Sony Sends DMCA Notices Against Users Spreading Leaked Emails

Move everything offshore by fustakrakich · 2014-12-31 19:20 · Score: 1

And screw Sony...

Considering how copyright law is being applied, the emails probably are.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Move everything offshore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 19:48 · Score: 0

I was thinking that as well, aren't these works automatically copyrighted (if we follow US law).

Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 19:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

No, the weird part is not that they claim the emails are copyrighted. The weird part is them claiming they own the copyright. While it's almost certainly true that most the email would be considered work-for-hire and hence default to Sony Pictures, it's also a good bet that there's plenty of emails that are personal in nature and would fall into the camp of abuse of network services by their users but that would simultaneously amount to the point that the emails were copyrighted by the actual sender and not Sony Pictures.

And that alone would seem grounds enough to move against them for perjury charges since as been pointed out many times, you can't legally send a takedown notice over a copyrighted work that you don't own the copyright on. So, I can't send take down notices for "The Interview" but if I made a game called Interviewers and had a bot that send auto take down notices that accidentally flagged "The Interview" over my Interviewers copyright, that'd be okay. Of course, either way I could be sued, but it wouldn't be outright illegal in the latter case.

Not that I think Sony Pictures gives a fuck. Hmm..is that libel? Nah, that's just an opinion.

Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 19:45 · Score: 1

In addition, the copyright of any emails received from thrid parties do not belong to Sony. They belong to the originator of the emails.
Re:Perjury by mattventura · 2014-12-31 19:57 · Score: 1

I'd say that them claiming any sort of copyright is indeed weird, because it's not really a creative work. IANAL at all, but it seems to me like random emails simply fall well outside the domain of copyright. For the most part, they aren't creative or artistic in any way. The only way they could possibly be copyrightable is if you made the argument that they are "literary" works, but that's a stretch.
Re: Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:08 · Score: 0

Whether or not the subject is considered a "creative work" or not is largely irrelevant from the perspective of applying the law in this case. It could come down to something g as attributable and original work. For example, if I arrange a series of known mathematical formulae in a reference book, I am not creating anything new other than that specific layout, yet I can copyright the work...
Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:23 · Score: 0

They could be claiming that the lost of the information was a work of art done by themselves, so they would be able to claim copyright to control how it is perceived. That would be funny if all of this is a strategy to get people to watch that movie, because it wouldn't do so well otherwise.
Re: Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:58 · Score: 0

If it's just a single bundle with all the emails together (which is likely), they only need to own the copyright on one single item in the bundle for it to be a valid takedown notice.
Re: Perjury by queazocotal · 2014-12-31 22:20 · Score: 2

For added fun - this varies.
In the EU, 'sweat of brow' copyright is generally recognised - if you spent a lot of effort doing something, you may have it copyrighted - even though it is merely a collection of facts.
In the US, this is much less true.
Re:Perjury by msauve · 2014-12-31 23:45 · Score: 2

You seem to be confusing "creative" with "artistic." US copyright covers "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." An email containing the author's own words is certainly creative. Nothing "weird" in any way about emails being subject to copyright. It has been well established that postal letters are covered by copyright, in what way are emails substantially different?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Perjury by LordLimecat · 2015-01-01 08:21 · Score: 1

would fall into the camp of abuse of network services by their users

Most companies allow limited, non-disruptive personal use of computers. Unless youre in a really sensitive job like CIA or something, people generally allow shooting a quick email to family during or after hours.
Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 09:31 · Score: 0

Actually, any illegal activity (civil or criminal) is never an authorized use of company agency.
As such, they could claim some copyrights, but the ones that implicate them in illegal injury to other parties were not done in the employee's capacity at Sony, and even then I believe that illegal materials are specifically exempt from copyright.
Don't worry, when someone sues someone about this (like Google and the collusion between Sony and states' attorneys general) these will all be covered in discovery, and then the worst parts will be court record...

Sorry, can't get excited about this... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-12-31 19:34 · Score: 2

Sure, copyrighted... Whatever. Seriously, these emails are relevant only to a relatively small number of people in the entertainment industry, so publishing them is really nothing more than a "fuck you" to Sony.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Biggest tech story of the last few months by aaron4801 · 2014-12-31 19:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Reporting on the emails is classic fair use.

Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by wvmarle · 2014-12-31 19:55 · Score: 4, Informative

There is a difference between reporting, and wholesale redistribution. Reporting is fair use, but that's not happening (much). Wholesale redistribution is certainly not fair use, and Sony can indeed claim such redistribution violates copyright.
Now the interesting thing is going to be (if this ever gets challenged in court): who owns the copyright over those e-mails? Is it Sony as employer, or are it the individual authors of those e-mails? The received e-mails are certainly not copyright Sony, the copyright on those is owned by those who sent them to Sony employees.
In principle, everything falls under copyright. Even these comments. However by posting it on a public board, we implicitly give Slashdot permission to redistribute it. An e-mail I send to the feedback section of a newspaper also comes with the implicit permission to print and redistribute it in the newspaper. An e-mail one sends to Sony or someone else, however, does normally not have such a permission - it's hard to argue implicit permission to redistribute. This sidestepping the obvious privacy related to e-mail, which is generally meant to be read by the recipient(s) only.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by Solandri · 2014-12-31 21:13 · Score: 1

Reporting on the emails is classic fair use.
Not really. The fair use provision here is if the copyrighted work is newsworthy. The fact that the emails have been leaked is big news, but the emails themselves are not necessarily newsworthy.

If the emails are just boring everyday emails of people at work, then copyright would still apply. Ironically, if the email were scandalous or embarrassing to Sony, then it would be fair use to publish them because the revelation would be newsworthy. So all a DMCA notice accomplishes is forcing people to dig through the emails for dirt before publishing. Not necessarily the effect Sony wants.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by Kjella · 2015-01-01 00:42 · Score: 1

However by posting it on a public board, we implicitly give Slashdot permission to redistribute it. An e-mail I send to the feedback section of a newspaper also comes with the implicit permission to print and redistribute it in the newspaper.
Two different kinds of implicit, one is much weaker than the other. In one case the terms are also implicit, I could have just sent the email to the wrong address. What about editing for size, can they do that though it no longer fully expresses your opinion? It's all up in the air. Boards and feedback forms are usually different, they typically have an explicit agreement that you agree to through:
a) User registration
b) Checking a box
c) Submitting/uploading content
d) Terms of the site
I'm pretty sure that if you don't like the way /. uses your comment they'll claim that you gave the following license (found under "Terms" at bottom of page):

