[NicoJuicy]

I'm actually wondering how illegal this is? This is trying to influence the stock market and attacking 1 company without "legal" jurification. They are trying to hurt Google's through stock, this IS actually the same as stealing/taking away a billion $ (stockvalue) ... (that should be illegal, isn't it?)

They obviously failed before execution, but that shouldn't matter...

Does anyone know if Google can use this information in court for a lawsuit against MPAA?

[bkmartin]

Why isn't the AG being indicted by the DOJ for this garbage? That is what I want to know. This is the kind of thing that should put someone behind bars and end a political career. Hood has obviously let his power go to his head. The MPAA is a well documented piece of garbage, but the Hood revelation is really where things get scary.

[ohitsdom]

How does he justify being the MPAA's attack dog? Is there a significant movie industry in Mississippi that I am unaware of? If I lived in MS, I'd be pissed and demand answers from this guy. Using tax payer money with no benefit to his state.

[mindslight]

Most likely local film production was dangled in front of them. Hollywood is masterful at extracting concessions from distant bumpkins who can't resist the siren song of "as seen on TV" glamor.

[forgetsusername]

>this IS actually the same as stealing/taking away a billion $ (stockvalue)

Although it will probably go precisely nowhere, this is an interesting point. This sort of attack goes beyond a "character" attack on the company. Indeed, Google isn't directly affected by a drop in stock price; but as a Google shareholder, I am.

How is that fair or remotely acceptable? I suppose that's the purpose, and it's despicable. Once the political support for the MPAA ends, they'll have nothing left.

[Lawtonfogle]

Perhaps it is acceptable for the same way legal character attacks on individuals are acceptable. If you spread true and public information that results in financial harm for a person such as causing the loss of their job, are you responsible for the damages?

Say that you were once charged with some awful crime. I mean really really bad crime. A little later the police noticed it was actually forgotsusername who they were after, and you were let go and even given a public statement that it wasn't you. But say I pulled up the records of you originally being charged and put them up on a billboard. Let's say I even showed the part where you were let go. But the crime is so horrible, and some people are so jumpy and so strongly believe in the 'where there is smoke there must be fire' line of thinking that your employer decides you are just too much of a liability. Would you have a case against me?

(Granted this might depend purely upon local laws where you live, so maybe the question should be: should you have a case against me?)

[brlewis]

Does anyone know if Google can use this information in court for a lawsuit against MPAA?

Yes. According to the article it's in a court filing. I presume for the following lawsuit:

http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_jimhood_dec...

[rwhitman]

I once knew a guy who was sent to jail for insider trading in the 80's for manipulating stocks as a WSJ writer. It was a big deal at the time.

Publishing an editorial in the WSJ with the intention of manipulating a company's stock price certainly feels like it should fall under the same category..

[JupiterMoon]

It is probably covered by defamation of character law (it would be in the UK at least) or by malicious litigation law.

[pascalmemories]

Despite Tony Blair pushing through changes to allow corporate bodies to use defamation laws, it's still pretty rare and an uphill struggle. The McLibel case showed how dangerous it is for a company to resort to that sort of litigation.

They spent millions, had an array of hilarious 'mom & apple pie' witnesses flown in from the US and managed to lose on many points (but not all) and were left with a useless judgment which they can never collect on as they were stupid enough to sue two people with no assets or any prospect of having any.

They did however, become a laughing stock in the legal world and have an array of TV programs and plays, mocking them mercilessly. Plus some of the, till then, unproven, claims of disgusting practice ended up being proven and therefore repeatable without risk - which was not the case beforehand.

Defamation actions are never a good way to go. Even winning one does not generally help you much.

[JupiterMoon]

I thought that companies were legal persons in English law? And if they can prove actual damages then they can sue for libel? As always IANAL

I'd agree that McLibel didn't play out that well for them - however here we're talking one massive company vs another. McLibel was not even close to the same thing as e.g. Google vs. the MPAA would be.

Anyway my main point was laws already exist to protect companies from malicious communications.

[caskance]

Hollywood is not in the UK. In the US, true statements are not defamation. There is plenty of damage Hollywood could do to Google purely by telling the truth.

[JupiterMoon]

Well in the UK true statements are not defamation either (as of a change in legislation last year).

My point is more that if Hollywood were lying about Google then Google would have legal recourse. If they are not then Google will just have to suck it up.