quote:

---

Why is nobody criticizing the american new outlets and journalists who have publicly released the stolen data they received from the hackers?

---

Tons of people have criticized them

bad phrasing on my part. I think Sorkin is being whiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/opinion/aaron-sorkin-journalists-shouldnt-help-the-sony-hackers.html

Saw this on imgur this morning:

Business is business...if Sony can't make money by showing the picture, they want to recoup their losses.

And, if on the very small chance something could happen at the theaters, they've done the morally right thing.

What Sony has done in response to the hacking and threats is good business, and the only choice to they really have. Just because a bunch of hollywood types, the press and people who want to express righteous indignation are loudly denouncing them as cowards doesn't make it wrong.

Those same people would be crucifying them if they released the film and there was subsequent hack info release, terror event or drastic money loss for the entertainment segment. They'd say that Sony could have prevented "insert imagined or real tragedy here" if only they'd done the right thing and limited or prevented release of the movie.

What would you have had them do? They can't win.

Isn't there a chance that Sony ends up making more money on this than originally planned? If it ever does come out in theaters, everybody is going to see it. My parents see maybe one movie a year and I don't even think they know who Seth Rogen and James Franco are, but they want to see it now.

so if a terrorist kidnaps a person and demands a ransom, and you don't pay the ransom and the terrorist kills the hostage, are you responsible for the hostage's death?

Dave...if you are asking me personally, then no...I don't think a person who refuses ransom is responsible for the hostage's death.

If you are asking would...hollywood types, the press and people who enjoy loudly expressing righteous indignation think that the person who refuses ransom responsible for the death...then yes. I also believe that that group would find fault with someone paying the ransom to get back the hostage.

The point I was trying to make (which I obviously didn't get across very well)...is that I believe the segment that is being very vocal right now would ***** loudly either way.

And, Sony had to make a choice. Either one was bad. But, (again my personal opinion) I believe they chose the lesser of two evils in this situation.

Does it make it more likely to occur in the future? Possibly, but I don't think that is Sony's fault, although a large segment of this thread may disagree with me.

Professor you are probably right, I just hate admitting that ****ing North Korea got a victory over the US in any form or fashion.

quote:

---

What Sony has done in response to the hacking and threats is good business, and the only choice to they really have. Just because a bunch of hollywood types, the press and people who want to express righteous indignation are loudly denouncing them as cowards doesn't make it wrong.
Those same people would be crucifying them if they released the film and there was subsequent hack info release, terror event or drastic money loss for the entertainment segment. They'd say that Sony could have prevented "insert imagined or real tragedy here" if only they'd done the right thing and limited or prevented release of the movie.

---

There was never any realistic probability of a terrorist/North Korean attack. None. Even if you don't believe the DHS assessment saying that, common sense tells us that even the possibility that North Korea was involved in an attack on US soil would probably lead to a counterattack of some kind, perhaps even a regime change. Furthermore, the threat itself seemed to embolden American moviegoers, so the business risk to the industry was small.

The fact is that Sony was terrified that additional internal data that might be released (perhaps rightfully so), and therefore they agreed to the hackers' demands hoping the problem would just go away. And maybe it will for them, but now every other company in the US is at risk for large-scale cyber-blackmail because hackers have learned that it can work and the US government's ability to respond is limited at best.

Sony screwed everyone to save themselves and still may end up going down regardless.

How long until uber-nerd hackers start hacking other film studios and blackmailing them to give in to their demands? (Making a certain movie, casting/firing a certain actor, etc)?

what's the point of artistic expression if a heckler's veto is the lesser of two evils?

just sayin'

FTR cnn obtained info they states the hackers say they won't release any more info because they complied with not releasing the movie.

I want that ****ing torrent yesterday.

so the only non-fantasy villains moving forward are going to be Nazis, corporations, and Republicans?

swell.

Can someone please do some hacking and prevent Ben Affleck as Batman?

I think that is something we could all get behind.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/19/7421373/sony-hackers-wont-release-more-data-because-the-interview-cancelled

as long as they have that data, they have leverage

this isn't over

quote:

---

quote:

---

What Sony has done in response to the hacking and threats is good business, and the only choice to they really have. Just because a bunch of hollywood types, the press and people who want to express righteous indignation are loudly denouncing them as cowards doesn't make it wrong.
Those same people would be crucifying them if they released the film and there was subsequent hack info release, terror event or drastic money loss for the entertainment segment. They'd say that Sony could have prevented "insert imagined or real tragedy here" if only they'd done the right thing and limited or prevented release of the movie.

---

There was never any realistic probability of a terrorist/North Korean attack. None. Even if you don't believe the DHS assessment saying that, common sense tells us that even the possibility that North Korea was involved in an attack on US soil would probably lead to a counterattack of some kind, perhaps even a regime change. Furthermore, the threat itself seemed to embolden American moviegoers, so the business risk to the industry was small.

The fact is that Sony was terrified that additional internal data that might be released (perhaps rightfully so), and therefore they agreed to the hackers' demands hoping the problem would just go away. And maybe it will for them, but now every other company in the US is at risk for large-scale cyber-blackmail because hackers have learned that it can work and the US government's ability to respond is limited at best.

Sony screwed everyone to save themselves and still may end up going down regardless.

---

While they certainly concerned about it, they were more concerned with no distribution, all of the large players pulled out. Additionally, they didn't have confirmation yet on where the threat was coming from (though it came today from the FBI).
If they don't re-release in a few months then we can blame the gear of more emails.

It's about to get real

http://uproxx.com/movies/2014/12/anonymous-north-korea-plan-release-the-interview/

I've got it bootleg. Start making offers.

quote:

---

I've got it bootleg. Start making offers.

---

Expect the NoKo's to sabotage your home network any second.

Now Anonymous is apparently threatening Sony with more hacking if they DON'T release the movie.

Now Sony will release it for free on Crackle, the streaming service they own.

quote:

---

as long as they have that data, they have leverage

this isn't over

---

Expect Sony to release "Most Awesome Korea Ever" in 2016

quote:

---

Now Sony will release it for free on Crackle, the streaming service they own.

---

Should have done this right after movie chains started pulling the movie. If you are gonna take a loss on it, might as well make a PR statement that you won't be bullied.

Now you will have the movie released anyway and your organization looks like a bunch of cowards.

Apparently the US just shut down the interwebs in North Korea...not that they would notice

Yeah, their govt is the only one with access there.

If they trace the cyber attack back to our govt, is that considered an act of war?

Source on NK internet outage

I'm hearing that Sony has just re-authorized screenings

Release is back on, though in just a few theaters.

http://deadline.com/2014/12/interview-release-back-on-christmas-sony-attack-1201334389/

200+ cinemas now. This is going to be a huge financial success.

Not really. Unbroken is opening in 3000+ for comparison,

Too bad I don't even know what unbroken is. Everybody knows what the interview is ...now

Everyone knowing what it is doesn't help the fact that you can only fit so many people in front of 200 screens.