Why United Airlines And Orbitz Are Suing An Entrepreneur Who Helps People Find Cheaper Flights

Would Sony Have To License A Screenplay About The Sony Hack?

from the owning-facts dept

Tue, Dec 30th 2014 11:02am — Mike Masnick

There have been a lot of interesting questions to come out of the Sony Hack. And the story of the hack itself is certainly quite fascinating (in fact, as some have pointed out, the story of the hack still seems a lot more compelling than the plot of The Interview -- the movie some still want to associate with the hack, even as the evidence appears thin). So if the "true life" story of the hack is a movie waiting to be made, that raises some other intriguing questions. Parker Higgins wondered if Sony would option the screenplay itself, or if it would let a competing studio get it. Of course, that (correctly) assumes that the screenplay itself would be controlled by whoever wrote it, and that Sony wouldn't have any direct ownership interest in it otherwise.

But you could see where some would argue that this is somehow unfair. As we've pointed out for years, however, you can't own a copyright on facts. The basic news of something is factual and not covered by copyright -- though some of the reporting on it could be covered by copyright. In fact, we've noted how interesting it is that movie studios often license news stories from newspapers or reporters, even though they don't need to. In many cases, they could make a movie based on the news without making a deal with the journalists, but they still choose to do so, because there are certain advantages in doing it that way -- including having the reporters who know the story well give input into the film. It's a pretty good example of how contractual deals can often work even when there's no underlying copyright to be had.

But this gets pretty interesting when it comes down to the Sony Hack. First, among the odd legal theories tossed out by Sony's high-priced lawyers, is that the hacked information is Sony's "stolen information," and thus it might claim some sort of ownership right to the information, should any movie portrayal show/discuss the content of the hacked documents. That argument would raise an interesting First Amendment problem. Second, Sony could try a variety of other (mostly questionable) means of trying to block someone else from making the movie, using anything from trademark to publicity rights of some of the people involved. If challenged in court, it seems unlikely that these reasons would hold up, but it could make it difficult for a non-Sony studio to make such a film.

And, of course, it seems doubtful that Sony itself would want to make the film -- especially not one that accurately portrays a company that has been hacked 56 times in 12 years and kept its passwords in a folder named "Passwords" at the time of the hack. So, instead, it's entirely possible that someone else might try to make the movie -- and Sony might use legal bluster to try to stop it. Which is too bad, because such a movie seems like it might be a lot more interesting than some of what's been coming out of Hollywood lately...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, licensing, options, screenplay, sony hack
Companies: sony

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dave Cortright (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 10:48am

Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
The "password" folder was likely created by the leaker to aggregate the dispersive password files. I highly doubt there was a folder on any computer within Sony named "passwords" that contained all of those files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich Kulawiec, 30 Dec 2014 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
  Why would you doubt that?
  
  Given what we've seen of Sony's (in)attention to security over the past decade, how can any lapse, no matter how obvious and large, be considered unlikely?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave Cortright (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
    Because there's no way anyone in Sony is so organized and also willfully aggressive about poor security as to have compiled all of the dispersive password files from different groups, divisions, sites, and even countries and put them into one location.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 1:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
      That's what I do. I have a document called My Passwords, which contains, well, my passwords. I've carefully listed them all and stuck them in one document.
      I have taken the precaution of keeping the document on a machine that is forever disconnected from the internet, though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
        Your paranoia level may vary, but I recommend that you encrypt it as well. Just because the machine is not connected to the internet doesn't mean that the file cannot be retrieved by a remote attacker, depending on your other security habits. It just makes it more difficult.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kal Zekdor (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 11:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
      Ugh... You'd be surprised. I do IT Consulting, and some of the "security" practices I've seen are just frightening. I've seen master password lists kept in excel files, word documents, stored in plaintext in loosely secured SQL databases, available over an internal website with javascript based authentication... These are all real examples, and while my clients are smaller than SPE, that doesn't mean much given SPE's horrible security record.
      
      All it takes is one executive with hubris and impatience (often IT are either unaware, understaffed, or ignored, or any combination thereof).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 31 Dec 2014 @ 12:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
        ^^This
        
        and I can second it all.. I do Digital Forensics and part of that when not in the criminality side is consulting to companies (some multinationals) on civil actions and also for preventative training where I have discovered (as has the whole industry) that what Sony did is sadly not unique but instead the norm and is an embedded hard to get rid of practice of most blinkered executives.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 31 Dec 2014 @ 5:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
        I consulted for one company that used the same password for everything because keeping a list somewhere was not secure.
        
        Some people are just plain stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 31 Dec 2014 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
        That...
        
        Just...
        
        How stupid do you have to be for logic like that to sound reasonable? Keeping a list may or may not be secure(depends on how, and where, it was kept), but having the same password for everything was supposed to be more secure?
        
        That's got to be what happens to the brain when you reach a position where no-one is willing to risk telling you what a moron you are, the 'common sense' parts must just shrivel right up or something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 31 Dec 2014 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
        I'll go one better.. this company figured out they needed one password but instead of keeping it they would change it every month and rotate it for the year (then revert back at beginning of year) so for january they had the password with a 01 on the end.. February had 02, March had 03.
        
        Bet ya cant guess what December (the 12th month - HINT for the dummies) had on end of it.. go on.. go on.. guess!
        
        Then they went back to 01, 02, etc in new year.
        
        Oh the joys of not going insane when explaining BASIC FREAKIN SECURITY!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Dec 2014 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
        I've seen all of that too -- more often in major corporations than in smaller businesses, even. In fact, I would go so far as to say that abysmal security practices are the norm, not the exception, in such companies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 11:05am

By the time Sony made a movie about its hacked systems:

- it'll be another company which got hacked

- perpetrated by no less than three villains (North Korea, Anonymous, and 4Chan would be my guess)

- be distributed with one base movie with 13 sequels, one will feature a talking squirrel and two as spinoffs.

- the facts will be buried or embellished to make Sony look good.

Given the general public's stupidity of failing to realize every penny given to this studio comes back to haunt them, it'll make billions, especially in China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 31 Dec 2014 @ 5:20am
  
  Re:
  The "hack" will probably involve someone hanging from ropes in a room with a pressure sensitive floor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 11:08am

Just a few random musings...
... if a movie about hacking is heavily pirated...

do the two wrongs make it right? Or cancel each other out and cause the end of the universe?

If it is published with DRM and the pirates hack the DRM... which is the worse "crime" ??

If Sony "leaks" it with a rootkit drm and hacks the pirates machines... is that good or bad or just never-ending-circular-karma?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike C. (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 11:34am

Typo...
I thought it was "Stolen Information" (caps) :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2014 @ 12:23pm

Politico reporting that the hack was by an ex Sony employee and a piracy group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2014 @ 10:45pm
  
  Re:
  Did you think North Korea did it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 31 Dec 2014 @ 5:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Is the ex-employee Korean?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2014 @ 8:40am
    
    Diplomacy In Action [was Re: Re: ]
    Did you think North Korea did it?
    
    United States Department of State Daily Press Briefing: December 30, 2014
    QUESTION: There’s been a report, a news report today – a cyber security firm has briefed the FBI on the result of its own investigation into the Sony hack; that it was not North Korea, but laid-off Sony staff that launched this attack. I’m wondering if FBI is still investigating this case and if there’s any chance of the agency overturning its decision, its finding after further investigation.
    
    MR. RATHKE: Well, of course, for details of the FBI’s discussions and activities, I would refer you to them. But in general, and referring to our conversation yesterday, the United States Government has concluded that the North Korean Government is responsible for this attack, and we stand by that conclusion. And so of course, as – if I refer you back to the FBI’s most recent statement on this, they also made clear that it remains an ongoing investigation, but they – but the attribution and the conclusion of DPRK’s responsibility is clear. . . .
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 31 Dec 2014 @ 8:52am
      
      Re: Diplomacy In Action [was Re: Re: ]
      We know that the US position is that it was North Korea. However, there is a huge amount of room for doubt about how accurate that assessment is. Given the evidence we have, I see no reason whatsoever to accept the US assertion as fact.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 31 Dec 2014 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Diplomacy In Action [was Re: Re: ]
        In fact, given how many people in the government have been, and are, pushing for passage of bills designed to 'protect companies from cyber attacks better', and how a foreign enemy is the best way to distract from domestic issues(in this case the Torture Report), I'd say that anything the government has to say on the matter can be dismissed as being too biased.
        
        They have far, far too much to gain by sticking to the 'NK did it' claim for any amount of evidence to change their minds on the matter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BernardoVerda (profile), 1 Jan 2015 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re:
  "Politico reporting that the hack was by an ex Sony employee and a piracy group."
  
  Actually, those two, competing "determinations" aren't mutually exclusive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 1:04pm

Dear Sony Employees
Just send your personal information and back accounts straight to me through email. It is safer and more secure than your company servers and I promise to steal your identify in a more gentle manner than those "evil" North Koreans. (just in case someone without a sense of humor is reading this.....Northumbria Police Department..... this is called SARCASM and HUMOR....google it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2014 @ 3:02pm

First thing I gotta say is I never considered the movie to be one I wanted to watch. The whole thing sounded dumb to begin with and got worse from there. What passes for comedy today isn't very funny.

Only 2 maybe 3 movies at most are worthy of wasting the time to watch each year. Sometimes not that many. The others are remakes, rewarmed over past films decorated up as something supposedly different, or a play to make money on a past theme. None of which interests me in the least.

I have had enough times of walking away from a theater feeling ripped off and will no longer do that. It's far too expensive for the common experience that leaves one totally dissatisfied. So I have dropped theaters from my personal list of entertainment. I tend more now to go with graphics and learning there. At least I get something out of that which results in satisfaction.

The only reason Sony is butt hurt over all this is the usual fare of screwing someone has been revealed and they are getting a little of it in return. Suddenly they aren't happy with it. All I have to say is better them than me. The only groups I could point to as deserving it more are proxy representatives for them and no better liked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 30 Dec 2014 @ 3:34pm
  
  Re:
  "Only 2 maybe 3 movies at most are worthy of wasting the time to watch each year."
  
  I'll bet you there are a lot more than that. Hundreds of movies are made every year, and at least dozens of them are extremely good.
  
  The trouble is that those aren't the ones that will be shown at your local megaplex because by and large they don't come from the major movie studios.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2014 @ 5:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Point well made. Since they for the most part don't enjoy the media hype and sponsored media streams the major studios use, it's far harder to learn of the ones that might actually be worth the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 31 Dec 2014 @ 5:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Look at the most downloaded movies and weed out the ones you have heard of.
      
      The rest are probably pretty good.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]