[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?)