Slashdot Mirror
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."
What are they going to do, install a rootkit on my computer to prevent me from downloading stuff? Who thinks up this stuff?
"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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Juicy and damning info like this https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
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!