By sending or transmitting to us Content, or by posting such Content to any area of the Sites, you grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to link to, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), adapt, create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform or otherwise use such Content in any media now known or hereafter developed. You hereby grant the Company permission to display your logo, trademarks and company name on the Sites and in press and other public releases or filings. Further, by submitting Content to the Company, you acknowledge that you have the authority to grant such rights to the Company. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF ANY COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS IN ANY CONTENT YOU SUBMIT.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by poizan42 · 2015-01-01 02:22 · Score: 1

While they can write anything in the site's TOS, it may not be legally enforceable depending on where you live. For example I'm not in anyway confirming that I have read the terms when I'm posting this comment, which means it is probably not legally binding in EU. Even if I had to confirm that I agree with the ther terms they may not be legally enforceable as EU has some quite strict laws about unfair contracts.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 03:14 · Score: 0

If the emails are just boring everyday emails of people at work, then copyright would still apply.
No. Copyright doesn't just apply on information automatically, if it were Slashdot wouldn't be allowed to forward this post to you without my consent. (Which I as an anonymous poster haven't given.)
For copyright to apply it has to be a work of art. Some of the information in the Sony leaks probably apply. Among the emails there might be attachments that apply and some mails might contain drafts for movie scripts or similar.
Apart from that email doesn't have any legal protection and can be distributed and forwarded freely by anyone for any reason. Some people might think that the law is flawed in that way but that doesn't mean that you can apply copyright on any kind of information any way you want.
This is just Sony trying to use a law they bought to control information in a way that they didn't get written into the law.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by c · 2015-01-01 03:54 · Score: 1

Now the interesting thing is going to be (if this ever gets challenged in court): who owns the copyright over those e-mails?
A better question, if this ever gets challenged in court, is who registered the copyrights?
IANAL, but my understanding is that for a copyright lawsuit in the USA to go anywhere, the "work" has to be registered with the copyright office. No registration, no lawsuit, do not pass "Go".
Which, practically speaking, means a DMCA complaint on something like an e-mail (which is unlikely to be registered) is mostly just a bluff. Admittedly, even having to get such a lawsuit dismissed is too much for the average DMCA complaint recipient to fight and most of them would cave.

--
Log in or piss off.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by jbengt · 2015-01-01 04:19 · Score: 1

No, it does not have to be a "work of art" to be copyrighted. It only has to be a creative expression.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by wvmarle · 2015-01-01 04:28 · Score: 1

Registration is not necessary, but it does make things a lot easier if you indeed have to defend a copyright.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 06:35 · Score: 0

However by posting it on a public board, we implicitly give Slashdot permission to redistribute it.
Not exactly. The terms are quite explicit:

In each such case, the submitting user grants Dice a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by ceoyoyo · 2015-01-01 08:13 · Score: 1

Yes, it does.
Note the line at the top of the comment section on Slashdot:

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Slashdot is acting as a publisher of your comment. By hitting post you are using that publication service, asking Slashdot to distribute your copyrighted comment in a particular way. Slashdot can't use your comment in other ways, such as making TV commercials featuring it, without your permission. Also, I can't take your comment and reproduce it without your permission, except in ways that fall under fair use/dealing exceptions.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 10:45 · Score: 0

Are emails pertaining, say, to movie release schedules or hiring practices or whatever in the category of "creative expression"? If they are, is every human communication a type of "creative expression"? And if it is, what's the point of distingushing creative vs. noncreative expression?
A screenplay, music lyrics, treatments, outlines etc. seem like they'd fall in the category. But the emailed records of day-to-day activities business operation, contracts negotiation, etc (unrelated to the creative content) seems less obviously creatively expressive.
If this data relating to operations is copyrightable, I'm going after every database that records my purchases, for example, as violating my copyright.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-02 05:05 · Score: 0

Actually, by posting here you *have* given Slashdot permission to store and publish your post. Read the TOS some time.
Of course, even *without* the TOS, you've implicitly given Slashdot permission to store and publish your post because you know that's exactly what Slashdot *does* with posts here, and you knew it when you submitted the post.
It certainly doesn't matter that you posted as an 'anonymous poster'.
Copyright *also* doesn't require that the work be "a work of art", just that the work is creative (aka: created by you), and not just a copy of someone else's work, or a simple listing of facts.
You were *almost* right with regard to the emails being able to be freely forwarded, except that you missed the fact that that only applies to people who *don't* have a duty otherwise (employees, and the vast majority of recipients of business-related emails), *and* received their copy legitimately.
A few scenarios:
1) I am accidentally sent one of these emails:
I would be under no obligation to keep the emails private, and could freely do so without much risk.
Note: This is due to the legal similarities between email and paper letters. I would not benefit from this regarding any attached scripts, etc.
2) I am a Sony employee who was sent one of these emails in the course of business:
I very likely *would be* obligated to keep the emails private.
3) I am a hacker who broke into their network and stole the emails:
I have no right to disseminate those emails regardless because I did not receive them legitimately.
4) I receive a copy from the hackers who stole them originally:
I have no right to disseminate those emails regardless because I did not receive them legitimately.
Note: There may be an exception if the content of the email is newsworthy, and I disseminate those emails in the process of bringing said news to light. However, that is an affirmative *defense* to the copying, and must be proven in court if I am challenged on having done so.
Note: The idea that a particular email may be embarrassing to a particular individual does not necessarily cause it to be 'newsworthy'.
Re:Biggest tech story of the last few months by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-02 12:54 · Score: 0

Wholesale redistribution is certainly not fair use, and Sony can indeed claim such redistribution violates copyright.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Go read the law and a few of the rulings on fair use.
Every exercise of fair use rights infringes copyright, under US law.
Wholesale redistribution is not sufficient to determine that something is not fair use. There are at least four criteria which can be considered by the courts, and none of them are particularly specific. This necessarily follows from the fact that fair use rights are ultimately derived from the 9th Amendment, and it is the people who determine what rights are retained by them. The government can not write any law infringing rights the people might reasonably want to assert under the 9th Amendment. Hence, there is and can be no "litmus" test based upon any single criteria (such as "wholesale distribution") that determines whether an infringement is in violation of the copyright owners rights.

