Read Leaked Movie Trailer and a Confidentiality Agreement and complete the questions at the end of the case study Leaked Movie Trailer and a Confidentiality AgreementJessica Silliman Luke Cavanaugh was an assistant editor at a large-scale, Los Angeles-based company which produced movie trailers, television spots and other promotional material. As assistant editor, Luke's main responsibility was to take the "editor's cut" of a film and break it down to get it ready for promotional distribution and sound mixing. Luke's job dealt heavily with confidentiality. Friends and family members would often ask him for "the dirt" on the latest releases, especially with large-scale Hollywood productions. Because of these external factors, Luke and all other employee s of the production company were forced to sign confidentiality agreements at the beginning of employment. If these agreements were breached, the employee could be terminated and legally prosecuted. The company had suffered from "leaks" in the past that resulted in harmful consequences such as lawsuits by the affected production companies. Most recently, Luke worked on the trailer for a highly anticipated third film of a trilogy. Hollywood and its many fans were itching to get a glimpse of the latest special effects and techniques used in the film. Luke's family and friends, though they were aware of his contractual obligations, pressured him to tell them about the film. Luke refused. "I would undoubtedly choose not to do something like this-not just because it's unethical-but because I could get fired," he said. Even with the tight security, Luke arrived at work one morning to find that his trailer had leaked onto the Internet and was available on fan websites and blogs. The trailer had already been passed for inspection to other employees, so it was impossible to determine where the leak originated. Luke worried about the security of his job-although this leak wasn't his fault, he feared repercussions from the filmmaker and producers who entrusted him with their movie. To his surprise, the leaked version of the trailer inspired a cult following in advance of the upcoming release. Instead of hurting sales and revealing secrets, the leaked trailer drew a bigger crowd than expected and sparked unintentional advertising via the Internet. "I take the confidentiality agreements seriously-anyone in this industry has to," said Luke. "I don' t know who leaked the video, but I'm lucky that it helped the movie. If it hadn't, I would have faced a lot of pressure from those above me and struggled to regain their trust." Discussion Questions: · Do you think it would be wrong for Luke to share information about coming releases with friends and family? Why or why not? · What are acceptable and unacceptable requirements of a confidentiality agreement with an employee? · Was it wrong for Luke's unknown fellow employee to release the trailer, even if it resulted in increased publicity for the movie? · What pre ...

1. Read Leaked Movie Trailer and a Confidentiality
Agreement and complete the questions at the end of the case
study
Leaked Movie Trailer and a Confidentiality AgreementJessica
Silliman
Luke Cavanaugh was an assistant editor at a large-scale, Los
Angeles-based company which produced movie trailers,
television spots and other promotional material. As assistant
editor, Luke's main responsibility was to take the "editor's cut"
of a film and break it down to get it ready for promotional
distribution and sound mixing.
Luke's job dealt heavily with confidentiality. Friends and family
members would often ask him for "the dirt" on the latest
releases, especially with large-scale Hollywood productions.
Because of these external factors, Luke and all other employee s
of the production company were forced to sign confidentiality
agreements at the beginning of employment. If these agreements
were breached, the employee could be terminated and legally
prosecuted.
The company had suffered from "leaks" in the past that resulted
in harmful consequences such as lawsuits by the affected
production companies. Most recently, Luke worked on the
trailer for a highly anticipated third film of a trilogy.
Hollywood and its many fans were itching to get a glimpse of
the latest special effects and techniques used in the film. Luke's
family and friends, though they were aware of his contractual
obligations, pressured him to tell them about the film. Luke
refused.
"I would undoubtedly choose not to do something like this-not
just because it's unethical-but because I could get fired," he
said.
Even with the tight security, Luke arrived at work one morning
to find that his trailer had leaked onto the Internet and was
available on fan websites and blogs. The trailer had already

