Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Posted by samzenpus on from the do-not-share dept.

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."

55 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Rootkit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What are they going to do, install a rootkit on my computer to prevent me from downloading stuff? Who thinks up this stuff?

  2. First amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [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/

    1. Re:First amendment? by jvp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.

      I'm glad someone posted this before I did. This most definitely has zilch to do with Amendment #1. I'll bet money that any of Sony's documents and emails had all sorts of disclaimers added to them. It's those disclaimers that Sony will use to sue press organizations into oblivion if they dare print any of it.

      While I'm no fan of Sony, I don't really see this ending well for the press.

      --
      Jason Van Patten
    2. Re:First amendment? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      ...and just who is going to enforce any action against the parties that Sony wants to stop here?

      Without the government, none of Sony's threats have any teeth.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:First amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Eh - sorry, but you're way off base. It is protected, and by the first amendment.

      http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_1687

      Question:
      Does the First Amendment provide protection to speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication?

      Answer:
      Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by parties who did not participate in the illegal interception. "In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance," wrote Justice Stevens.

    4. Re:First amendment? by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 2

      Actually, it could tie into the First Amendment. They point out that it's a journalism issue. This would be closely related to issues that journalists deal with when protecting sources. While that doesn't always work, the idea is that the press needs a certain amount of latitude in being able to protect their sources or have access to material that, for various reasons, may not be printable without consequences.

      But, since the internet is an international object, something else comes into play here. In college I had a chance to meet and talk with Howard Morland, who was, at the time, semi-famous for having (inaccurately, it turned out later) figured out the linking mechanism between how an atom bomb triggered a hydrogen bomb. He had travelled around the country, doing different interviews and talking with people to figure out more about this. At the time, of course, it was all top secret. He wrote an article for a magazine called "The Progressive." Unwisely, the editors at "The Progressive" sent the article into the DoE for verification. All sorts of men in black with guns showed up and there was a huge court case. The design, which had been worked out from completely non-classified material, was given a classified status and was censored.

      There was, however, one copy of the paper that had not been confiscated by the government and was with someone who, at the time, was travelling internationally. This person got it to a publication that was able to print it in their country. Once that information was published and openly available, even if it wasn't in the U.S. (and I think copies were sent into the U.S.), it became public knowledge and was no longer classified. (For details, read "The Secret that Exploded," by Howard Morland.)

      So Sony may try going after Americans with that information, but once the documents become published and public knowledge, they can't really do too much about it.

    5. Re:First amendment? by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:First amendment? by shaitand · · Score: 2

      The question is whether those little notices actually have teeth at all let alone are binding against third parties.

      For example, if I send an email after hours to friend regarding plans for watching the game, that notice gets attached but I and not my employer own the copyright on the contents of that email. Similarly a company will include that on outbound emails but has no basis for asserting ownership of a conversation that includes another party. If you have two companies like this involved both will be asserting ownership of everything with each and every reply.

      The only thing similar I've heard actually carrying water is attempts to utilize employee leaks in court cases against the employer. You can't do that whether there are notices or not and I know that is upheld by the courts. It's a terrible miscarriage of justice but it does hold.

    7. Re:First amendment? by TWX · · Score: 2

      I can picture it now, a raiding party of Sony Asimos running in to disrupt a national television broadcast, wielding guns that look like video game light guns but with gigawatt lasers, blasting-away at the crew, press researchers, and on-air talent, vaporizing heads on-contact and splurting blood everywhere...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re: First amendment? by thaylin · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    9. Re:First amendment? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Well, when a newspaper publishes something, that has everything to do with the First Amendment.

      I'll bet money that any of Sony's documents and emails had all sorts of disclaimers added to them.

      Sony can add all the legal disclaimers it wants to its docs. None of them are legally binding on anyone who hasn't agreed to them in writing.

      No more than the following:

      Anyone reading the above comment is liable to send CrimsonAvenger $100 Canadian. Please contact CrimsonAvenger for the address the money is to be mailed to. Cash only, no checks.

