Yet no one's actually searched the Gawker archive to check that they didn't post a story titled "HERE'S A BUNCH OF BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF RANDOM SONY EMPLOYEES", so you don't know that they didn't.Īnd even if you did search it, no one else will. No one is defending the actual hacking (or at least they shouldn't be). I don't think the media is sharing that information. Honestly if I had the choice of which I had to go through, I'd rather people just see my dong than have all that other info. From the "business secrets" portion of your post, I might be correct about those, but I forgot to distinguish the material covered by copyright.Ĭar_Ramrod: MagSeven: employee salaries, private e-mails, employee SSNs, drivers license numbers, passport info, credit card data, bank info. Those have represented the majority of the releases so far, and to me, are the more interesting part. In my defense, though, I was thinking more of the leaked internal memos and e-mails, rather than publishing parts of movies, like they're doing here. Copyright is way outside my field, and didn't even occur to me, so thanks for correcting me. Now, that rule deals with criminal prosecution, not civil suits, but you can draw the parallels pretty easily, and it's not clear what cause of action Sony would have to allow them to overcome that principle.įair enough. It's not the press' fault or concern where their source got the documents. Generally, the law has been that if the press gets hold of documents they shouldn't have, but didn't engage in any wrong-doing themselves, they're in the clear. Talondel: Last Man on Earth: I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure the law's on Gawker's side here. So yes, people who are distributing copyrighted material are at risk for getting the smack down from Sony. And the copyright doesn't go away just because someone leaks them early. It's illegal because they're copyrighted. It's not illegal to distribute copyrighted materials because they're secret. But people who republish it aren't, because once it's out it's no longer a secret.īut when it comes to things under copyright, that's an entirely separate legal issue. If someone leaks the secret, the person who leaks it or who encourages or facilitates the original leak might be liable. That formula isn't patented or copyrighted. This would be analogous to "business secrets" like the formula to Coke. Once they're no longer secret its no longer illegal to republish them. The criminal conduct was the original leak, and the first amendment applies to protect journalists who republish the leaked documents. When government documents are leaked to the press, the general rule is that the press can't be prosecuted for republishing them so long as they didn't participate or encourage the original leak. The reason they couldn't be published is because they are secret, not because they're copyrighted. A detailed discussion of the issues would be far to long for a Fark post. The following legal discussing is a gross over simplification to facilitate discussiont. Now, that rule deals with criminal prosecution, not civil suits, but you can draw the parallels pretty easily, and it's not clear what cause of action Sony would have to allow them to overcome that principle. Last Man on Earth: I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure the law's on Gawker's side here. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure the law's on Gawker's side here. While I definitely agree that the threat of legal action played into not posting the photos (and they probably said 'privacy reasons' as an excuse), they've now opened themselves up to legal action from Sony, and I would be scared to take on that corporation's professional lawyer team. More likely it was the 'Holy crap we're going to get the shiat sued out of us if we post these pictures' and why spend the money on the lawyers. Scottydoesntknow: labman: scottydoesntknow: While this is definitely not right, didn't Gawker refuse to release pics from TheFap because of privacy concerns? Showing intimate photos of a real person is slightly worse than showing the ending of a fictional movie.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |