Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents 250
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."
Rootkit (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?
DOCUMENTS? (Score:2)
What are they going to do, install a rootkit on my computer to prevent me from downloading stuff? Who thinks up this stuff?
The documents DEMAND that the the press DESTROY SONY!
Re:DOCUMENTS? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's hope that any elected officials who take the money are voted out next time. /fantasy
Re:DOCUMENTS? (Score:4, 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
Re:DOCUMENTS? (Score:4, Insightful)
First amendment? (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/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:First amendment? (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.
summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, no" (Score:2, 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, an
Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It can also note that disseminating parties may be liable for any damages to Sony that could arise. They need to prove damages though, and there's a lot of news sources involved. Will they do a reverse class-action suit or something? :P
No, but they could sue them collectively under a joint and several liability argument, saying "we were damaged by $X... feel free to figure out which of you pays which percentage of that amongst yourselves," based on a theory that by linking to each other in the articles, they were acting in concert. That wouldn't require proving which individual new source is responsible for which damage.
Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So you yourself have seen the documents, all of them, and know that is all it pertains too?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, they sure can. But if they try to use Japanese laws against American news organizations, the American companies can tell the Japanese courts to go to hell, which would bring the ball back to SCOTUS.
Re:First amendment? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: First amendment? (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, however I believe that would be a very high bar for Sony to reach.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, however I believe that would be a very high bar for Sony to reach.
I concur, but such a test case to help define the bar has ramifications beyond just Sony,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: First amendment? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: First amendment? (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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: First amendment? (Score:4, 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."
Re: (Score:3)
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 thr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure the 'public interest' is the threshold. The words used, purposely, were 'public importance'. Whether that's higher or lower than 'public interest' would probably require a supreme court case.
However, given that Sony was trying to block/stop Google from being Google, I'd say either bar was easily reached.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter. If you bothered to read the article there is established case law on this that says that the media is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the first amendment applies here. The government can't abridge the freedom of the press, it doesn't say anything about only criminal prosecution. So the government (in theory) shouldn't be able to compel the press to pay damages to Sony.
What Sony does have the power to do is to stop advertising in said press, or complain about it loudly. Legal action, I'm picking the press to win this one.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Well, when a newspaper publishes something, that has everything to do with the First Amendment.
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
Re: (Score:3)
Crap. Ok, what's your address? And is that $100 Canadian, or $100 Canadian Tire?
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. Ok, what's your address? And is that $100 Canadian, or $100 Canadian Tire?
Hold on while I count my stack of 5 cent bills while the Christmas shopping lineup wraps around the store.
-Some old guy 10 people in front of you.
Disclaimer bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
advertising dollars and the threat of their loss sure has a bite though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
aka CIA hires.
Re: (Score:2)
That comic is in relation to Brandon Eich, and it has no relevance. Mozilla did not stifle Brandon Eich's speech, or tell him to stop supporting or giving money traditional marriage causes, or by any other means stifle his freedom of expression.
Sony, on the other hand, is.
Re: (Score:3)
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 c
Re:First amendment? (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.
Re:First amendment? (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.
wrong (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Those things are not necessarily true. It really depends on if they gave campaign contributions to the right people, in the right amounts, at the right time. Or were you under the impression that separation of powers in the branches of government still exists? Judgeships are political appointments. All Sony really needs is for a politician to pressure the judge to issue an injunction that lasts long enough for the news to go stale.
Re: (Score:2)
So let's say that in the mass of leaked emails, the hackers insert a couple of made up emails that are horrifically bad for Sony. The press reports on the false emails. Without any way to verify the legitimacy of each and every leaked item how can you responsibly report on this issue?
Seeing as how when they're able to verify things they still don't, I don't think responsible reporting is of any concern to the press.
Hasn't been for well over a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
Just one? You might want to go read up on yellow journalism. From the 1800s.
Re: (Score:3)
If that were possible, Fox "News" would have ceased to exist long ago.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point: s/This why/This is why/
Re: (Score:2)
It does, a bit. If someone were to write an article talking about terrible/illegal/immoral actions Sony has engaged in, and uses the leaked documents (or excerpts thereof) as evidence, those people are free from criminal prosecution, such as slander.
Of course we know Sony will try to sue the crap out of them for "damages", but other than being expensive, probably won't stick provided the media DOES download the leaked documents.