I think the point... by rsilvergun · 2014-12-31 19:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

is that this is exactly the sort of overreach of intent that people said would happen with the DMCA. There's a lot of dirt in those emails on Sony (like them coordinating with Attorneys General to attack Google). Much of that information falls under what used to be freedom of press. The DMCA screws all that. Now anything you don't want making the rounds you just copyright and an ironclad and unquestionable law shuts it down instantly. I believe the phrase is "Chilling Effect"...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:I think the point... by ljw1004 · 2014-12-31 22:35 · Score: 4, Informative

You've got the wrong handle on DMCA...
1. It criminalizes the creation of software designed to circumvent copyright. That's not happening here.
2. It grants"safe harbor" to ISPs and companies against violations*BY THEIR USERS* so long as the company has a takedown & dispute resolution mechanism. In this case Sony claims copyright, and Twitter can absolve itself of responsibility by leaving the user in question to be the one to file a counterclaim (presumably on fair-use grounds)
Re:I think the point... by ceoyoyo · 2015-01-01 08:07 · Score: 1

This doesn't seem particularly related to the DMCA, except for the ability to send a take-down notice instead of a lawsuit.
Circumstances such as these are why the principle of fair use has existed since the 1700s. In US law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[4]
Publishing these emails seems to fall pretty squarely under news and criticism.

When all you have is a hammer ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 19:40 · Score: 0

When all you have is a hammer ... everything is a nail... hahah

old /. by the_Bionic_lemming · 2014-12-31 19:43 · Score: 2

Why hasn't the dump been posted? years ago, there would of been 5 links to the data to sift thru in every article posted for consumption here.

--
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!

Re:old /. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 22:41 · Score: 0

The media is running scared. Even reddit and 4chan bottle it these days. When you are a big enough corporation or are controlled by one, you do as you are told. Politicians and celebrities are fair game, they're all replaceable, but mega-corps, particularly those based in the US (yes, Sony is controlled by their media divisions in the US: SPE, SCEA et al), are an untouchable class.

did they DMCA any non-business emails by raymorris · 2014-12-31 19:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Let me startbby saying, "rootkit" Sony sucks. With that out of the way:

The emails mentioned in TFA appear to be business emails from Sony people. Did they send a DMCA notice about any personal emails? Did I miss that somewhere?

Regarding perjury, the DMCA doesn't say that any erroneous or improper notice is perjury. The perjury clause refers to identifying yourself. If I were to send a DMCA notice about content owned by Dice, claiming to be a representative of Dice, that claim that I am Dice's representative would be under penalty of perjury. I'd be in trouble because I'm not actually a representative of Dice.

Any other deficiency in a DMCA notice is likely to be grounds for a civil suit, only, based on damages. It might be tortiuous interference, for example. It wouldn't be perjury.

Re:did they DMCA any non-business emails by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 20:39 · Score: 0

The emails mentioned in TFA appear to be business emails from Sony people. Did they send a DMCA notice about any personal emails? Did I miss that somewhere?
"Other e-mails that Broeksmit published, and Sony objects to, include ones that describe Brad Pitt's reaction to certain movie cuts". If you read the email (God forbid), it seems the content is somewhere in-between personal and private and 80% of it is summarizing an email/text/conversation/whatever that, if anything, would be copyrighted by Brad Pitt (as another post notes, third parties emailing them would be the third party's copyright).

Regarding perjury, the DMCA doesn't say that any erroneous or improper notice is perjury. The perjury clause refers to identifying yourself. If I were to send a DMCA notice about content owned by Dice, claiming to be a representative of Dice, that claim that I am Dice's representative would be under penalty of perjury. I'd be in trouble because I'm not actually a representative of Dice.
Which is precisely my point. Sony Pictures is going to have a hard time claiming the copyright on some or all of the content. Even cherry picking emails, it'll be difficult. I mean, if someone issued a takedown notice on this comment, would you have a say in it because I'm quoting your words in part or whole? It seems that, especially if the takedown is meant to blot out what a third person said then that's fishy at best and at worst does fall into the realm of misrepresentation, as I don't think Sony Pictures can be said to represent Brad Pitt--his agent could.

Any other deficiency in a DMCA notice is likely to be grounds for a civil suit, only, based on damages. It might be tortiuous interference, for example. It wouldn't be perjury.
Right, which is why I mentioned about being sued anyways. It just wouldn't be something risking jail time.
Re:did they DMCA any non-business emails by HiThere · 2015-01-01 09:43 · Score: 1

IIRC, the DMCA only requires that you have a "good faith belief" that you control the copyright in order for mistaken use to be allowable without punishment. That's a pretty hard thing to disprove. And, also IIRC, a lawyer is allowed to have a "good faith belief" that his client is telling him the truth even if said client has a very long history of lying. (Did a lawyer actually issue the request? It's often done that way.) In that case the client risks NOTHING, except being refused.
So why *wouldn't* Sony cause spurious DMCA takedown requests to be issued?

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 20:11 · Score: 0

If I email someone and within the message of the email I did not put a "circle-C" symbol nor the word "copyrighted by AC, 1st, January, 2015" is that email copyrighted ?

How many of the leaked emails from Sony's inner sanctum have the "circle-C" symbol, or carry the "copyrighted by whoever" legal statement ?

Is Sony, a Japanese company, telling the Americans how that they know the American laws better than the Americans?

Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Kaenneth · 2014-12-31 20:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Everything you create is copyrighted automatically; unless you create it as part of your job, in which case it's owned by whoever paid you.
Re: Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:50 · Score: 1

You don't need to register it, but doing so makes the legal proceedings more straightforward.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by drinkypoo · 2014-12-31 22:02 · Score: 2

however, in order to protect said automatic copyright, and have legal standing to win a lawsuit for instance, in the u.s. works must be registered with the trademark and copyright office.
Nonsense. That's only true if your lawyers don't have deep pockets, but Sony's do.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by AHuxley · 2014-12-31 22:30 · Score: 1

re "American laws better than the Americans?"
The Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... did offer some insight into the idea that publication and discussion was the role of a free and unrestrained press in the USA.
The other legal idea is that of the Snowden GCHQ files and the UK gov understanding of the jigsaw quality of intelligence information.
Do people in the US want to enjoy the role of a free and unrestrained press or enter a new UK like legal system of professional responsibility and legal safeguards?

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re: Are emails copyrighted ? by Threni · 2014-12-31 22:49 · Score: 1

I wonder why people believe that? Where did this peculiar misconception originate ?
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 00:10 · Score: 0

Everything you create is copyrighted automatically; unless you create it as part of your job, in which case it's owned by whoever paid you.
Not in my country it's not. You have to register it first otherwise it isn't copyrighted.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by donaldm · 2015-01-01 00:32 · Score: 1

Everything you create is copyrighted automatically; unless you create it as part of your job, in which case it's owned by whoever paid you.
No that is not true. If I create some software I can license it or effectively give it away, although I should have to explicitly state my intentions with regard to the mail and/or software otherwise that mail or software can be considered copyright however I would leave this up to the Lawyers.
If someone stole my mail or anything from my computer then they are effectively "Breaking and Entering" or to use the correct wording "Cracking" which is a crime. Now if that same mail and or software is given without permission from the company or originating user to a person who published it then that person or persons are effectively "Aiding and Abetting" which is also a crime. Again I would leave this up to the Lawyers to sort this out since software and data theft is not quite the same as hardware theft and the debate rages on this still.
Right or wrong I think the best way is to ask the question. If you had your mail and/or software stolen from your PC and that "Cracker" (learn the difference between a Hacker and a Cracker) gave that data to another party who published it on the web, then would you consider legal action against the party who published? It is basically a given that you would be pissed at the "Cracker" and would file legal action if that person could be identified.

--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by itzly · 2015-01-01 00:50 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. People pay me to write code, and I keep the copyright. All they get is a license to copy/use it.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 00:53 · Score: 0

I agree, that's what the law says. But the intention of copyright is to encourage people to produce works of art for the benefit of the public. Applying copyright to these emails does not serve that purpose. So the law should be changed.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by MrLizard · 2015-01-01 01:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Everything you create is copyrighted automatically; unless you create it as part of your job, in which case it's owned by whoever paid you.
Not in my country it's not. You have to register it first otherwise it isn't copyrighted.
If your country is a signatory to the Berne Convention, and it probably is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_treaties) you're wrong. Copyright is automatic upon creation of a work. This post I'm writing, right now, is automatically copyright... the TOS I agree to by posting it here allows[1] Slashdot to present it, archive it, etc. But you're not allowed to distribute it without my consent, except as per fair use and other exemptions, not that I actually give a damn or would even know about it, mind you.
[1]Is it 'allows' or 'allow'? If I read the sentence and think of 'TOS' as a word, 'allows' sounds right. But if I read the sentence and mentally expand TOS to 'Terms Of Service', 'allow' sounds right.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Idarubicin · 2015-01-01 01:32 · Score: 2

No that is not true. If I create some software I can license it or effectively give it away...
The fact that you - automatically - hold the copyright for the works you create doesn't prevent you from doing either of those things. Indeed, copyright is necessary for you to be able to license the work.

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by daremonai · 2015-01-01 01:45 · Score: 2

Nonsense. Business emails are often coming up with some nonsensical strategy, or attempting to paper over its failure. They can get very creative.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Njorthbiatr · 2015-01-01 02:14 · Score: 1

This isn't true. Well, mostly.
Any work you create is copyrighted; however, it's unenforceable unless registered, assuming you live in the US.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by wvmarle · 2015-01-01 02:25 · Score: 1

Any work you create is copyrighted; however, it's unenforceable unless registered, assuming you live in the US.
And that's also not true. It's not a prerequisite to register copyrights for it to be enforceable. Having it registered however does make it a lot easier to enforce later.
About 95% of the people in this world do not live in the US, and will not register their copyrights in the US, yet the material they produce is fully copyright protected in the US under US copyright law.
Most of the software created by individuals and released under the GPL is not registered either. That doesn't make the GPL any less valid or applicable.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 02:53 · Score: 1

[1]Is it 'allows' or 'allow'? If I read the sentence and think of 'TOS' as a word, 'allows' sounds right. But if I read the sentence and mentally expand TOS to 'Terms Of Service', 'allow' sounds right.
Both are correct in American English. Anytime you can read an acronym as a word or as the represented words, you can treat it like either for things like subject verb agreement.
You can also view this as having an extra word with it in the singular case. For example, if you say, the TOS allows, what you really mean is that the terms of service *agreement* allows.
Anyway, pick the interpretation that you prefer (TOS is a singular collective or an abbreviation of a plural) and go with that. Don't switch interpretations though. Either make it singular for your entire writing or make it plural. Don't make it singular half the time and plural the other half.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by jbengt · 2015-01-01 03:54 · Score: 1

You can license or give away software you write, but if you get paid to do it, the copyright is by default owned by the person/company that hired you, unless explicitly stated otherwise in a contract.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by jbengt · 2015-01-01 03:59 · Score: 1

IANASCJ*, but I believe that copyrighting Trade Secrets would be unconstitutional.

*I Am Not A Supreme Court Justice
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Dunbal · 2015-01-01 04:20 · Score: 1

Unless you happen to be creating NEWS. Those emails are not copyrighted they are news-worthy and their publication and republication is to substantiate said news. Wouldn't it be a sad day if everyone could hide behind copyright. Politician - what I said was copyrighted don't repeat it. Court - this judgement is copyrighted you can't see it. Criminal - the slashing patterns on the victim are my copyrighted work, you can't reproduce it... etc. But first, "let's kill all the lawyers..." -- Shakespeare (proving you can still make money and be famous even 400 years after you are dead and copyright has expired).

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Rakishi · 2015-01-01 04:39 · Score: 1

Copyright ownership does not mean something cannot be distributed or given away or copied, how would anyone publish anything then? Copyright ownership is merely legal control over how something is copied and distributed and the owner get's to define how people can and cannot copy their work. For example, the copyright owner of a book would allows a printer to create copies of their copyrighted content in each book that they print. There's limits on the control with things like fair use and the first sale doctrine.
A licence is merely a legal statement defining exactly how a given piece of copyrighted work can be copied. As the copyright owner, and only as the owner ultimately, you can licence the work in any way you want. The license may be fairly complex such is the case with the GPL however it does not need to be such as with the MIT license. A work with no copyright owner is in the public domain and can be distributed and copied and modified with no limits.
Licences differ from public domain in that the copyright owner can use the legal system to claim copyright infringement on those who break the licence. A work in the public domain has no copyright owner and as a result no one can take you to court over it or enforce any licence on the work (in theory, in practice money trumps everything).
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 05:44 · Score: 0

This exact situation has happened several times in the past and the Supreme Court has already ruled the news outlets are doing nothing wrong.
Re: Are emails copyrighted ? by daremonai · 2015-01-01 05:46 · Score: 1

U.S. law used to require "copyright formalities" of this sort (more or less - the details are a little complicated), up until it "implemented" the Berne Convention in 1989. Even though that was over 25 years ago, memories of this obviously still persist.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 05:48 · Score: 0

The GPL has yet to be fully vetted in the courts. There are several competing theories as to what it actually means. Good luck.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by LordLimecat · 2015-01-01 07:41 · Score: 1

unless you create it as part of your job, in which case it's owned by whoever paid you.
Usually. If for instance youre an independent contractor and create the work as part of a solution you sell to the client, the copyright may remain with you.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by ceoyoyo · 2015-01-01 07:45 · Score: 1

Have you noticed right at the top of the comment section this text?

