Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

SydShamino writes In an effort that may run afoul of the first amendment, Sony, through their lawyer David Boies (of SCO infamy), has sent a letter to major news organizations demanding that they refrain from downloading any leaked documents, and destroy those already possessed. Sony threatens legal action to news organizations that do not comply, saying that "Sony Pictures Entertainment will have no choice but to hold you responsible for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by you."

Comments

First amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]In an effort that may run afoul of the first amendment,[/quote]
First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.

Here's a very good explanation - http://www.xkcd.com/1357/

Re:First amendment?

[Em Adespoton]

You're an idiot. The first amendment ensures the freedom of the press.

Sony can't (successfully) sue them for breaking into their servers because they weren't the ones who did that (even then they'd have a hard time - look at what Murdoch gets away with).
Sony can't (successfully) sue them for libel / slander / defamation / damages because all of the shit leaked is true and no member of the press was under contract to not release that information.
Sony can't (successfully) sue for whatever else you can dream up, because that would be the government enforcing some law restricting the press from doing their job as the press, a clear violation of the first amendment.

The press hasn't done anything to Sony aside from reveal the truth.
Until you find the press has been actively hacking Sony, or has been trespassing on their property, or has been torturing Sony employees for info, or has been engaged in other such crimes in pursuit of this story, the press is free and clear.

Finding and disseminating truth is the press's job. This is exactly what the first amendment is designed to protect.

...and this is likely why, despite having their own large legal team, Sony Pictures hired David Boies to run this show. The aim is probably not to actually successfully sue anyone, but to spread FUD and create a chilling effect to limit what gets reported.

Re: First amendment?

[Registered Coward v2]

Umm, no it does not, from the article:

Petitioners filed suit under both federal and state wiretapping laws, alleging that an unknown person using an electronic device had surreptitiously intercepted their telephone conversation.

This was about a lawsuit not a criminal case. Maybe you should actually read the finding before making false statements.

True. The question I would ask is "Are the leaked documents covering a matter of public concern?" In other words, is there a public interest served by publishing Sony's private internal documents or does Sony's right to privacy prevail?

Re: First amendment?

[RavenLrD20k]

And if the data shows that Sony had a major issue with one of their projects that should have led to a recall of millions of defective units that lie in consumer's homes... where does that lie morally? Say hypothetically a certain batch of batteries were discovered to erupt horribly covering anything in a 50 yard radius in vile battery acid after a period of about 3 years...and customers are coming up on 2 years 11 months of ownership and Sony had no plans of releasing this problem to the public? Wouldn't the public news outlets be morally obligated to release this information in the interest of serving the public trust? Personally, I think if a news outlet has this info, they really need to pour through it carefully to ensure there's nothing "against the public trust," and destroy the rest...of course, since when has the news companies ever performed responsibly and morally when left to their own devices?

Re:First amendment?

[cyberchondriac]

How are Sony's private memos, emails, and employee information a "matter of public importance" ??
So, when J-Law's photos are leaked, or juicy Sony private emails are leaked, those leaks are to be protected under the first amendment-?, but if the NSA does it in the context of looking for matters that actually *are* of public importance (possible criminal activity, technically), suddenly these same people scream about their privacy being violated.
This seems rather hypocritical.
1) Either nothing is private, or
2) Everything is private unless the owning party wishes it distributed or is under criminal investigation.

Personally I prefer the latter.

I don't think this is how it works

[grilled-cheese]

If Nixon could have just asked everyone to destroy the recordings, we might have been able to avoid watergate too.

If Sony keeps doing it

[Trachman]

If Sony keeps doing it, their documents will be forever alive in the form of magnet links, formerly torrent file sharing technology.

They do have the the army of trained lawyers to harass mass audiences, except that newspapers have seen much badder boys coming to them with the threats.

Now, assuming Sony documents will survive, will be available for everyone, and will be commented, how exactly SONY will know which newspaper has caused an actual harm?

I think that their litigation budget will be fully depleted for several years in the future.

summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, no"

[xeno]

Mod parent up! (crap, I had points left yesterday.... :)

Parent makes the important point: There's existing SCOTUS case law for this, and Sony's legal-ish threats and demand for press et al to refrain from looking at embarrassing things wouldn't stand up in a stiff breeze, much less in a lower court.

Frankly I'm kind of surprised to see a relatively experienced lawyer such as Boies make a demand like this, even if he is a distinguished douchebag. Usually lawyers like him are concerned about appearances, and making laughable demands that evoke a Streisand effect is bad for business.

Re:Looking for torrents

[tombeard]

Per someone else:

To summarize, current releases with magnet links:

SPE_01 spe_01 torrent

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:sv64bkae5ogcqlzttchlscljot6doyoj&dn=spe_01&xl=27781197608&fc=26

SPE_02 spe_02 torrent

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:zd2jsaiuy3ojnlyy62hqyzyknykbfgfg&dn=spe02&xl=1204595322&fc=14

SPE_03 spe_03 torrent

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:qgl7mmtyd24bqbn7xzqbru5razwcmy34&dn=spe_03.zip&xl=304538&fc=1

SPE_04 spe_04 torrent

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:wjrqsfr2pgsohgawapakf22sleow5ns3&dn=spe_04.zip&xl=53930&fc=1

SPE_05 spe_05 torrent

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:ndwvmnh25wsmrjhqrep6lb5eq5uh4otq&dn=spe_05&xl=5368709120&fc=5

SPE_06 spe_06 torrent

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:mupkaz36jd5sbph6g4jg7kbp7r7ybwcb&dn=sony06.rar&xl=1054216724&fc=1

SPE_03 and SPE_04 are torrents to zip files of torrents, as the original zips have been pulled from every file host I checked.

Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt,

[Theaetetus]

Mod parent up! (crap, I had points left yesterday.... :)

Parent makes the important point: There's existing SCOTUS case law for this, and Sony's legal-ish threats and demand for press et al to refrain from looking at embarrassing things wouldn't stand up in a stiff breeze, much less in a lower court.

Frankly I'm kind of surprised to see a relatively experienced lawyer such as Boies make a demand like this, even if he is a distinguished douchebag. Usually lawyers like him are concerned about appearances, and making laughable demands that evoke a Streisand effect is bad for business.

Unfortunately, parent is incorrect regarding the SCOTUS case law. Not the AC's fault, though - Eugene Volokh's quoted in the article and makes the same mistake. The case law refers specifically to publishing (actually re-playing) an illegally intercepted phone conversation on a matter of great public interest (specifically public teachers union negotiations with the school board). It explicitly says that its holding doesn't apply to trade secrets, private matters, or gossip... and what's the issue here? Trade secrets, private matters, and gossip.

Boies may be a douchebag, but he's a douchebag who actively practices law and apparently reads the cases in full, unlike the good Professor Volokh, who has never actually practiced.