6 ms·

Google takes legal action against Mississippi State Attorney General

113 points by foolrush 12y ago

gknoy 12y ago
More details (linked from the article): Google's "Stop Zombie SOPA" page https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/s/stop-zombie-sopa https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/s/stop-zombie-sopa Google's blog on the matter, explaining backstory: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-attempt-to-revive-sopa.html http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-att...
ganeumann 12y ago
Would love to know what the people of Mississippi think about their AG spending tax dollars on something that will not benefit them in any way.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  Well, I'm from Mississippi and I'm ambivalent about it because for the most part, Jim Hood has been an excellent AG and the only state-level politician (besides Mike Chaney) worth a damn and has consistently pursued cases and policies that definitely helped us. Obviously this is not at all clear-cut - I do have a problem with people selling unregulated prescription drugs online and that's part of the reason he's doing this (it's not only about movie piracy), but I'm doubtful that going after Google is the best way to go about it.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > Obviously this is not at all clear-cut - I do have a problem with people selling unregulated prescription drugs online Why? Disclaimer: I'm biased. My doctor would not prescribe me an extremely safe anti-parasitic that is in no way DEA controlled, and I had to do the research myself and had buy it from an "online pharmacy" to have my issue resolved (which was cheaper, might I add, than what my local pharmacy was charging).
    - pionar 12y ago
      >My doctor would not prescribe me an extremely safe anti-parasitic that is in no way DEA controlled, and I had to do the research myself and had buy it from an "online pharmacy" to have my issue resolved Sounds like you have a terrible doctor, and should find a new one.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Easier said then done. I don't need a doctor. I need authority over my own health. Put whatever waiver you want in front of me.
        holdenk 12y ago
        For better or worse, the system isn't really set up for that. Under the current system you might want to look for a doctor that believes in "informed consent" and "harm reduction".
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      Separate issue. The oppressiveness of requiring a doctor to sign off on your personal decisions is not the same as making sure pharma companies are actually producing the right drugs.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        So you agree with me that prescription drugs should be permitted to be sold online as long as there are quality controls in place? EDIT: Because the problem isn't QC (although that's what its disguised as). The problem is that every other first world country has price controls, so pharma rapes the one economy that allows them to, the USA. Region locking DVDs? Hilarious. Region locking life critical drugs? I don't have words for that level of evil and greed.
        MichaelGG 12y ago
        Yes, people should be able to make their own medication decisions. There may need to be a set of waivers or mandatory education classes, perhaps an interview to make sure the person isn't buying it in a misguided fashion (to help prevent quacks from getting people to harm themselves), but ultimately anyone should be able to buy and use what they want. It's embarrassing that drug control laws exist, even moreso for non-scheduled but rx-only stuff (like Allegra used to be). But QC is a major problem[1]. Even the FDA is not doing a great job, as that article exposes. I used to be very pro-generics, now I double check what I'm buying and where it's manufactured. Now that might not be the driving force, as you point out, but QC is still a problem and ideally there should be some sort of end-to-end guarantees so users can determine that a specific box of product is safe. And punishments need to be extreme to avoid companies like Ranbaxy (now Sun Pharma) from simply skipping the whole QC-and-actually-making-medicine step. http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/ http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/
  - No1 12y ago
    unregulated prescription drugs You realize if the drug requires a prescription, then it's regulated?
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    I do have a problem with people selling unregulated prescription drugs online I don't get this mindset. If you don't like unregulated prescription drugs, don't buy them. OTOH, if I'm willing to gamble with my health by taking drugs I buy online...well, its my body, I can put whatever I want into it. Now, somebody bring up antibiotic resistant bacteria as the BigGov argument. Sorry, but that doesn't hold water with me. I don't find it moral to prevent somebody from doing something today, because $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING might happen tomorrow.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      I agree with this: "well, its my body" but not with this: "I don't find it moral to prevent somebody from doing something today, because $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING might happen tomorrow" Let me start with an extreme example: You can't go around setting up landmines. We prevent people from doing something today because hypothetical bad things might happen. I think that the implication of your argument is that for antibiotics, the $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING is less bad and less likely than the extreme example of landmines, but I think you need to make that point. How much danger can you put other people in in the future before it becomes unacceptable?