Streisand Effect in 3... 2... 1... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Streisand Effect in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Informative)
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... [rmdown.com]
http://turbobit.net/2b8g6xza9k... [turbobit.net]
http://rg.to/file/7a069b54f841... [rg.to]
http://filenuke.com/f/OR9Xk50 [filenuke.com]
http://filesflash.com/heit3ab9 [filesflash.com]
http://www.uploadable.ch/file/... [uploadable.ch]
2. Direct 1
http://turbobit.net/yqi5xlg39k... [turbobit.net]
http://turbobit.net/bn03a15zvc... [turbobit.net]
3. Direct 2
http://rg.to/file/941ba3bc678f... [rg.to]
http://rg.to/file/1a761bd25d9d... [rg.to]
Previous data
http://turbobit.net/jocptbn22q... [turbobit.net]
http://rg.to/file/611196b0214e... [rg.to]
http://filenuke.com/f/32wrYZ6 [filenuke.com]
http://filesflash.com/mgriz96u [filesflash.com]
http://www.uploadable.ch/file/... [uploadable.ch]
I don't think this is how it works (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the Sony records had been subpoenaed, your analogy would be spot on.
I find this amusing... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Well, think of it as "in order to protect our interests and make this go away we are going to hold you legally accountable".
The trick will be if they have a legal basis to say anything about it, or if this is just bluster from a legal team.
You don't lawfully have the information, but is it illegal for you to have it? And, is it actionable that you have it?
Would the lawyers for any large media outfit fight this? Or since all of the large media outfits are owned by companies like Sony and Time and the like,
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn autocorrect, preemptively, the press could sue for a declaratory judgement of non-infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
If every media outlet there proceeds to print as much as they can about this story then Sony will apparently have NO CHOICE but to hold them responsible and take every single one of them to court. Given David Boies' likely fees that alone will probably end them, let alone any damages that such losing suits will bring, and with the reputation as being the lawyer that drove two companies into Chapter 7 bankruptcy though bad advice it will probably end David Bo
Re:I find this amusing... (Score:5, 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.
If Sony keeps doing it (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has opened Pandora's Box at Sony, now they try to get all the crap back into that box.
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Pandora's Box
Sony is evil, but I don't now about all the evil in the world.
IF? (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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
As you say, Sony won't know.
Besides, the newspapers do not need to download anything. They just need to let bloggers do the downloading and do the analysis for them.
Then once the information is out on blogs, and out on foreign newspapers, they can just republish what was said by those other guys.
The only thing they can do really is to stop advertising on the newspapers and on the television channels that choose to republish that information prominently, but this alone can't stop the wide release of the info
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Actually they might have the right idea. The info the media will be most interested in is the gossipy Sony exec emails, and those things only really have legs for one news cycle.
So a lawsuit does two things, first it causes a bunch of papers to run things by the lawyers first, this could slow down some of the reporting until the news cycle has finished.
Second it gives them another related bit of news to report about, so the email contents are now part of the previous news cycle and the Sony lawsuit threat i
Sony hacked my computer! (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.
This is pathetic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All it will do is further harm the brand and, by proxy, all the honest Joes already screwed over by the breach.
You missed that this is the point. It legitimizes their damages claim.
Aiding the criminals (Score:2)
.
While I do not look at Sony's latest threat tactics as beneficial to the situation, I also think the news organizations should stop their feeding frenzy.
It's clear that... (Score:2)
*facepalm* (Score:2)
That is all.
Ha. Right (Score:5, 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.
Sony, you know North Koreans did this (Score:2)
grow some balls and go after the real culprits instead of some wimpy bloggers and journalists. You have Stallone and the guy who played Spiderman at your disposal, send them to go kick some communist ass. Go on!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Brian Krebs received one & posted it... (Score:5, Informative)
Article: http://krebsonsecurity.com/201... [krebsonsecurity.com]
Demand Letter: http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-... [krebsonsecurity.com]
I can hear Barbara Streisand's voice now... (Well, what I hear is "her" voice from the Mecha-Streisand "South Park" episode...)
Re: (Score:2)
The lawers' grasp of the rules of English capitalization does not inspire confidence:
It reads like a bad fantasy novel full of Portentous Capitalization.
Sony could win, and here's why (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 [NEWSPAPE
I'm Not Surprised (Score:3)
Well, someone has to be responsible for Sony's massive fuckup and we all know it won't be Sony.
Barbara Streisand much Sony? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politically correct generation gets to power (Score:2, Troll)
The flower children of 1960-70-ies have all grown and are running the country. A feminist NY Times reporter agreed to show the Sony exec an article about her prior to publishing it [buzzfeed.com] — which is strictly against journalistic ethics. The article, of course, is quite adoring — the firm is praised for its "pro-women" movies (like "Frozen"). Journalistic integrity is secondary to the agenda — the Greater Good of promoting women justifies the means. Nobody will know, right?
Sony executive —
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are they not posted here because they are not relevant to the story, if they were, they'd be yanked by the mods in seconds.
Re:Looking for torrents (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boies, the gift that keeps on giving.
He certainly did stretch that Gore v. Bush fame into a lucrative gravy train.
Re: (Score:2)
Your honor, we did our best. Once the horses had left the barn, we politely asked the people taking pictures of the horses to instead put said horses back in the barn and close the doors. What e