Sony, The Interview, and the No-Win situation

Pages

So yeah, I'm more than a little upset with Sony caving to terrorist threats.

I can understand not wanting to be held legally responsible should something happen, but at the same time how could they really be held responsible for someone making outlandish threats? That is a problem for the person making the threats, not whoever they are trying to bully.

So, I guess I understand, but goddamn I have a new most hated regime on this planet.

And also. I am not buying anything else for my PS4.

Ever.

I wasn't going to see this film either way, but this sets an unfortunate precedent. Threaten us and we will back down.

Our defense budget is larger than the budget for everything else, and we can't defend a movie release.

This could carry over to other forms of entertainment. My father in-law may be right. This is the new Cold War.

I will still be buying a PS4. Eventually. But hey, buy a WiiU. Seriously, it's fun there and there aren't other divisions to bow to terrorist threats!

Thanks for making this thread. I had no desire for a ps4(Microsoft guy here), but man this *really* upsets me. Sony as a corporation is not likely to lose any sales from me, as I prefer their competitors products anyways, but seriously this is crazy.

Tortured some folks: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Cops killed some folks: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
OMG Seth Rogen: 1,000 word think piece!

Read a good explanation somewhere. The only reason Sony backed down was that they were threatened with even more incriminating emails being released. The hackers, whoever they are, took advantage and make it seem like it's the terrorist threats that scared Sony.

Did you know Terrorism Insurance is a thing? Did you know that as a result of budget wrangling the support for Terrorism Insurance from the US government pretty much just stopped dead?

Some movie theaters apparently caved on account of suddenly no longer having insurance if they should end up being the place that gets shot up/blown up/held up/etc.

I don't really have a strong opinion here, but my wife works in politics so I hear weird things like this sometimes. Seems like the kind of thing this thread might be interested in.

Edwin wrote:

Tortured some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Cops killed some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
OMG Seth Rogen: 1,000 word think piece!

Yup, pretty much.

Edwin wrote:

Tortured some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Cops killed some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
OMG Seth Rogen: 1,000 word think piece!

You're right, Edwin. Much more important stuff to get mad about.

Can't we be mad about all of the above?

I was interested in this situation before Sony pulled the movie. My interest was from a legal perspective. In a hypothetical future law-suit, would these emails and documents be inadmissible or admissible, since how they were obtained wasn't legal?

I find it interesting also since the whole Nude Celebrity Photo scandal a few months back, as well as Donald Sterling's racist remarks taped without his knowing. It is my understanding that these two were obtained illegally, yet since the results are different, the overall opinion on the matter turns into a double standard. One exposed an ugly person for what he is, so everyone turned a blind eye as to how that information was obtained. Before I continue, was it obtained illegally? Is recording phone calls like that allowed?

I don't want to derail this further, but I think the sony leak and all this falls under a same umbrella, doesn't it? Maybe we can update the thread title? Just a thought.

Tons of threats including violence over a stupid movie, good for Sony for pulling it. There is a saying parents know well but I think it applies all over the place.

"Pick your battles"

If the enemy has proven it can do the damage its threatened,don't risk that over a stupid f*cking movie. Why would the government even begin to step up and Defend a movie like that. That's redicilous.

And now NK believes it has any corporation in the US by the short hairs. It would be insane to think this won't happen again soon with the unbelievable success they achieved here.

Cobble wrote:

Tons of threats including violence over a stupid movie, good for Sony for pulling it. There is a saying parents know well but I think it applies all over the place.

"Pick your battles"

If the enemy has proven it can do the damage its threatened,don't risk that over a stupid f*cking movie. Why would the government even begin to step up and Defend a movie like that. That's redicilous.

Picking your battles involves correctly assessing if the there is an actual threat.

This is a ridiculous bluff that if anything has more to do with what Vector said that the hackers have actual dirt on Sony.

Its a slippery slope. Whats next? John Stewart getting pulled because he might make a Taliban joke?

As for it being a 'a stupid f*cking movie' last I checked we value in our society for people to make 'stupid f*cking movies' and to let the general public vote with their wallet if more 'stupid f*cking movies' will be made.

Cobble wrote:

Tons of threats including violence over a stupid movie, good for Sony for pulling it. There is a saying parents know well but I think it applies all over the place.

"Pick your battles"

If the enemy has proven it can do the damage its threatened,don't risk that over a stupid f*cking movie. Why would the government even begin to step up and Defend a movie like that. That's redicilous.

And this is the point though, how has Guardians of Peace proven that they can carry out their threats?

I think Sony messed up pulling the movie. It's a stupid movie, of course, but they're on PR damage control. Shift the focus. Distract the people from the horrible stories coming out about racist remarks, stupid fights, inflated egos, unequal salaries based on sex, SSN's and medical records being released, THREE lawsuits already incoming just this week. Sony is the bad guy, but, shift the focus. They HAD to play the victim card. After all, they are indeed being threatened with violence. And any and all moviegoers who went to screenings as well were threatened. So now the focus is on us vs. them. America vs. Terrorists. They had this. The focus had shifted. And now when they had the world's attention, they dropped the ball and cowered.