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Whatever you right is automatically copyrighted as soon as you write it (or take a picture, or record a song). Marking it with a copyright symbol is not required, and is mostly useful to indicate who owns the copyright (who to contact for permission to use it) and to indicate that the author intends to enforce his copyright.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by ceoyoyo · 2015-01-01 07:54 · Score: 1

Very little copyrighted work is registered. Registration only serves as a verifiable record of when it was produced, and by whom. If there's another verifiable record, such as a published copy, then registration isn't even particularly useful. Which is why a lot of published work is not registered.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by LordLimecat · 2015-01-01 08:02 · Score: 1

Do people in the US want to enjoy the role of a free and unrestrained press or enter a new UK like legal system of professional responsibility and legal safeguards?
I dont know. Does the UK system cause fundamental human nature to change such that you can trust those in power to act responsibly with no scrutiny?
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by TapeCutter · 2015-01-01 12:05 · Score: 1

Anytime you can read an acronym as a word...
An acronym must form a word, that's what distinguishes it from an abbreviation (such as TOS).

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by AHuxley · 2015-01-01 12:06 · Score: 1

Re: "Does the UK system cause fundamental human nature to change such that you can trust those in power to act responsibly with no scrutiny?"
"You lose, journalism. Carrying GCHQ docs is terrorism" 19 Feb 14
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
"... because the journalist will have his own take or focus on what serves the public interest, for which he is not answerable to the public through Parliament."
The UK has other ideas on press freedoms and any scrutiny :) The US had a much more clear approach with The Pentagon Papers.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 15:33 · Score: 0

Have you noticed right at the top of the comment section this text?

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Yes, that is a text on a webpage. Why do you think that particular text is more legally binding than any of the comments posted below it?
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by the last poster. Re-distribution of them is prohibited.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-02 00:41 · Score: 1

The Handy Dandy Slashdot Guide to Stuff
Initialism (say the letters): DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA. TLAs.
Acronym (say the word): NATO, RADAR, SCUBA, LASER.
Abbreviation (say the full form of the word/phrase): Mrs., lbs., vs., etc..
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-02 04:10 · Score: 0

Not even remotely.
Copyright springs into existance for a work as soon as it is fixed into tangible form. (Digital documents on magnetic, or optical media count as 'fixed into tangible form'.)
Trade Secrets exist as long as they are kept secret.
If I write an email, I have the copyright on that email. It may also be or contain Trade Secrets. There is no conflict between the two.
This differs from patents, which must be publicly disclosed. It is impossible for something to be *both* patented *and* a trade secret because it would require that thing to be *both* publicly disclosed *and* a secret.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by LordLimecat · 2015-01-03 18:24 · Score: 1

Do those ideas involve super injunctions for libel? Blocking the mere discussion of a company and its doings in Africa because they might cause financial harm?
Yes, the US has issues, but our default stance is much more towards free speech than the UK.
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by AHuxley · 2015-01-03 18:36 · Score: 1

The UK seems to want to offer next gen D-Notice for the public and private sectors with the chilling super injunctions and libel tourism :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by johncandale · 2015-01-05 19:02 · Score: 1

this is a myth
Re:Are emails copyrighted ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-09 03:13 · Score: 0

Everything you create is copyrighted automatically; unless you create it as part of your job, in which case it's owned by whoever paid you.
Not in my country it's not. You have to register it first otherwise it isn't copyrighted.
If your country is a signatory to the Berne Convention, and it probably is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_treaties) you're wrong. Copyright is automatic upon creation of a work. This post I'm writing, right now, is automatically copyright... the TOS I agree to by posting it here allows[1] Slashdot to present it, archive it, etc. But you're not allowed to distribute it without my consent, except as per fair use and other exemptions, not that I actually give a damn or would even know about it, mind you.
[1]Is it 'allows' or 'allow'? If I read the sentence and think of 'TOS' as a word, 'allows' sounds right. But if I read the sentence and mentally expand TOS to 'Terms Of Service', 'allow' sounds right.
While you may be right with the berne convention, last time I checked, it had a distinction for private use vs commercial use which would piss the RIAA off by todays standards.

Small emails by grahammm · 2014-12-31 20:12 · Score: 0

They must be small emails if someone can send them in tweet.

Re:Small emails by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 20:22 · Score: 1

They must be small emails if someone can send them in tweet.
Sony employees communicate exclusively in Haiku.
Re:Small emails by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 00:16 · Score: 0

We need more cash now
Call Attorneys General
Make them stop Google
Re:Small emails by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 09:13 · Score: 0

Call Sony Wentworth
877-CASH-NOW
Get your free rootkit

Sony views this as primarily a PR problem by Required+Snark · 2014-12-31 20:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

They clearly are more concerned about the publicity aspects of the hack then anything else. Any other issues, like exposure of employee data, don't mean a damn to them.

That's why there are the DCMA takedown notices and the threats to sue. They figure that if they can keep it out of the press then it will soon be forgotten and they won't have much to worry about.

This might work for the general public, but in Hollywood it's not going to be that easy. Besides the powerful individuals that they trashed, it's now obvious that that they also engage in routine conspiracies to get what they want. That's what the Google maneuver was about. A lot of players are going to realize that Sony had done a lot of dirty deeds already, and some will see that previous problems may be the result of underhanded tactics. Not that anyone else is better, but having confirmation effectively raises the stakes.

Personally, I enjoy looking forward to some real pain in Sony land. They have a bad reputation among the Hollywood rank and file, so there will be a lot of schadenfreude in the new year. It's long overdue.

--
Why is Snark Required?

Re:Sony views this as primarily a PR problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:45 · Score: 0

Why stop with Sony? As far as the rest of the US, Hollywood sucks. String all of the bastards up!
Re:Sony views this as primarily a PR problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 22:35 · Score: 1

It's all about stopping the Hollywood Accounting facts making it to the real press. They don't care about senior staff making nigger jokes about the president, but they
are terrified the illegal financial dealings practised by the industry will prove prosecutors with enough data to start hauling CEOs into court facing RICO charges.
Sony have successfully persuaded large media outlets to remove or change what's being discovered. It's pretty scary just how they can manage this, it makes you wonder what dirt they have on certain people in power.