      Oh, and if each bill's serial number does not include the sequence "1235", you are hereby liable for an extra $20 Canadian. Same rules about the serial numbers.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:First amendment? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re: First amendment? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    12. Re: First amendment? by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
      Legality aside, what would be the "moral" thing to do. The data was taken 'wrongfully', and belongs to Sony. So, morally it seems the correct thing to do would be destroy the data.

      Just because you can do something does not mean you should.

    13. Re:First amendment? by MadCow42 · · Score: 2

      Crap. Ok, what's your address? And is that $100 Canadian, or $100 Canadian Tire?

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    14. Re:First amendment? by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 2

      If that were possible, Fox "News" would have ceased to exist long ago.

      --
      Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    15. Re:First amendment? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Just one? You might want to go read up on yellow journalism. From the 1800s.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re: First amendment? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    17. Re:First amendment? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    18. Re:First amendment? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Former news reporter here.

      This why news outlets sometimes issue updates, corrections, or even retractions--because it's not a perfect world, and the folks who work in the news media are no more omniscient than you are.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re: First amendment? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, I think most "news companies" (using that term loosely) would be more likely to report "Leaked Documents Show Sony Executive Called RISING_STAR_NUMBER_17 Some Bad Names" rather than "Leaked Documents Show One In Every Hundred Sony Batteries Might Explode In A Month Or So."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    20. Re: First amendment? by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      of course, since when has the news companies ever performed responsibly and morally when left to their own devices?

      Obviously it depends on the news organization, but I haven't seen any major news site reporting on the actual salaries of various employees, or on the medical reasons claimed for leaves of absence. That data exists and I wouldn't be surprised if some "news" site (be it X Report, Wikileaks, or a Slashdot comment somewhere) contains that data, but it's not being blatantly reprinted by the New York Times for example just for gossip.

      On the other other hand, I do bet that there's a reporter somewhere poring through that data, looking for signs of systematic discrimination against (insert minority group) and emails from (asshole executive) that imply intent to discriminate. Were they to find that material, the public interest is served to publish it, even if the source documents aren't included.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    21. Re: First amendment? by Raisey-raison · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Legality aside, what would be the "moral" thing to do. The data was taken 'wrongfully', and belongs to Sony. So, morally it seems the correct thing to do would be destroy the data.

      Just because you can do something does not mean you should.

      What about the 'wrong' things that Sony has done that the documents show? Why is it that so many people side with corporations? Do they not have to be moral, just their customers? And why is it that people expect corporations to be immoral and say 'that is the way the world works', but are outraged when little people do the same thing?

      Here are some immoral things that Sony does that they would not soon change if these documents would not have been leaked:

      1. Sony corruption of the media - Emails between Amy Pascal (the co-chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment) and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd suggest Dowd promised to show Pascal's husband a copy of a column before publishing it. Pascal's husband is former Times reporter Bernard Weinraub.

      2. A series of emails between Pascal and movie producer Scott Rudin showed an ugly side to the beautiful business of Hollywood. Rudin called Angelina Jolie a "minimally talented spoiled brat" in an email exchange with Pascal. Pascal and Rudin also made racially charged jokes about President Obama's taste in movies.

      3. Breaking the privacy of patients medical records - Sony's human-resources department had detailed medical records of three dozen employees and their family members. One internal memo revealed a staff member's child with special needs, including the child's type of treatment. The memo talked about the employee's appeal of insurance provider Aetna's denial of thousands of dollars in medical claims. Another HR document detailed the medical costs for 34 Sony employees and their family members who had very high medical bills. Medical conditions included premature births, cancer, kidney failure and alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

      4. Men are paid more than women. Sony paid Jennifer Lawrence less than it paid Christian Bale or Bradley Cooper, her co-stars in last year's hit movie "American Hustle." Lawrence was paid 7 percent of the movie's profit, while Bale and Cooper received 9 percent, according to emails sent to Pascal. Amy Pascal, the co-chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment is the only woman earning $1 million or more at the studio.

      5. The documents legitimate accusations that Sony colluded with other firms to keep VFX empoyees wages down. This is illegal and immoral.

      This reminds me of when people say that walking away from your mortgage is immoral. But what about when the banks do it? Morgan Stanley decided to stop making payments on five San Francisco office buildings. When they walk away, then it's OK. This is so messed up, and yet people's minds are so brainwashed they think this way!