      - Teckla 12y ago
        I agree with this: "well, its my body" but not with this: "I don't find it moral to prevent somebody from doing something today, because $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING might happen tomorrow" You do realize that in many, many countries, you can buy antibiotics over the counter, right? Nearby countries like Mexico, and far away countries like India (with a huge population)? And that people are buying them and using them constantly? Sure, there's the risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria developing, but the U.S. isn't going to stop that from happening no matter how difficult they make it for people to buy and use the drugs they need. I'm starting to lose patience with people trying to take away the right of other people to control their own body. And it's not just antibiotics. Things like prescription drugs being essentially purposefully laced with poison (acetaminophen) to prevent people from "abusing" them and other drugs like cannabis being illegal is utterly ridiculous. If we don't own our own bodies, what do we get to own?
- joezydeco 12y ago
  It might not have been the Mississippi tax dollars being spent here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141212/12142629419/leaked-emails-reveal-mpaa-plans-to-pay-elected-officials-to-attack-google.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141212/12142629419/leake... It's looking like the MPAA was funneling money to the state AGs to assist in their fight against Google. This is what Google wants uncovered during the lawsuit.
- hga 12y ago
  Here's the game AG Hood is playing, the old fashioned shakedown, except apparently AG offices don't usually front the money: In no place has the contingency-fee practice flourished more than in Mississippi, where lawyers hired by Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, have collected $57.5 million in fees during the last two years — three times as much as Mr. Hood has spent on running his state office during the same period. Mr. Hood has taken in $395,000 in campaign contributions from trial law firms over the last decade, more than any other attorney general. It then goes into specifics. From "Lawyers Create Big Paydays by Coaxing Attorneys General to Sue" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create-big-paydays-by-coaxing-attorneys-general-to-sue-.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create...
Zigurd 12y ago
> "We regret having to take this matter to court," Google said in a statement, "and we are doing so only after years of efforts... If by regret they mean "peed ourselves laughing" then yeah.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I'd never be able to write that and mean it.
  - hga 12y ago
    I know Zigurd and I'm sure he meant it. In this case I think he's wrong, but he's honest, and has a certain flair of which this is a rather earthy example. He's of Latvian descent, I think it's allowed ^_^.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I was agreeing with him. I read "regret" but think "gleeful childlike joy."
      - hga 12y ago
        Ah; since I think regret is likely, and certainly plausible, I didn't read it that way. As I understand it, in part from helping with litigation support in my '90s document imaging days, plaintiffs and defendants don't like lawsuits, and the wise try very hard to avoid them. Taking on a state attorney general, and the Hollywood-Political Complex, is not likely to be fun, and could get very ugly. Google certainly didn't initiate these fights.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Ah; since I think regret is likely, and certainly plausible, I didn't read it that way. I'd have to agree -- Google almost certainly does regret taking this to court (because they have had to, however, they almost certainly intend to make Hood regret it more.)
BerislavLopac 12y ago
And this, my friends, is the primary reason why Google bought YouTube.
- ronilan 12y ago
  That was most definitely "a" reason but also most likely not "the" reason. Also, the primary reason of a journey may be a route to India, but the result may be a whole other country.
  - BerislavLopac 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure that was the primary reason, especially for the sum they paid, which was pretty unheard of at the time for such a young company. YouTube's market share was an added bonus, but it was definitely not something Google couldn't beat given some time and the money they had. But the fact that YouTube was the obvious target for all the litigations that were certain to come -- and outcome of which would also affect Google Videos and all other video streaming companies -- was a pretty big incentive for Google to get involved and make sure that they have a say in the control over the legal game.
biomimic 12y ago
One of the reasons why the MPAA/Sony emails leaked.
- geekam 12y ago
  I am not sure if I get the reference or the story. Are you saying that Google leaked those emails somehow?
r109 12y ago
Why doesn't MPAA take the millions of dollars they poor into anti-piracy and give us all a Netflix of movies? Oh wait, AMC and Regal Cinema wouldn't like that.