I'm afraid of the precedent being set up here.

Tomorrow, terrorists will demand Sony sell Spider Man back to Marvel, or they will kill Brad Pitt. After this blunder, it's now actually an option. This is what sucks.

Edwin wrote:

Tortured some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Cops killed some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
OMG Seth Rogen: 1,000 word think piece!

On this very site, the torture thread, or more accurately the response to the Senate torture report thread, because it's come up in a lot of different threads, approaches 200 posts. The Ferguson thread nears 2000, while the "Police State" thread closes on 5000. When I hit post, this thread will have 14. No offense, but at least wait a bit before this sort of facile response.

Like Sally said above, it is possible to have responses to three or more things at the same time.

Unless one of you guys wrote a 1k word think piece about this, I don't believe that was aimed at you.

Edwin wrote:

Tortured some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Cops killed some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
OMG Seth Rogen: 1,000 word think piece!

Between this and the whole Hatred/GTA5 crap this week, I'm almost wondering if Americans hold "Right to Freedom of Speech" in higher regard than "Right to Bear Arms".

I also think that a movie no longer appearing in the local cineplex next week due to threats personally affects more people than the torture report or the recent lack of indictments, hence a disproportionate amount of writing about it. That's sadly one of the problems with our culture right now. Also, the Sony hacks have played out on a much shorter period of time so there's a much higher concentration of noise and signal about that incident.

It doesn't help that politicians have been banging the North Korea war drums for years, so we're a lot more sensitive to anything remotely dealing with them.

While I think this sets the possibility of a really bad precedent I'm not totally sure I'm willing to go to that length without further information (which we might never get) from Sony or the government regarding what's actually going on right now.

There's still some people speculating that North Korea isn't behind it, though I don't have the background to estimate how credible the speculation is.

Edit: More security people talking about it: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/rea...

Nomad wrote:

And now NK believes it has any corporation in the US by the short hairs. It would be insane to think this won't happen again soon with the unbelievable success they achieved here.

TIL Sony is a US-based corporation.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

And now NK believes it has any corporation in the US by the short hairs. It would be insane to think this won't happen again soon with the unbelievable success they achieved here.

TIL Sony is a US-based corporation.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. is based in Culver City, California.

If i wanted to see this movie, despite being afraid for my life, would it be possible to do so?

Didn't we all witness and gnash our teeth about this exact topic when the Seth Rogan movie was South Park showing a picture of Mohammed and Sony was Comedy Central?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

And now NK believes it has any corporation in the US by the short hairs. It would be insane to think this won't happen again soon with the unbelievable success they achieved here.

TIL Sony is a US-based corporation.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. is based in Culver City, California.

And its a subsidiary of Sony, which is based in Tokyo.

And all my experience working with Japanese companies is their international subsidiaries are pretty much entirely controlled by their Japanese headquarters.

I worked for subsidiary of Fujitsu in California and we literally had a team of Japanese expats executives that shadowed our executive management team. The Americans were technically in charge, but the reality was that they couldn't do sh*t without the Japanese shadow management team signing off on it first. And for them to sign off on it meant that the corporate brass in Tokyo had to OK the move.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

And now NK believes it has any corporation in the US by the short hairs. It would be insane to think this won't happen again soon with the unbelievable success they achieved here.

TIL Sony is a US-based corporation.

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. is based in Culver City, California.

And its a subsidiary of Sony, which is based in Tokyo.

And all my experience working with Japanese companies is their international subsidiaries are pretty much entirely controlled by their Japanese headquarters.

I worked for subsidiary of Fujitsu in California and we literally had a team of Japanese expats executives that shadowed our executive management team. The Americans were technically in charge, but the reality was that they couldn't do sh*t without the Japanese shadow management team signing off on it first. And for them to sign off on it meant that the corporate brass in Tokyo had to OK the move.

That's a lot more helpful than just writing "TIL Sony is a US-based corporation" which is still technically true.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

That's a lot more helpful than just writing "TIL Sony is a US-based corporation" which is still technically true.

Which is still more helpful than writing that every US corporation is going to be held hostage by NK hackers because they've been emboldened or some sh*t...

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Tortured some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Cops killed some folks: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
OMG Seth Rogen: 1,000 word think piece!

On this very site, the torture thread, or more accurately the response to the Senate torture report thread, because it's come up in a lot of different threads, approaches 200 posts. The Ferguson thread nears 2000, while the "Police State" thread closes on 5000. When I hit post, this thread will have 14. No offense, but at least wait a bit before this sort of facile response.