    22. Re: First amendment? by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      So you think the same about Snowden and Wikileaks?
      There is a reason why it is protected.

      If the news organisations posted the dump on their websites that probably wouldn't be morally justified, but if there were documents showing Sony trying to screw over consumers then that is definitely in the public interest.

    23. Re: First amendment? by vakuona · · Score: 2

      I can just about agree that there are some distasteful things in the email exchanges, but the bit about Jennifer Lawrence being paid less than Christian Bale or Bradley Cooper is not such a big deal to me. Having watched the movie, it was rather obvious that the main protagonists in the movie were Bradley Cooper and Christian Bale's character. Jennifer Lawrence had a comparably smaller part in the movie. She was still getting paid a damn lot for it though.

    24. Re:First amendment? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations aren't people, stop trying to treat them like fucking people! Jesus Tap Dancing Christ on a cracker I'm REALLY see of corporate booty kissing by my fellow Americans, no wonder our country has gone to absolute shit! News Flash genius you have a corp CONSPIRING TO BRIBE PUBLIC OFFICIALS, if that isn't fucking news worthy? Then you might as well just make the corps fucking kings and STFU, because all that will be left is corp fascism.

      So sorry but they gave up their right to privacy when they started conspiring to perform criminal acts, full stop, and if this country wasn't already beyond fucking redemption people would be going to jail over that email.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    25. Re: First amendment? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Lawrence was paid 7 percent of the movie's profit, while Bale and Cooper received 9 percent, according to emails sent to Pascal.

      Sounds to me like they all got paid the exact same amount given standard Hollywood accounting.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  3. Streisand Effect in 3... 2... 1... by AuralityKev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, this won't spur me to download them for myself. Nah, not at all.

    1. Re:Streisand Effect in 3... 2... 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Alright, they are seriously sarting to irritate me.

      Here's a copy of the release 8, including links to release 7 of the leaked sony doc.
      Suscribe to the following email addresses to get notified by GOP when new releases are available. Then notify my spam account every couple of days.
      ##########

      by GOP

      We are preparing for you a Christmas gift.
      The gift will be larger quantities of data.
      And it will be more interesting.
      The gift will surely give you much more pleasure and put Sony Pictures into the worst state.
      Please send an email titled by “Merry Christmas” at the addresses below to tell us what you want in our Christmas gift.
      emma.brooks-0oc6m7bl@yopmail.com marc.parker-1ojn2dp2@yopmail.com
      axel.turner-4oqbyjui@yopmail.com rose.martin-boz2uaul@yopmail.com rose.martin-0o7jacx4@yopmail.com
      Message to SPE
      The sooner SPE accept our demands, the better, of course.
      The farther time goes by, the worse state SPE will be put into and we will have Sony go bankrupt in the end.

      Message to SPE Staffers
      We have a plan to release emails and privacy of the Sony Pictures employees.
      If you don't want your privacy to be released, tell us your name and business title to take off your data.

      Their Privacy (3)
      O'Dell Steven (President, International Releasing)
      Password: diespe135

      1. Torrent
      http://rmdown.com/link.php?has...
      http://turbobit.net/2b8g6xza9k...
      http://rg.to/file/7a069b54f841...
      http://filenuke.com/f/OR9Xk50
      http://filesflash.com/heit3ab9
      http://www.uploadable.ch/file/...

      2. Direct 1
      http://turbobit.net/yqi5xlg39k...
      http://turbobit.net/bn03a15zvc...

      3. Direct 2
      http://rg.to/file/941ba3bc678f...
      http://rg.to/file/1a761bd25d9d...

      Previous data
      http://turbobit.net/jocptbn22q...
      http://rg.to/file/611196b0214e...
      http://filenuke.com/f/32wrYZ6
      http://filesflash.com/mgriz96u
      http://www.uploadable.ch/file/...

  4. I don't think this is how it works by grilled-cheese · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  5. I find this amusing... by xevioso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Sony Pictures Entertainment will have no choice but to hold you responsible "

    They have no choice? As in their hands are legally or physically tied so that they absolutely HAVE to sue you? The people at the top of Sony will have actually no other choice in the world, like, say, going to watch a Knicks game or reading a nice book? They have only one choice, which is to sue?