113 points by foolrush 12y ago

gknoy 12y ago

More details (linked from the article): Google's "Stop Zombie SOPA" page https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/s/stop-zombie-sopa https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/s/stop-zombie-sopa Google's blog on the matter, explaining backstory: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-attempt-to-revive-sopa.html http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-att...

ganeumann 12y ago

Would love to know what the people of Mississippi think about their AG spending tax dollars on something that will not benefit them in any way.

Amezarak 12y ago
Well, I'm from Mississippi and I'm ambivalent about it because for the most part, Jim Hood has been an excellent AG and the only state-level politician (besides Mike Chaney) worth a damn and has consistently pursued cases and policies that definitely helped us. Obviously this is not at all clear-cut - I do have a problem with people selling unregulated prescription drugs online and that's part of the reason he's doing this (it's not only about movie piracy), but I'm doubtful that going after Google is the best way to go about it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > Obviously this is not at all clear-cut - I do have a problem with people selling unregulated prescription drugs online Why? Disclaimer: I'm biased. My doctor would not prescribe me an extremely safe anti-parasitic that is in no way DEA controlled, and I had to do the research myself and had buy it from an "online pharmacy" to have my issue resolved (which was cheaper, might I add, than what my local pharmacy was charging).
  - pionar 12y ago
    >My doctor would not prescribe me an extremely safe anti-parasitic that is in no way DEA controlled, and I had to do the research myself and had buy it from an "online pharmacy" to have my issue resolved Sounds like you have a terrible doctor, and should find a new one.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Easier said then done. I don't need a doctor. I need authority over my own health. Put whatever waiver you want in front of me.
      - holdenk 12y ago
        For better or worse, the system isn't really set up for that. Under the current system you might want to look for a doctor that believes in "informed consent" and "harm reduction".
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Separate issue. The oppressiveness of requiring a doctor to sign off on your personal decisions is not the same as making sure pharma companies are actually producing the right drugs.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      So you agree with me that prescription drugs should be permitted to be sold online as long as there are quality controls in place? EDIT: Because the problem isn't QC (although that's what its disguised as). The problem is that every other first world country has price controls, so pharma rapes the one economy that allows them to, the USA. Region locking DVDs? Hilarious. Region locking life critical drugs? I don't have words for that level of evil and greed.
      - MichaelGG 12y ago
        Yes, people should be able to make their own medication decisions. There may need to be a set of waivers or mandatory education classes, perhaps an interview to make sure the person isn't buying it in a misguided fashion (to help prevent quacks from getting people to harm themselves), but ultimately anyone should be able to buy and use what they want. It's embarrassing that drug control laws exist, even moreso for non-scheduled but rx-only stuff (like Allegra used to be). But QC is a major problem[1]. Even the FDA is not doing a great job, as that article exposes. I used to be very pro-generics, now I double check what I'm buying and where it's manufactured. Now that might not be the driving force, as you point out, but QC is still a problem and ideally there should be some sort of end-to-end guarantees so users can determine that a specific box of product is safe. And punishments need to be extreme to avoid companies like Ranbaxy (now Sun Pharma) from simply skipping the whole QC-and-actually-making-medicine step. http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/ http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/
- No1 12y ago
  unregulated prescription drugs You realize if the drug requires a prescription, then it's regulated?
- mindcrime 12y ago
  I do have a problem with people selling unregulated prescription drugs online I don't get this mindset. If you don't like unregulated prescription drugs, don't buy them. OTOH, if I'm willing to gamble with my health by taking drugs I buy online...well, its my body, I can put whatever I want into it. Now, somebody bring up antibiotic resistant bacteria as the BigGov argument. Sorry, but that doesn't hold water with me. I don't find it moral to prevent somebody from doing something today, because $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING might happen tomorrow.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I agree with this: "well, its my body" but not with this: "I don't find it moral to prevent somebody from doing something today, because $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING might happen tomorrow" Let me start with an extreme example: You can't go around setting up landmines. We prevent people from doing something today because hypothetical bad things might happen. I think that the implication of your argument is that for antibiotics, the $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING is less bad and less likely than the extreme example of landmines, but I think you need to make that point. How much danger can you put other people in in the future before it becomes unacceptable?
    - Teckla 12y ago
      I agree with this: "well, its my body" but not with this: "I don't find it moral to prevent somebody from doing something today, because $HYPOTHETICAL_BAD_THING might happen tomorrow" You do realize that in many, many countries, you can buy antibiotics over the counter, right? Nearby countries like Mexico, and far away countries like India (with a huge population)? And that people are buying them and using them constantly? Sure, there's the risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria developing, but the U.S. isn't going to stop that from happening no matter how difficult they make it for people to buy and use the drugs they need. I'm starting to lose patience with people trying to take away the right of other people to control their own body. And it's not just antibiotics. Things like prescription drugs being essentially purposefully laced with poison (acetaminophen) to prevent people from "abusing" them and other drugs like cannabis being illegal is utterly ridiculous. If we don't own our own bodies, what do we get to own?
joezydeco 12y ago
It might not have been the Mississippi tax dollars being spent here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141212/12142629419/leaked-emails-reveal-mpaa-plans-to-pay-elected-officials-to-attack-google.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141212/12142629419/leake... It's looking like the MPAA was funneling money to the state AGs to assist in their fight against Google. This is what Google wants uncovered during the lawsuit.
hga 12y ago
Here's the game AG Hood is playing, the old fashioned shakedown, except apparently AG offices don't usually front the money: In no place has the contingency-fee practice flourished more than in Mississippi, where lawyers hired by Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, have collected $57.5 million in fees during the last two years — three times as much as Mr. Hood has spent on running his state office during the same period. Mr. Hood has taken in $395,000 in campaign contributions from trial law firms over the last decade, more than any other attorney general. It then goes into specifics. From "Lawyers Create Big Paydays by Coaxing Attorneys General to Sue" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create-big-paydays-by-coaxing-attorneys-general-to-sue-.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create...

