it's actually the other way around.
The MPAA and their elk corrupted overseas governments to pass
those insane laws in Spain/UK.
The web was built on "linking to each other". I sincerely doubt
your made up history of Google "using its clout to have the laws
designed in this manner", but if I am wrong I think my appreciation for
Google would go up at least ten fold!
> Do you think it's because they care about your "freedom"?
While I think Google's "Don't be evil" has eroded a lot from the
time it actually had some meaning,
If given a choice between the MPAA and 99.99999999% of other
companies, I would go with "other companies" simply because of the
number of times the MPAA has shown they are willing to screw everyone
over to get their perverted view of their "vision" stuffed down
The MPAA is to the internet what the Boston strangler is to the
woman home alone. ;)
JackDecember 20, 2014 at 3:52 PM
OK hypothetical here. Why don't you spend your hard earned time
and dollars and create something like movie. (Let's suppose that your
livelihood will depend on sales of this movie). OK now I'll make
arrangements with a bunch of people to download illegal copies of your
movie to shady web hosting companies overseas. Then I'll make an app for
it and sell it for money. Now everyone gets to see your movie for free
so they won't bother paying you for it. And I'll make money for being a
'sleazeball' app developer. Gee I'm glad that your so understanding!
Your really a cool guy in that you don't mind getting ripped off.
And thank you Google "for looking the other way" and letting
sleaze-balls place their apps in your Play Store that do this very
thing. Don't worry Google I'm sure your meeting your so-called 'legal
requirements' that you and your cronies in congress conjured up. And
thank you for your altruistic endeavor to ensure "freedom" for