Like Sally said above, it is possible to have responses to three or more things at the same time.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Unless one of you guys wrote a 1k word think piece about this, I don't believe that was aimed at you.

Bingo. It was a commentary of the press and media out there, not here.

Edwin wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Unless one of you guys wrote a 1k word think piece about this, I don't believe that was aimed at you.

Bingo. It was a commentary of the press and media out there, not here.

I still think it was cheap, reductionist on multiple levels, and if not inaccurate, a mischaracterization. Sorry.

Seth wrote:

Didn't we all witness and gnash our teeth about this exact topic when the Seth Rogan movie was South Park showing a picture of Mohammed and Sony was Comedy Central?

Yes, and my reactions to both situations are identical.

Question: If Sony releases the movie despite the threat and ends up causing harm to some people, as the hackers promised, do all third parties that voice support for the release bear some of the moral burden? If Sony is made to repay the victims, are those third parties obligated to chip in?

In other words, some people are quick to condemn Sony for undermining freedom of expression, whatever that means in this context. But are they ready to help Sony bear the risk of upholding said freedom?

I think only the people who are ready to bear the risk with Sony are qualified to criticize. By bearing the risk, I mean being mentally prepared to sacrifice yourself or your loved ones to protect what you believe is the greater cause. I mean allowing the government to use your tax dollars to repair the losses of those hackers' would-be victims. I mean looking into the eyes of those who lose their loved ones and say "I'm sorry for your loss," while knowing with perfect clarity that your collective choice led us to this brutal but predictable conclusion.

I suppose it's a good thing that we won't get to find out who really mean what they say, and who are just putting out criticisms because it's so easy to judge when their own interests aren't at stake. Sony made that choice for us and bore the brunt of the damage. It poured in millions of dollars for a film that likely won't yield any returns. It is now the butt of everyone's joke. Its sales may suffer due to the political backlash. The corporation paid, and will continue to pay, for what it did. Meanwhile, we get to judge its actions with our persons and properties intact.

What's the worst that can happen from this point on? North Korea probably thinks it has a new nifty weapon. But that weapon will only work if the next victims roll over the same way Sony did. They are free to refuse compliance, at which point the effectiveness of this weapon will become null. Maybe that's the real animus behind the criticisms. Some people don't want to deal with confronting the threat themselves, so they blame Sony for making everyone a bigger target for future threats.

I am reminded briefly of the Terry Schiavo situation a few years back. I recall the protestors standing outside the hospital with their fancy posters while chanting their self-righteous slogans. "Don't pull the plug," they urged, "It is an affront to god and everything good," or something to that effect. These protestors weren't the ones paying to sustain Schiavo's life (un-life?). They didn't have to confront the reality of keeping a vegetable breathing while struggling to make ends meet. I don't recall many of them putting in donations to help the family. Hypocrites.

Hypocrites.

As an outsider (looking in) of American culture; my first thought upon hearing Sony's decision of cutting The Interview was: "It was all for nothing."

As of 9/11, the US has systematically and pathologically been forfeiting freedom in the name of security. Some feel it's unwarranted, those in power justify it. But when push comes to shove, a hacker group just showed everyone how unsafe the US feels within their own country.

I don't know how lazy Sony's security was at the time of the hacks; but that's quite the gargantuan leap between downloading files anonymously and assuming GOP has the capacity of blowing up 18,000 movie theaters. Hollywood has drank its own Kool-aid.

Talking to kexx, this felt like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moment. If a single jerk decided to throw a smoke bomb or blow up a cherry bomb in a movie theater on Dec 25th, Sony would be the money-hungry corporation that put Investor's Return On Investment before people's safety. They went the other way and we're all reading how disappointing Sony's decision was to everyone +dog.

What to do?

*shrugs* If it make big movie companies think twice about filming horribly racist/homophobic/sexist bullsh*t dudebro "comedies" then that's fine by me. (It won't, of course).

Really curious to know what kind of crap Sony have buried in those leaks that they think is worth caving in to blackmail though...

pyxistyx wrote:

*shrugs* If it make big movie companies think twice about filming horribly racist/homophobic/sexist bullsh*t dudebro "comedies" then that's fine by me. (It won't, of course).

Really curious to know what kind of crap Sony have buried in those leaks that they think is worth caving in to blackmail though...

I'm really surprised by how many posters in this thread have come out on the side of compliance with the demands of terrorism for the promise of safety instead of free-speech. No one has any guarantee that the perpetrators will keep their word. Sure the movie they are attacking now may not meet someone's personal standard of excellence, but next time what if it's not a movie they are targeting?
Hypocrites? I'm sure there are many, but their presence does not invalidate the position or every position ever taken would be invalidated.
I guess the looming question here is how dearly do you value your 1st amendment rights, and are we as a country ok with allowing them to be infringed by threat of force by outsiders(or insiders if the hackers turn out to be)?
How much is your freedom worth?

Pages