6 ms·

I'm surprised you need this spelled out for you, but the professor is unaffiliated with and has no contractual relationship with Sony. Since he's just mirroring

by mlinsey 16y ago

I'm surprised you need this spelled out for you, but the professor is unaffiliated with and has no contractual relationship with Sony. Since he's just mirroring someone else's code, he probably hasn't even agreed to a TOS. Therefore any successful litigation against him would require reference to some law that makes it unlawful to disseminate the actual information. It's difficult to imagine how such a law would hold up to a rigorous first amendment challenge. Your other posts make it clear that you believe this guy has breached some private contractual obligation to Sony, and I'm curious to know where you're getting that idea.

DenisM 16y ago
1. If someone breached an NDA and you helped/instigated them in doing so, you will be held jointly liable in civil damages. First amendment will not protect you against that, and there is ample case law in this area. Sony might lose the case, but not for the 1st amendment reasons. 2. Kindly avoid the condescending tone.
- benreesman 16y ago
  incorrect.
  - DenisM 16y ago
    Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.
    - benreesman 16y ago
      correct. it's because it's not true that I don't like it.
- mlinsey 16y ago
  1. My understanding was the same as benreesman's: breach of an NDA only makes the person who agreed to it liable. IANAL but I did some searching around for the precedents you mentioned, and I found a few that back up what you say, but they all seem to set a fairly high bar for "helping/instigating" someone breach their NDA; for example knowing about the terms of the NDA. It seems unlikely the professor, who simply mirrored the code, would fall under those precedents. 2. Right on here, actually. Last night I was particularly annoyed at dangrossman's tone elsewhere (eg "So you've never heard of an NDA?") hence the snark in my original post, but after sleeping on it I'm sort of embarrassed it got to me that way.
  - DenisM 16y ago
    Honestly, I was going to reply in kind at the time, but then decided to do my part in keeping HN civil. :) This prof will likely not get in trouble, however my comment was regarding the general sentiment - the claim that you cannot get in trouble for helping to violate someone else's contract is dangerously incorrect. The bar might be high, I don't know enough about that, but in general you most certainly can get in trouble that way. I was thinking about the case where Kai-Fu Lee breached his contract with Microsoft by joining Google, and Google ended up sued and paying a settlement for the instigation.
dangrossman 16y ago
I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that the first amendment is not involved in this case, in reply to someone who said it was.
- _delirium 16y ago
  The fact that Sony is bringing the case doesn't really stand in the way, because the DMCA is a government law, so must respect the First Amendment. The government is the one prohibiting certain kinds of activities, via a law passed by Congress; the fact that the DMCA's enforcement mechanism is suits by private parties doesn't change that. Via the DMCA, the U.S. government prohibits "dissemination" of "technology, devices, or services" designed to circumvent copy-protection systems. The first-amendment generally doesn't allow the government to prohibit "dissemination" of things that qualify as "speech", so the open question is whether any of the things being prohibited qualify. (Universal v. Reimerdes, one of the DeCSS cases, upheld the DMCA against a similar challenge, so it's an uphill battle. A stronger case would probably be an attempt to suppress a cryptography-research paper via the DMCA, since publishing papers is the kind of activity usually assumed to be protected by the First Amendment. There've been a few potential test cases of that sort, but the plaintiffs seem to always back down before they get to a ruling.)
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Maybe a professor should coauthor a paper with geohot?

by mlinsey 16y ago

DenisM 16y ago

1. If someone breached an NDA and you helped/instigated them in doing so, you will be held jointly liable in civil damages. First amendment will not protect you against that, and there is ample case law in this area. Sony might lose the case, but not for the 1st amendment reasons. 2. Kindly avoid the condescending tone.

benreesman 16y ago
incorrect.
- DenisM 16y ago
  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.
  - benreesman 16y ago
    correct. it's because it's not true that I don't like it.
mlinsey 16y ago
1. My understanding was the same as benreesman's: breach of an NDA only makes the person who agreed to it liable. IANAL but I did some searching around for the precedents you mentioned, and I found a few that back up what you say, but they all seem to set a fairly high bar for "helping/instigating" someone breach their NDA; for example knowing about the terms of the NDA. It seems unlikely the professor, who simply mirrored the code, would fall under those precedents. 2. Right on here, actually. Last night I was particularly annoyed at dangrossman's tone elsewhere (eg "So you've never heard of an NDA?") hence the snark in my original post, but after sleeping on it I'm sort of embarrassed it got to me that way.
- DenisM 16y ago
  Honestly, I was going to reply in kind at the time, but then decided to do my part in keeping HN civil. :) This prof will likely not get in trouble, however my comment was regarding the general sentiment - the claim that you cannot get in trouble for helping to violate someone else's contract is dangerously incorrect. The bar might be high, I don't know enough about that, but in general you most certainly can get in trouble that way. I was thinking about the case where Kai-Fu Lee breached his contract with Microsoft by joining Google, and Google ended up sued and paying a settlement for the instigation.

dangrossman 16y ago

I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that the first amendment is not involved in this case, in reply to someone who said it was.

_delirium 16y ago
The fact that Sony is bringing the case doesn't really stand in the way, because the DMCA is a government law, so must respect the First Amendment. The government is the one prohibiting certain kinds of activities, via a law passed by Congress; the fact that the DMCA's enforcement mechanism is suits by private parties doesn't change that. Via the DMCA, the U.S. government prohibits "dissemination" of "technology, devices, or services" designed to circumvent copy-protection systems. The first-amendment generally doesn't allow the government to prohibit "dissemination" of things that qualify as "speech", so the open question is whether any of the things being prohibited qualify. (Universal v. Reimerdes, one of the DeCSS cases, upheld the DMCA against a similar challenge, so it's an uphill battle. A stronger case would probably be an attempt to suppress a cryptography-research paper via the DMCA, since publishing papers is the kind of activity usually assumed to be protected by the First Amendment. There've been a few potential test cases of that sort, but the plaintiffs seem to always back down before they get to a ruling.)
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Maybe a professor should coauthor a paper with geohot?