Thiscould be GOOD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 20:36 · Score: 1

If emails are copyrighted materials, we may suddenly get the backing of giant industries in the fight against the villains at the NSA.
After all you wouldn't want "personal emails" to be a perfectly acceptable thing to copy and redistribute...

Re: Thiscould be GOOD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:16 · Score: 0

Welcome to the world of legal precedent, which comes up whenever two or more laws stand in apparent conflict. When that happens a Court is asked to decide which must give way. Want to bet what would happen if this cam up for review?
Hint: the Copyright laws would be amended with a National Security clause.
Oh: and if the only thing the NSAIDS did with your email was store it for cross reference purposes, or capture the meta-data, they would almost certainly mount a "fair use" argument back at you.
When you are going up against the group that writes the laws you will use to try and make your case, you are likely to lose...
Re:Thiscould be GOOD by ledow · 2014-12-31 22:49 · Score: 2

Emails are copyrighted already.
Everything you make is copyrighted, to you.
That people don't understand this is, "weirdly", common.
The question of whether you could enforce action against infringers and/or whether reproducing those emails is against the copyright is another thing entirely and down to local law.
But, pretty much, this post is copyrighted. There may be a line somewhere that assigns the copyright in it to Slashdot (I don't think there is, Facebook tried that and couldn't get away with it), but otherwise it's mine. All comments are the property of the poster, remember.
And when you're talking about the contents of an internal email from a workplace, almost certainly those are the intellectual property of the employer - whether expressly stated or not.
It's not a question of "if".
And I'm pretty sure that a government organisation tasked with intercepting communications has some exception in the law for copying, reading and storing your email for a certain period of time. It's come up in the UK news for GCHQ, for instance.
In the same way you can't sue your ISP for copying your packets to this forum in the first place, or Slashdot for storing them, as there is an inherent permission granted by you posting.
Re:Thiscould be GOOD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 23:51 · Score: 0

Only creative work are copyrighted. Business papers have never been copyrighted. These are just scare tacticts, and possibly future presedent.
Re: Thiscould be GOOD by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 03:18 · Score: 0

You're a moron. You just confidently stated something that is categorically incorrect. It's flat out false, and yet you sit there as though you know what you're talking about. I'm envisioning Homer Simpson with his eyes half closed, wearing spectacles. You know, when he tries to be smart but fails adorably? That's you.
Please don't comment on topics for which your understanding is limited. Thanks. For clarification in this case, please see every other comment in which somebody who knows what he or she is talking about thoroughly debunks this "creative works" horseshit. Have a really great day.
Re:Thiscould be GOOD by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-02 05:08 · Score: 0

'Creative work' doesn't mean 'not business'. It means an original creation that is *more* than a simple listing of facts.
And the word you were looking for is 'precedent'.

Game on by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 20:36 · Score: 0

OK, how about including it in a Torrent that includes bundle The Interview and the emails into a single download?
There are already torrents out there that have the movie. Including all the emails is just the next step.

Case against... by aepervius · 2014-12-31 20:51 · Score: 1

Email can be said to be a copyrighted work. They are also distributed only to one person, other person do not have the distribution right. Distirbution right is given temporary to an itnermediate to facilitate the email reaching its goal. Frankly I will take the contrary direction : DMCA is over reaching in all case, but using it for email is not an overreach.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:Case against... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:17 · Score: 0

So forwarding an email is copyright infringement? I don't think that's going to work.
Re:Case against... by HiThere · 2015-01-01 09:48 · Score: 1

Forwarding an email is, legally, copyright infringement. But copyright infringement is only (legally) enforced if the owner of the copyright is willing to either enforce it or to delegate the enforcement to some other entity. The problem with the DMCA is that there is no penalty for fraudulent use of takedown notices. (Well, there *are* penalties, don't *you* try it, but any lawyer can work around them.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

So let's get this straight by MikeRT · 2014-12-31 20:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

They'll suspend the accounts of people like Milo Yiannopoulos for holding the wrong views on things like GamerGate (Milo Yiannopoulos is hardly a troll or a stalker), but someone who is trafficking in stolen IP/personal details they'll reluctantly defend until someone from legal tells them that Twitter will probably get its ass reamed up and down the sidewalk in federal court if it continues to turn a blind eye. Got it.

Re:So let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 01:13 · Score: 0

Twitter depends on positive PR to reel in new users.
So naturally twitter will just bend their knee to whoever shouts the loudest.
If the public wants to see Sony set on fire, twitter will naturally abide.
On a similar note: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/25/media/the-interview-box-office/ after huge pressure to release the movie, irregardless of the danger towards Sony's (american) employees.
Re:So let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 01:59 · Score: 0

> They'll suspend the accounts of people like Milo Yiannopoulos for holding the wrong views on things like GamerGate
Yeah, that dude is totally suspended. Comparing an automated suspension that lasted for a couple of hours until a human sorted it out to what Sony's demanding is more than a little disingenuous. Either that or it is an example of how just how poor your grasp on reality is.
Re:So let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 05:27 · Score: 0

I'd just like to point out "irregardless"
"Regardless" - Without regard
"Ir-Regardless" - Not without regard
Ir-Regardless is a (actually non-existent) double-negative that indicates that there *is* a regard for the thing.
Re:So let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 06:07 · Score: 0

> Ir-Regardless is a (actually non-existent) double-negative that indicates that there *is* a regard for the thing.
There is one thing all stupid dictionary pedants fail to do, and this check the fucking dictionary before engaging their pedantry.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/irregardless
Re:So let's get this straight by Free+Censorship · 2015-01-01 06:35 · Score: 1

"Stolen"? "IP"? The data was copied, not stolen. And using propaganda terms like IP here just seems totally inappropriate. The DMCA is a law created by government thugs for the purposes of making it easier for companies to censor information on demand under threat of force (websites lose safe harbor if they don't comply, which is bad for them).
Re:So let's get this straight by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-02 05:18 · Score: 0

I'd just like to point out that "irregardless" is a word, irregardless of the fact that it is 'nonstandard', and it does *not* mean "Not without regard". In fact, it's been a word since at least 1912, and was in common use by 1927.
Believe it or not, 'ir' is not a prefix of 'regardless' in this instance, and as such does not negate it. Irregardless of the *possibility* of it being a prefix, such prefixes do *not* always carry standard meanings (e.g.: [in]flammable vs. [in]destructible).
From Merriam-Webster[1]:
nonstandard
: regardless
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that Ãoethere is no such word.Ã There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Origin of IRREGARDLESS
probably blend of irrespective and regardless
First Known Use: circa 1912
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

FUCK FONY by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:00 · Score: 0

Haven't bought a single one of their products since the DRM scandal and shitty HP disc drives. They deserve what they get.

