How so?
In this particular case it's pretty clear the MPAA and the AG were both out of bounds. Why would the AG, the top lawyer for the state government (and supposedly for the people), need to help the MPAA with a smear campaign? According to Google, AG Hood's office supplied a proposal to the MPAA [2] with an editorial suggesting slumping stock prices, media segments in collaboration with the AG, regulatory lawsuits...
This is a conscious, targeted attack against Google because Hollywood didn't get its way. The project was even codenamed "Project Goliath" (related to the MPAA & affiliates, not the AG) [3].
Google has the resources, capability and will to vigorously defend itself where others may have not.
[1] https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/ [2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath
Is this not fraudulent?
At least the article makes it sound like the stock manipulation is ancillary to Google's offense.
Secondly, that seems to be a plan and not something that was actually done. Still illegal, but nothing where they could say "they harmed us, they have to pay us".
The other aspect might be that a separate legal win is not what Google is after with that specific document. It is already part of a court proceeding and shall help Google counter the subpoena and further actions against Google by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, if I get the context right. To destroy those actions (and that man's career) would be a huge win for Google, going after specific individuals for stock price manipulation not. If I understand that right, that is something the state would have to do on its own anyway, in a normal criminal investigation, which would have to start now automatically.
The proposal was actually for an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google’s stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs
Since it is an editorial, one can pretty easily make the case that a sustained attack on a company by the AGs will have a negative effect on that companies stock price.
I don't like it, but if there is a legal challenge here it won't be on those grounds.
Not to mention Google is by now a pretty deft political player.
I don't see this as being slam-dunk for either side.
you have no idea how PR works...
If the MPAA tries to put a "face" on this by pulling in celebrities, that could equally backfire if other celebrities come out against it.
> for Angelina Jolie to adopt a dozen new kids
So the MPAA tells Angelina Jolie how many kids to adopt now? Did the order come directly from the Illuminati or The Bilderberg Group?
It's a stretch, but one could imagine google's competitors piling on as well.
So, will people side with Google Lawyers, or Notoriously-Shady-Film-Studio Lawyers?
Truth be told, it really depends on which side has more control over the narrative in the media.
Nobody doing it: no loss to the studios.
Even without knowing exactly, precisely how many people int he USA are torrenting and pirating, the studios seem to think it's a Great Big Deal, and are willing to splash out a lot of cash, and a lot of good will to get torrenting stopped. That would seem to indicate that the US population that cares about torrents is actually pretty large.