Leaked Movie Trailer and Confidentiality Agreement
Discussion Questions
Q1. Sharing information about incoming releases
Yes, it would be wrong for Luke to share information about incoming releases as this is not unethical and goes against confidentiality agreement. Any breach of this agreement would also lead to the termination of the contract and attract prosecution. Luke was bound by a confidentiality agreement to keep private all information related to the movies he is working on. Beside contractual obligations, it is also unethical to share information before authorized release time because the employers will suffer financial loss
Q2. Employee confidentiality agreement
Confidentiality agreement with employees is subject to specific acceptable and unacceptable requirements. The accepted and unaccepted requirements are outlined out in the contract agreement detailing what the parties consider confidential and non-confidential. An employee is required to keep the private information of the company under this agreement. However, there are some defenses for which an agreement cannot be enforceable on an employee. It is unacceptable for an employee to disclose information unless they are illegal or contradict the laws and regulations. Under such circumstances, the contract becomes unlawful and cannot be enforceable. Examples of such information include child abuse in the movie or information that aids criminals.
Q3. Releasing the Trailer by fellow employees
Sharing information with third parties is wrong regardless of the consequences. Therefore, even though sharing trailer information increased publicity of the movie, the move by Luke’s fellow employees was wrong because it breached the contract agreement and was also unethical. Despite the intention and increased publicity, fellow employees are still liable for prosecution for violating contract obligations. Nevertheless, it would take time for Luke to regain trust in his employers following the leaking of trailer information.
Q4. The precedent set by failing to investigate the leak
Trailer information was leaked to the customer before the actual release, but it generated benefits than damages to the employer. Ideally, the aim of non-disclosure is not to get financial remedy in the event of contractual breach, but rather to offer an injunctive relief to halt any future violation of the contract from occurring. However, failing to investigate the leakage of information and holding those responsible accountable would set a precedent. Therefore going forward employees cannot be held liable for leaking information claiming they meant to benefit the employer rather than causing harm
Q5. The harm of leaked Trailer
On the contrary, rather than harming the yet to be released movie, the leaked version benefited the employer by increasing its publicity. Trailer’s leaked version generated a considerable following before the upcoming release. Rather than releasing secrets and hurting sales, it attracted a massive audience on the internet.
References
Case study 7
Jessica Silliman was a 2006-07 Hackworth Fellow at The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.