Ars Technica has also started covering this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/how-hollywood-spurned-by-congress-pressures-states-to-attack-google/

Honestly, indie movies are often just as good as AAA movies so long as you're not a fan of CGI (much like with video games, come to think of it). I've watched some surprisingly good indie movies, and am getting more interested in them as all this comes out.

There is a counter argument to this, one I think you should read. I'm not a fan of Orlowski, he tends to be incredibly biased (as he is here) and generally quite a bitter man. However here he makes some interesting points, and it's worth reading:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/23/googles_driveby_shooting_of_jim_hood_takes_out_key_critic/

Can I hate both google and the MPAA? 'Cause I do.

I'm not a fan of any particular company. I'm a fan of officials-not-being-bribed and criminal-investigations-happening-properly. If any corporation is bribing officials, by all means spread the news!

Also, a big fan of using-taxpayer-money-wisely. US agencies should spend time and money doing their jobs instead of spending my taxes storing cat photos and Facebook posts. I really hope we see criminal investigations out of this, much like Snowden precipitated investigations of government abuses. People are quite obviously breaking laws and hoping to get away with it. It's terrible that they have for so long.

What was your opinion of the article I posted to the contrary (of those you posted)?

It's an interesting situation where there are such powerful orgainisations involved, it would seem that there's corruption everywhere. As StingingVelvet says (paraphrased), can't we just hate them both.

First off - there's not really any 'contrary' here. One group bribing officials doesn't preclude another group bribing officials.

Random aside: It would be great if corruption worked like MMO mobs or something, so only one person could get it at a time. I'm LOLing just thinking about it. BS (bribe-steal)ers would be hugely unpopular. :D

OK, back to being (more) serious:
If there's actual evidence of Google bribing people - and I have to say, the obvious prejudiced ranting in that article was really hard to wade through - it should be reported and a neutral investigation started.

But that article does not, as far as I can tell, provide proof of Google breaking the law in nearly the same way Sony and MPAA emails do. The author glues a bunch of events together with lofty sounding rhetoric out of obvious bitterness and perhaps some paranoia. It's all correlation, no causation, and there are obvious huge gaps in his story.

There are several points where his rhetoric makes me seriously doubt his understanding of the US legal system and obscures his point. His language alone is enough for me to discount him as a neutral or reliable reporter.

The second page is better, and has some actual facts - that other people published. Interesting, but there's no smoking gun here.

The 3rd page breaks down again into foil-clothing time. His brief rant about the book publisher price-fixing case is flat out wrong. I followed that pretty closely, and it was clear and undeniable that the publishers were price-fixing. They admitted it themselves in emails, as did Apple. His claim that it's all part of a government conspiracy in favor of 'Big Tech' is a bit - um - tin hattish. And makes me wonder how much he really is following or understands of the current Sony reporting, if he couldn't even get the facts of an older and very well-reported case right.

He also mentions the DOJ issuing an apology to Google for Hood and dismisses it with conspiracy theorist rhetoric. The DOJ is one of the more hardnosed agencies - he should have either not brought that up, or he should have provided a better explanation for what happened then 'POLITICS CORRUPTION MY TIN FOIL HAT'. It seriously weakens his case to brush by that. If there was some real reason to suspect it was motivated by corruption, he should discuss that.

Maybe he's not as much of a biased loon as he appears, but taking that article as-is, he very much comes across as someone who's letting his agenda get in the way of his reporting. He's putting (probably) actual events together in unexplained ways and relying on his rhetoric to take the place of missing links between them. At some points he demonstrates clear misunderstanding of recent legal history.

Corporation and government agencies routinely misunderstand each other, sometimes probably deliberately on both sides, to meet business goals and score political points. It's not ever clear that everything he's talking about is connected at all, and he never works to establish why he thinks they are. It's all just 'Corporations are EEEVIL. Google has money! And had legal problems! Then there was a miscommunication! I disagree with other articles! Google should lose money! ARGH RAGE CONSPIRACY." The few actual interesting facts are brushed by quickly or drowned in wacky rhetoric.

Please do post your feelings as a comment against that article, it's unusual for that author to allow comments, so let fly when he does.

I was posting that link in the interest of unbiased argument, in the sense that the previous articles linked were blatantly biased to the contrary. He is clearly biased in that Google are wrong and evil (I don't think he minds being biased, unbiased reporting is not necessarily wrong).

As for the deeper story, I'm still with hate them both, but I'm still not sure you've got a smoking gun against Hood. Just a load of emails saying they want him on board.

"During the SOPA hysteria...." and that rag loses what little credibility it ever had right there. I read SOPA. I even read it's worse replacement, PIPA. And CISPA. And ACTA. It/they was/were a travesty of (a) proposal(s). Hollywood/MPAA has already forced the UK to legislate in their favour. It's started with "torrent" sites of which not all are hosting "illegal" content. What are they going for next? Proxies and TOR equivalents.

The *ONLY* thing these proposals would do would be to punish legitimate users (kinda like DRM. No *EXACTLY* like DRM). That a foreign corporation is dictating to Westminster what should or shouldn't be illegal should have you very worried. It worries me.

Smoking gun against Hood? Maybe, but who cares at this stage - an investigation will sort that out.

Smoking gun against MPAA and members? Yeah, I think we've got that. Bribing someone doesn't mean they have to stay bought - whether or not someone actually did what they were bribed to do is irrelevant to the crime afaik. Also, intent matters with bribery laws - several small bribes are just as bad or worse than a single large bribe.

I think there's definitely enough to start an investigation.