steven36 Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 In 2014, Sony was subjected to a massive cyberattack which resulted in the leak of huge quantities of data. The trove contained several movies, all of which appeared online for anyone to download for free. Now the owner of one of the titles is suing Sony, claiming that company failed in its obligation to protect the movie from Internet pirates. November 2014 was one of the darkest months in the history of Sony Pictures. After being hacked by a group calling themselves the ‘Guardians of Peace’, masses of sensitive internal information was leaked online. In addition to thousands of emails sent between key Sony staff, several movies were also leaked online. They included Still Alice, Mr Turner, Annie, Fury and the unreleased movie To Write Love on Her Arms. This week, more than 18 months after the hack, the owner of the latter title sued Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions in a Florida court. In its complaint, Possibility Pictures says that Sony failed to meet contractual obligations which required the company to protect the movie from pirates. Noting that Possibility spent $3.38m producing the movie, the company says that the hack resulted from an “entirely foreseeable and avoidable failure of internal security” following many earlier security incidents at Sony. “SPE has been a longstanding and frequent target for hackers, but it apparently made a conscious and deliberate business decision to accept both the risk of losses and the actual losses of being hacked,” the complaint (first posted by HWR) reads. Possibility says that due to Sony’s negligence the movie was leaked four months ahead of its official release. Then, due to its appearance on multiple pirate sites, the audience demand for the title was “destroyed”. “While the total number of illegal downloads is unknown and unknowable, it is far more than likely [that the final tally is] many, many times the nearly 20,000 downloads recorded in just six days [following the leak],” the company adds. Furthermore, in the wake of the leak, Sony allegedly “lost all interest” in promoting and marketing the movie and paid no further distribution revenues to Possibility beyond an initial $800,000 advance. As a result, Possibility claims that it is almost $2.6m out of pocket versus production costs. To support its claim, Possibility highlights a section of its distribution agreement with Sony titled “Anti-Piracy Authorization”. The company says that the text shows that Sony was obliged to “protect the movie worldwide” using “appropriate technical measures or other techniques” to assist efforts to “remove, disable or otherwise prevent” unauthorized versions of the movie being pirated on the Internet. No doubt the lawyers will argue over the meaning and scope of the section but thus far Sony is clear. In July 2016 discussions with Possibility Pictures, Sony insisted that it had “no obligation….to take any anti-piracy measures whatsoever.” It’s certainly rare for a company like Sony to be accused of not doing enough to prevent piracy, so this case should be an interesting one to watch. Source: https://torrentfreak.com/sony-sued-for-not-protecting-leaked-movie-from-pirates-160729/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnakeMasteR Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 The text reads they are authorized, not forced. I can't see words like "must" or "need to" or "will". Improperly defined agreements can not be redefined afterwards to fit ones agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straycat19 Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 3 hours ago, n0_risk! said: The text reads they are authorized, not forced. I can't see words like "must" or "need to" or "will". Improperly defined agreements can not be redefined afterwards to fit ones agenda. Right you are, but I would change the wording to "authorized, but not obligated" since their is no obligation to protect anything, at least in this paragraph. I would like to see the entire legal document though because things can be taken out of context and it is only after reading the entire document that everything can be put in the proper legal perspective. Damn, I sound like I have been around too many lawyers in my life, it is starting to rub off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisam Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Possibility Pictures has a case though I feel, not a winner. Looked up, for curiousity, the info about movie in imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1850418/ It's a 2012 drama centered around Renee Yohe and her battle with drugs, depression, and other life issues that ultimately leads to the founding of charity group To Write Love on Her Arms. Casting: Kat Dennings, Chad Michael Murray, Rupert Friend, Mark Saul and Juliana Harkavy This movie has been produced in 2012 and has been showed in a number of film festivals since,.... without having released officially in cinemas for public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humble3d Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 What a real can of worms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.