    Bullshit.

    1. Re:I find this amusing... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2

      Well, you know Sony. Shit in one hand and wish in the other and see what fills up first. The press will crawl through these documents looking for juicy tidbits are in there. Now that you have issued demands like this, they will crawl through with even more zest. It makes you look like you have something to hide.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    2. Re:I find this amusing... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      The press are owned and controlled by people who probably play golf with the heads of Sony, and keep their yachts in the same marinas. So, you decide if that means the press will do a damned thing about it or not.

      It's long past the point where the press will focus on honest and objective reporting, and instead focus on corporate interests and policy.

      You really can't take that out of this equation.

      Everyone likes to pretend there's still a free press. But, that's not 100% true when corporate policy dictates the news as much as anything.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:I find this amusing... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      He doesn't say sue, because if he did the press could sue per-emptively. He says hold accountable for a reason, that reason is that threat of a suit would be baseless.

    4. Re:I find this amusing... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2

      Will people latch on to this and try to disseminate it? Probably.

      Will they be any more impartial than the news media?
      Doubtful.

      Eventually people might realize that they can't trust reporting, that they must survey things for themselves, and that they shouldn't trust people who make decisions without surveying things for themselves, because those people don't know shit. Probably not, but it could happen.

      They'll be old by then, though, and another generation of naive people will be fleeced.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:I find this amusing... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Damn autocorrect, preemptively, the press could sue for a declaratory judgement of non-infringement.

    6. Re:I find this amusing... by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it's Sony. They used to sue their own customers, so why shouldn't they sue the press now.

      They sure know how to make friends.

  6. If Sony keeps doing it by Trachman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Sony hacked my computer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And all I got was $150 dollars reimbursement for the damage their rootkit did. I say the guardians of peace should be limited $150 dollars worth of liability as well.

  8. IF? by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Regardless, those documents will be floating around torrent sites, even if they do nothing. The horse has left the barn.

    But this isn't about trying to actually keep the information under wraps - this is about trying to get some financial recompense. Like, someone let the horse out, and your neighbor suddenly has a sale on fresh horse meat... You're not getting your horse back, but maybe you should get a portion of their unlawfully gained profits.

    In particular, the material includes both material under copyright, as well as trade secrets. Copyright law doesn't include a safe harbor for "but I'm a newspaper" or a generic "first amendment!" defense - while papers could publish short excerpts of the leaked info under fair use (17 USC 107), for news or commentary purposes, they could not, say, publish the entire script to the new Bond movie, relying on a defense of "well, we didn't steal it, and the first amendment says we can publish anything we want because we're the media."

    Going further, many states' trade secret laws actually include explicit provisions about publishing trade secrets that were obtained unlawfully, even if you weren't the person who originally stole them. And while terrible law professor Eugene Volokh thinks that the Bartnicki case has a first amendment exemption, he's clearly never actually read it - SCOTUS specifically said that it doesn't apply to trade secrets, but for matters of public interest. Now, that may apply to things like Sony's CEO's salary, but it likely doesn't apply to things like advertising campaign plans or product release strategies.

    So, if the media publishes the unlawfully obtained trade secrets or publishes the material under copyright in a way that exceeds the bounds of fair use, then they may be financially liable for Sony's damages. That doesn't put the horse back in the barn, since it's gone, man, but it does at least help pay for the new horse (and maybe a better lock).

    1. Re:IF? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Has there been any indication that newspapers and such are going to publish full scripts or anything like that? They might report on leaked scripts and torrents containing said scripts, but that's not what a newspaper is going to be interested in.

      I think it was one of the Gawker media sites that posted a full (and amusingly terrible) powerpoint presentation from the leaked stuff, full of marketing and distribution plans.

  9. Ha. Right by headhot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The newspapers with go toe to toe with the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA, but will back down from a nasty letter from Sony with no legal standing? Right.