Is there a list of Sony films in theaters in 2015? by jonwil · 2014-12-31 21:02 · Score: 2

Is there a list anywhere of Sony produced films hitting theaters in 2015 so I know which films to boycott and not go and see?

I know The Interview is Sony (not that I had any intention of going to see it anyway) and Hobbit is Warner Brothers/New Line (saw it the other day and it was great) but I cant find any information to help me figure out what other theatrical releases of 2015 I should be avoiding (both going to the cinema AND pirating) if I want to avoid Sony.

Re:Is there a list of Sony films in theaters in 20 by ruir · 2014-12-31 21:22 · Score: 2

Boycott all of them...To be honest, IMHO, the worst actors are Sony and Disney, however they are all the same scum and hide behind a MPAA label.

DCMA is weak method. wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 21:29 · Score: 0

DCMA should be the weak method. They have the structure already in place to send out automated DCMA takedown. And most of these emails are hosted on the same structures that are also used for copyright violations ( http file dumps, torrents, free web space, etc etc).

They could send out real threatening warrants, I think personal/business email is (Should be) way more protected than works of art for profit. But if they send out their sharks with the heaviest warrants now there is no way they can escalate any more.

It has been shown already that a lot of filehosts just take down the material they get a dcma for, and don't bother checking if the claim is valid. I bet sony is going for that to take down 90%. the remaining 10% might be more manageable. Anyone who want to study the e-mails got them a long time ago...

Right To Be Forgotten by TrollstonButterbeans · 2014-12-31 21:40 · Score: 1

Sony can clean up their search results in Europe by (ab)using the "Right To Be Forgotten".

--
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory

Re:Right To Be Forgotten by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 00:01 · Score: 0

Nope.
It doesn't apply - the publications are neither factually incorrect, or out of date.

Re:Is there a list of Sony films in theaters in 20 by drinkypoo · 2014-12-31 22:00 · Score: 1

Is there a list anywhere of Sony produced films hitting theaters in 2015 so I know which films to boycott and not go and see?

How long will it take you to visit Wikipedia or the IMDB before you buy tickets for a given film, to make sure it's not published by Sony?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

You are factually incorrect. by tlambert · 2014-12-31 22:12 · Score: 5, Informative

however, in order to protect said automatic copyright, and have legal standing to win a lawsuit for instance, in the u.s. works must be registered with the trademark and copyright office. this, of course, was not done with the emails. this can be considered dissemination of proprietary and confidential corporate property and trade secrets, which should have at least as strong of a case for sony.. just not via dmca.

Very incorrect, on two counts:

(1) Copyright registration is merely a verifiable record of the date and content, in case of some future claim of plagarism or Copyright infringement by another party. Registration is only required on claims of statutory damages for an infringement suit, and that's valid as long as it occurs within 3 months of publication. For that to be useful to Sony, however, they would have to also establish value for the Copyright work. Since they were able to do this for the "Spectre" script, Twitter took the excerpts down. Email is a different matter.

(2) AT&T USL attempted to pull the "Trade Secret" trick of having their cake and eating it to in the AT&T USL v. The Regents of the University of California at Berkeley. The problem with Trade Secret disclosure is once a secret is disclosed, it's no longer secret. You can Patent something (requires disclosure) or you can Copyright something (also requires disclosure). In exchange for that disclosure, you are then granted certain legal protections, but those protections do not attach to Trade Secrets. For a Trade Secret, in order to collect damages, you, again, have to establish a value for the Secret. But - and this is a big one - you can only collect those damages against the original discloser - you are not permitted to seek out deep pockets. So Sony can take it up with North Korea (or whoever we've decided was responsible this week), but they can't take it up with this Twitter user, unless they can prove he was the disclosing party. So again: any trade secrets in to emails is *gone*.

The other problem is the use of the DMCA in this case: unless you are the Copyright holder, or you are a designated agent acting on behalf of the Copyright holder, you do not have standing, under the law, to assert a DMCA claim on behalf of someone else. This was the problem that a number of the DMCA takedown companies had with their third party takedown notices. This was actually precisely what occurred in the Righthaven v. Wayne Hoehn case.

Re:You are factually incorrect. by Dog-Cow · 2014-12-31 22:15 · Score: 2

Copyright does not require disclosure. If that were so, significantly more source code would be available for perusal.
Re:You are factually incorrect. by Immerman · 2015-01-01 02:40 · Score: 2

>The other problem is the use of the DMCA in this case: unless you are the Copyright holder...you do not have standing...to assert a DMCA claim...
So what's the problem? Virtually all business-related correspondence and documents can probably be safely presumed to have been created under work-for-hire agreements which would place the copyrights firmly in Sony's possession. Thus granting them standing.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:You are factually incorrect. by Bengie · 2015-01-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Copyrighted data is owned by the public, but the copyright holder gets temporary exclusive control over use and distribution. Some news site got DMCA requests to remove the data, but the site laughed and linked some recent Supreme Court cases where private content that was never intended to be released as not protected. I can't remember if there was any nuances related to them being news sources.
Re:You are factually incorrect. by tlambert · 2015-01-01 05:52 · Score: 2

>The other problem is the use of the DMCA in this case: unless you are the Copyright holder...you do not have standing...to assert a DMCA claim...
So what's the problem? Virtually all business-related correspondence and documents can probably be safely presumed to have been created under work-for-hire agreements which would place the copyrights firmly in Sony's possession. Thus granting them standing.
It depends on whether the emails constitute work product or not. Certainly some of the emails which I've seen would not qualify, as they were personal emails. In fact, most of the significantly inflammatory ones were personal emails to business partners and colleagues, rather than business related, other than tangentially. And these are the ones Sony would most want quashed.
For attorney/client communications, it's possible that privilege would attach. Under U.S. law, the attorney would need to be acting as such in connection with the communication in question, and the communication would have had to have been engaged for the purpose of the client seeking legal advice.
Ironically, it would probably take a court to decide whether or not the disclosure of the information to someone who was neither the attorney nor the client would qualify as an exception to privilege. This in turn would likely come down to a matter of due diligence. Even so, if the intent was to commit a crime or a tort (and it's pretty clear some of these emails qualify), then privilege does not attach.
I think the most they can do at this point is assert ownership or get a grant of agency, and issue the DMCA notices, mostly for the scripts and other material, if any, which falls under HIPPA or attorney/client privilege. This will most likely not be very satisfying to Sony, as it will most likely cover material which is being largely withheld anyway.
Re:You are factually incorrect. by Cramer · 2015-01-02 12:42 · Score: 1

Unless both parties took step to secure the email, it would be hard to prove such privacy applies. Email is stored as plain text on every system it passes through. And in many (most?) cases, flows between systems in plain sight. Your own email application is also likely passing traffic in the clear. ('tho tls/ssl are far more common these days, very few MTAs use an encrypted local store.)
It would be further invalidated by the fact that company resources were being used for private personal communications. (Sony would legally own such "privileged" communications.)