Zigurd 12y ago

> "We regret having to take this matter to court," Google said in a statement, "and we are doing so only after years of efforts... If by regret they mean "peed ourselves laughing" then yeah.

rayiner 12y ago
I'd never be able to write that and mean it.
- hga 12y ago
  I know Zigurd and I'm sure he meant it. In this case I think he's wrong, but he's honest, and has a certain flair of which this is a rather earthy example. He's of Latvian descent, I think it's allowed ^_^.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I was agreeing with him. I read "regret" but think "gleeful childlike joy."
    - hga 12y ago
      Ah; since I think regret is likely, and certainly plausible, I didn't read it that way. As I understand it, in part from helping with litigation support in my '90s document imaging days, plaintiffs and defendants don't like lawsuits, and the wise try very hard to avoid them. Taking on a state attorney general, and the Hollywood-Political Complex, is not likely to be fun, and could get very ugly. Google certainly didn't initiate these fights.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Ah; since I think regret is likely, and certainly plausible, I didn't read it that way. I'd have to agree -- Google almost certainly does regret taking this to court (because they have had to, however, they almost certainly intend to make Hood regret it more.)

BerislavLopac 12y ago

And this, my friends, is the primary reason why Google bought YouTube.

ronilan 12y ago
That was most definitely "a" reason but also most likely not "the" reason. Also, the primary reason of a journey may be a route to India, but the result may be a whole other country.
- BerislavLopac 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure that was the primary reason, especially for the sum they paid, which was pretty unheard of at the time for such a young company. YouTube's market share was an added bonus, but it was definitely not something Google couldn't beat given some time and the money they had. But the fact that YouTube was the obvious target for all the litigations that were certain to come -- and outcome of which would also affect Google Videos and all other video streaming companies -- was a pretty big incentive for Google to get involved and make sure that they have a say in the control over the legal game.

biomimic 12y ago

One of the reasons why the MPAA/Sony emails leaked.

geekam 12y ago
I am not sure if I get the reference or the story. Are you saying that Google leaked those emails somehow?

r109 12y ago

Why doesn't MPAA take the millions of dollars they poor into anti-piracy and give us all a Netflix of movies? Oh wait, AMC and Regal Cinema wouldn't like that.