  10. Disclaimer bullshit by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They can put whatever disclaimer that they want on the e-mails, but if e-mails or other documents show that Sony is involved in illegal things, then the disclaimers will not protect that from disclosure. Of course, the press would be wise to thoroughly investigate and make sure then they were not passing along bogus information that North Korea was trying to falsely attribute to them. But given that this is Sony and "lawyer" David Boies, I think that this threat reeks of desperation and would not be at all surprised to find that illegal things were leaking out. You can't hide a conspiracy or other illegal action simply by attaching legal boiler-plate "for internal use only" tags to all of the documents.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  11. Re:Looking for torrents by tombeard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  12. Brian Krebs received one & posted it... by BUL2294 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Brian Krebs got one, reported on it, and was kind enough to post it for the world to see Sony for their true colors...

    Article: http://krebsonsecurity.com/201...
    Demand Letter: http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-...

    I can hear Barbara Streisand's voice now... (Well, what I hear is "her" voice from the Mecha-Streisand "South Park" episode...)

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  13. wrong by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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."

    No. Proof : press is bound by copyright law too. Press cannot give the full copy of a book in an article and pretend it is covered by first amendment and freedom of press. Freedom of press is not a get-free-out-of-civil-liabilities card.

    Bottom line : the first amendement and freedom of press is about not allowing the government to limit and infringe on press. It is not a "get free" card for all laws whatsoever, including copyright, 3rd party liabilities and so forth. If you spread private confidential or copyrighted document, you will get bitten in the ass , and it will be by civil lawsuit.


    In fact remember : free speech mean the government cannot stops your speech. It does not protect you of ANY private consequence for that speech. If that would be the case journalist would never be sued for libel.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  14. Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  15. Sony could win, and here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've personally gone against David Boise (yes IAAL -- and I won that case actually). And while his marketing is a little over the top, he is still a very good lawyer and he has built up an excellent team of lawyers. The problem with block downloads like this are that they contain materials that are protected by harsh laws (copyrights, trade secrets, etc.) that the journalists do not require for their articles or investigations. Sure there are fair use defenses, but it's going to be a tough one for [NEWSPAPER X] to argue that it was fair use to keep that copy Annie on it's servers (or laptop) to expose Sony's hack to the world, or that the journalist really needed to watch that copy of Annie to get an in-depth view of Sony's inner workings. The same goes for scripts that have been leaked, etc. There is little journalistic value in divulging the unreleased works of other. Well, other than sheer gossip/entertainment style news).

    That said, I don't care for Sony one bit and don't shed a single tear about what's happening to them, but I do care about some of the news outlets that could get their asses handed to them for thinking that freedom of the press is going to save them from a copyright infringement claim. See Monge v. Maya Magazines, 688 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012)

  16. I'm Not Surprised by organgtool · · Score: 2

    Sony Pictures Entertainment will have no choice but to hold you responsible

    Well, someone has to be responsible for Sony's massive fuckup and we all know it won't be Sony.

  17. Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    You may have a point, but given the bludgeoning that SCO took from IBM, I'd think twice before putting my eggs in the Boies basket.

  18. Re:DOCUMENTS? by neghvar1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Juicy and damning info like this https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

  19. Re:Sony, you know North Koreans did this by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    Lol! A country that can't even feed its own people, let alone provide them with a computer, managed to hack a glorious, capitalist multinational corporation? You've exceeded your daily quota of cheeseburger consumption, Billy.

    Hiring a handful of skilled Russian or Chinese hackers is easily doable for even the poorest nation-state.

    Building your own nuclear weapons and ICBMs is much harder. Putting a satellite in orbit also. Wait, North Korea has managed to do all of the above.

  20. Re:DOCUMENTS? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Well, let's hope that any elected officials who take the money are voted out next time. /fantasy

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  21. Re:DOCUMENTS? by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll bet they paid off NYS atty general Eliot Spitzer to shame the major ISPs into dropping usenet entirely because of "child porn."

    You're right. Sony is shitting itself not because of movies being prematurely released to the 'net, but evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

    I'm buying popcorn.

    --
    BMO

  22. Re:DOCUMENTS? by neghvar1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it may be legal as lobbying and campaign donations. The 0.01% call it that. The remaining 99.99% of us call it bribery. The mask may say lobbying, but behind the mask is the spirit of bribery.