UTMC

So I'm not sure if this is more Headline News or Politics, but it sure as shit ain't motorcycles so I'll drop it here.

I, for one, was not going to pay theater costs for a Rogen/Franco stoner flick. They're usually, in my opinion, good for a chuckle or two and that's about it. Best enjoyed with your preferred mind altering substance at least.

BUT, I am whole-heartedly offended that they're pulling the movie over an email hack and a bunch of threats. Some weird hard to iterate collision of the 1st Ammendment and negotiating with terrorists. Doubly so that it's becoming increasingly obvious that it was a state-sponsored hack with overt threats from North Korea. TRIPLY so that they made 9/11 references. Something about chivalry and gentlemenly warfare. You don't invoke the specter of a terrorist attack, and you identify yourself with the intentional, flagrant killing of innocent civilians when you do!!

And WORSE, now I REALLY want to see this movie, which may not be available for years!!!!!

Wouldn't it be a hoot if this was all some huge marketing scheme? Fake hack, fake emails, etc? I doubt it, but if it was, they just won, cause EVERYONE wants to see it now.

Complete side note now that I'm finally thinking about this whole thing: how fucking petty of North Korea? I mean, just a stupid thing to tip your hand over. That's some pretty serious hacking power they just showed, and over a stoner comedy with mediocre reviews?

-Rench

Something tells me that Mr Rogen or Mr Franco will "accidentally" leak this film into youtube, so everyone can fucking watch it. So fucking stupid. Apparently some theaters here in Texas are going to show Team America:World Police in place of showing this film.

The Alamo Drafthouse was going to show Team America in it's place until Paramount forbade them from doing so. The movie industry apparently has jello instead of a backbone.

If this was just a marketing ploy, describing the execution in any way but sublime and flawless would be utterly missing the point. Indeed, marketing galore.
However, if that was so, I'd have expected the North Koreans to issue some severe denials. I don't think they'd let Sony play with them for marketing purposes like that.

I doubt it'd get put on youtube, google would yank it in an instant, a hack-attack on youtube would be economically disadvantageous.
However, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of video streaming sites, in countries all over the world, where you can (at this very moment) watch all them pirated movies as it is. Hacking all of them to pieces, that'd be a bit of an effort. Diffuse target, heads regrowing whenever you chop one of and so forth. If Sony hasn't faked this to begin with, they might enjoy the opportunity to get rid of illicit video streaming sites by surreptitiously putting the film out through there, complaining publicly about copyrights and whatnot and sitting back while North Korean hackers try and take these sites offline.

However, the negotiating-with-terrorists comparison, I don't think it so directly applies here.
This is not a nation state, on behalf of it's citizens, caving in to terrorist demands. It's a publicly traded company caving in to a nation state on behalf of it's shareholders. In a situation where that nation state has no legal standing and uses criminal means, truly, but still. This is the 21st century. Communications and commerce move too quickly for laws to even apply, let alone keep up.

I'm not sure whether to be surprised at the North Korean's pettiness.
How would the supreme Soviet of the USSR have reacted in 1980 at a movie not about assassinating a fictional Soviet rules, but the real Mr. Brezhnev?
Back then, movies didn't explode onto the world stage in the way they do today, foreign markets would receive even major motion pictures only after some months, and dubbed and so forth. Some movies would never reach certain markets as the local distributors weren't interested, or government censors objects, what have you.
While a movie that did get out could have much larger impact than today, simply because there was less stuff going on, individual movies were just less likely to reach as many people as quickly as today, and certainly wouldn't remain available basically to all and forever once they were out. Even VHS couldn't do that once it came around.

In 1940, before the USA entered WWII, the first edition of Captain America had the good captain punching Herr Hitler in the face. So, it's not without precedent.

I doubt it'd get put on youtube, google would yank it in an instant, a hack-attack on youtube would be economically disadvantageous.

I doubt youtube is worried about these guys. The hack, in a technical sense, was pretty mickey mouse. The main components they used are available for purchase on black market sites, and the coding they did do to string it all together was unsophisticated and amateurish. What's really notable is the epically shitty network security at Sony. My seventh grade nephew has my sisters home network more locked down than they were. Personally I'm still skeptical regarding NK involvement. I wouldn't be shocked to find out the threats against theaters are just a red herring.

Lot's of buzz in stuff I've read are making N.Korea out to be the patsy for an insider/group of insiders that is/are trying to burn Sony down for revenge. The bits of code and passwords they used were rather specific so if it was fully an outside attack they had been watching and learning for a very long time. Simpler answer is it was done by someone who already has access.

I saw an obnoxious comment on FB about why Sony had to pull the movie everywhere, because 'ever heard of something called liability', where the idea is that someone could sue Sony if they went to see the movie and got killed by terrorists while doing so. The idea being that death by terror is pretty bad, but lawsuits, man, lawsuits.

I had no interest in seeing this movie, really still don't, but I think it really stinks for Sony to withdraw it from everywhere. Now all you need to be a highly successful terrorist is to pull off a computer breach and threaten violence and you get big results. With apologies for flippancy, terrorists should have to prove some real violence capability before they get what they want. But that's how it works, isn't it- the act of terror itself isn't the thing, its the way we (collective we of the US in general) tie ourselves up in knots that is the real payoff.

The point of terrorism is to instill terror, not to destroy a target, yeah.
But the liability argument holds a bit of water. Apart from getting sued, Sony would be liable to loose investor confidence if a terrorist atrocity against a movie theater showing their product occurred. Sony is a for-profit company, ethics don't play in there, much.

Here's a suggestion. A law should be established.
If terrorist threats lead to a movie not being released, or being withdrawn or whatnot, any copyright for that movie is instantly void. So the first person who got their hand on a screener DVD (or BD or whatnot) can, with no fear of repercussion, distribute through illicit channels. This would deter studios from caving in to terrorists, it would deter terrorists to provide free advertising for what will soon be a free movie everyone can download legally and free.

Interview can be streamed for $5.99 on YouTube, watched it last night



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed2kSuKqfz0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MATPOC wrote:Interview can be streamed for $5.99 on YouTube, watched it last night



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed2kSuKqfz0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Other than pissing in Cheesehead's eye, is it worth the $6 and the 2 hours of your (or my) life?

--Jaeger

The government wants you to see this so you'll support the next scheduled war.
Supposedly the initial contacts regarding the security breach were purely monetary extortion and only later did this Nork/Interview angle come up.

There is a great article on this that makes the wonderful point that corporate interests easily fold at the slightest threat, and that it's a shame we're relying on foreign agents to do it for us.
http://jackbaruth.com/?p=2315" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skip to the last three paragraphs if you're in a rush.

I still maintain it's a deal between Sony and North Korea. Sony figures the movie won't make as much as it should, the North Koreans want to draw in investments, as they have on occasion in recent years, and Sony needs a cheap animation studio someplace. So NK actually does the deed, and when all has settled and Sony has made tons more on The Interview than they otherwise would, one of their subsidiaries will set up shop in Pyongyang.

Jaeger wrote:

MATPOC wrote:Interview can be streamed for $5.99 on YouTube, watched it last night



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed2kSuKqfz0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Other than pissing in Cheesehead's eye, is it worth the $6 and the 2 hours of your (or my) life?

--Jaeger

If you can get some good herb it may be better, other than that it's just meh...

Had zero interest in this movie prior to this nonsense...... and still don't.

Arguably, the controversey is based on an underwhelming movie that Sony paid the actors too much to do, and an overzealous, paranoid "government" with too much time on its hands. Easy for a government to have too much time on its hands when not distracted by the human rights of its populace or the idea of a better way of living.