This post is copyrighted by OrangeTide · 2014-12-31 22:23 · Score: 1

If you cut and paste this message I will raid your kid's college fund.

Happy New Year!

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

Re:This post is copyrighted by Neil+Boekend · 2015-01-06 01:47 · Score: 1

If you cut and paste this message I will raid your kid's college fund.
Happy New Year!
I didn't know I had a kid.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

Re:Is there a list of Sony films in theaters in 20 by SuricouRaven · 2014-12-31 22:50 · Score: 1

Pixels. The screenplay was one of the leaked documents. It actually looked somewhat amusing, skimming through.

Oh, well. To the torrents!

Guess it's time to D/L those leaks, then by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-31 23:30 · Score: 0

I might have to do my own digging through them if journoes are banned and now twitterers too.

fair use commentary by harvey+the+nerd · 2014-12-31 23:41 · Score: 1

almost any commentary on perhaps several related emails should make significant portions fair use.

Re: /. Fucking sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 00:41 · Score: 0

Ffffffuuuuuck yyyyoouuuu?

please please by ruir · 2015-01-01 00:43 · Score: 1

Kim Jong-un since you have the fame, would you reap it and hack those SOB?

The "Safe Harbor" is the point by rsilvergun · 2015-01-01 01:57 · Score: 2

in order to qualify for the "Safe Harbor" part you have to take down the "infringing" content immediately. No questions asked. Only _after_ you take it down can the person who put it up apply to have it put back up.

It makes it really easy to get stuff silenced and much harder to get it back out there; especially for quasi-legal journalistic sources like leaks.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

We are rich by gmuslera · 2015-01-01 02:09 · Score: 1

US government owes each person of the world several trillons because copyright infringment in that case. And if the US government don't comply with copyright laws, why the rest of the world should?

Re: We are rich by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 03:23 · Score: 0

You're so stupid. I'm not even mad, just impressed. I marvel that you survived childhood without sticking a fork in a light socket, or getting hit by a car. Bless you for trying, sweetheart.

copywrites to the writer, incl summary by raymorris · 2015-01-01 02:58 · Score: 2

>. include ones that describe Brad Pitt's reaction to certain movie cuts". If you read the email (God forbid), it seems the content is somewhere in-between personal and private and 80% of it is summarizing an email/text/conversation/whatever that, if anything, would be copyrighted by Brad Pitt

It describes a party contracted with Sony Pictures threatening to breach that contract; a contract to make and publicize a Sony Pictures product. It then addresses what Sony Pictures has done (reassured the other party) and what else Sony needs to do about it (nothing yet). I'm not sure how you can say that a discussion among Sony people about handling a Sony contract dispute isn't a business email.

The copyright goes to the author. If I write about what you did yesterday, I'm the author, and I have copyright. In California, you might have publicity rights, but no copyright on my words. Brad Pitt didn't write the email, so he has no copyright claim.

You asked about a post which DOES quote another offer. Would I have any say as to removal if _your_ post was infringing? Under current law, that's exactly the same as if a breakfast cereal contained oats, honey, and strychnine. It contains something unlawful, and can be removed from distribution. The fact that the unlawful stuff has some lawful stuff mixed in doesn't matter.

ps YOU claiming fair use by raymorris · 2015-01-01 03:02 · Score: 1

PS - in the example of you quoting me, you could of course try to claim fair use of my writing, but that's not the situation you're talking about. If I understand you correctly, you are talking about if "your" words were copypasta from someone else, in doesn't which case adding my words wouldn't give me grounds to authorize infringing their copyright.

Re:Is there a list of Sony films in theaters in 20 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 05:28 · Score: 0

The big ones are columbia and mgm movies. Both are sony.

I fully expect Sony to split into 2 companies this year. The electronics division is going to maneuver to get away from the Hollywood disaster their sister companies have made.

However, they are *all* very slimy Sony just happened to be outed with their behavior.

Also not sure how they are claiming copyright on all the emails. It would occur to me that those emails contain emails from outside entities...

stolen property by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 07:41 · Score: 0

Isn't it all stolen property?

Re:Is there a list of Sony films in theaters in 20 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 08:41 · Score: 0

MGM Holdings is only 20% owned by Sony. Comcast also owns 20%. Two equity firms own more.

Columbia Pictures is wholly owned by Sony.

Is this a good thing? by Rick+in+China · 2015-01-01 11:08 · Score: 1

The more companies try to cram under the umbrella of DMCA, I feel, the more opposition to the DMCA notices will crop up. This may end up being a good thing. Sure, cram it all under DMCA - start spamming everyone you can with accusations not befitting of copyright violation, and it'll only water down the 'authentic' violation notices - perhaps authorities will throw the baby out with the bathwater when evaluating DMCA complaints.

Re:DCMA is weak method. wait... by TapeCutter · 2015-01-01 12:49 · Score: 1

and don't bother checking if the claim is valid

If a host receives a notice and wants to keep their 'safe harbour' privilege in the eyes of the law, then the host has no choice but to accept the claims in the notice and immediately take down the file. The host does not (and in most cases cannot) make any determination of validity. It's up to the person who posted the file to prove to the host that the claim in the notice is incorrect. - In other words the DCMA system operates under the assumption of "guilty until proven innocent". There are penalties for making a false DMCA claim but I've never heard of them being applied by a court.

BTW, it's DMCA not DCMA.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

torrent please? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-01 17:40 · Score: 0

I'm offshore. And so is my seedbox.

If anyone has a torrent magnet link then I'm happy to seed.

not weirdly... by SuperDre · 2015-01-02 00:15 · Score: 1

It's not weirdly that email is copyright.. Everything you write is copyright by default, but you can offer it up 'for free'..

Re:/. Fucking sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-02 01:00 · Score: 0

Slashdot fucking
Bro-iest rape pit
Moshing
Over 9000
Burma Shave.

how can you copyright emails

Slashdot Mirror

Sony Sends DMCA Notices Against Users Spreading Leaked Emails

138 comments