2. been passed for inspection to other employees, so it was
impossible to determine where the leak originated. Luke
worried about the security of his job-although this leak wasn't
his fault, he feared repercussions from the filmmaker and
producers who entrusted him with their movie.
To his surprise, the leaked version of the trailer inspired a cult
following in advance of the upcoming release. Instead of
hurting sales and revealing secrets, the leaked trailer drew a
bigger crowd than expected and sparked unintentional
advertising via the Internet.
"I take the confidentiality agreements seriously-anyone in this
industry has to," said Luke. "I don' t know who leaked the
video, but I'm lucky that it helped the movie. If it hadn't, I
would have faced a lot of pressure from those above me and
struggled to regain their trust."
Discussion Questions:
· Do you think it would be wrong for Luke to share information
about coming releases with friends and family? Why or why
not?
· What are acceptable and unacceptable requirements of a
confidentiality agreement with an employee?
· Was it wrong for Luke's unknown fellow employee to release
the trailer, even if it resulted in increased publicity for the
movie?
· What precedent is this situation setting by not investigating
the leak?
· What is the harm in a leaked trailer?
Jessica Silliman was a 2006-07 Hackworth Fellow at The
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-
ethics/resources/leaked-movie-trailer/
Read Deceitful Spammer or Marketing Genius? and complete
the questions at the end of the case study.Deceitful Spammer or
Marketing Genius?Jessica Silliman
Rachel Bailey was quickly hired out of Santa Clara University

3. during the dot-com boom to a company of 100 employees that
ran an innovative social networking website in Silicon Valley.
She was immediately put in charge of email communication to
customers-both existing and potential.
The Internet was quite new to everyone and online
communication (via email) had little corporate regulation or set
social protocol. Privacy policies were yet to be established.
With thousands of individuals discovering the Internet
everyday, business was booming for the small Silicon Valley
firm.
Rachel handled all online contact with existing users and was
asked to market to these existing online community members
via email. But she struggled with finding a balance of the right
amount of marketing. With Internet competition growing
everyday within the social networking websites, these users had
plenty of alternatives. And flooding their email inboxes, she
thought, wasn't the best way to attract them.
Unfortunately, Rachel's boss had a different approach. The Vice
President of Marketing wanted results-he wanted existing
customers to upgrade their networking packages and follow
through on advertisements. He told Rachel to be as aggressive
as possible with her email campaigns. But at the same time,
Rachel spoke with coworkers who didn't want to work for a
company known for its email spam. They prided themselves on
working at an organization that respected its users and didn't
abuse the ease of email communication-even within the
competitive market.
Rachel found subtle alternatives to the mass emails. She
developed links on the company website to advertisements, but
she wasn' t getting the results her boss demanded.
One day when Rachel arrived at the office, her boss said he had
a brilliant idea. He said that everybody knew someone named
Cindy Anderson, so they could send emails to their users from
that name to trick them into opening the email, which would
display a link to their website.
Rachel was incensed with her boss's idea. "A lot of people are

4. very casual with the truth," she said.
Rachel felt very uncomfortable with the thought of
implementing what she considered to be her boss's deceptive
idea.
"People trust you with their email addresses," said Rachel. "You
have to be responsible and not take advantage of that access."
She worried that existing customers would begin to resent the
company and unsubscribe. But she also had a commitment to
drawing in as many new customers as she could-and her more
subtle tactics weren't working.
Rachel made the decision to stand up to her boss. The following
week she told him that his idea was deceitful and would cause
customers to lose trust and faith in the company. In the end, it
wouldn't be a financially viable solution to their problem.
Rachel proved to be convincing. Her boss took her advice and
began to realize that it was a bad idea.
"In the end, we had happy customers and our company gained
more value in the highly competitive market," said Rachel.
Discussion Questions:
· Describe the ethical dilemma or dilemmas Rachel faced.
· Do you think Rachel's boss' "Cindy Anderson" strategy is
ethically acceptable? Why or why not?
· What is Rachel's obligation to her customers and what are
Rachel 's obligations to the company?
· What do you think is the most important factor in how Rachel
responded to the situation: That she thought the proposed
"Cindy Anderson" strategy was deceitful or that she thought the
strategy would cost the company customers?
Jessica Silliman was a 2006-07 Hackworth Fellow at The
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-
ethics/resources/deceitful-spammer-or-marketing-genius/