how much money have they spent on this movie? If people pitch in world wide...how much money does HN think it would take for Sony to "sell" this movie to the public.
An Offer to Sony from 2600
61–70 of 200 posts
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Administration officials said President Obama’s national security team is considering a range of options to retaliate against those responsible for the cyberattack on the movie studio" [1] I agree it's very early days. I think what I'm fixating on is that we now live in a world where the US government needs to formulate a response to a business hacking. I mean, not a civil but actual military response. I think this…
I think that attacking businesses and commercial services is fundamentally different from attacking, say, the DOD intranet. But these are philosophical discussions that the American public (not to mention, ugh, Congress) hasn't really thought through critically. It's so difficult to articulate what an appropriate "military" response could/should be. Should we simply reinforce our Cyber defensive capabilities and not…
Completely agree. "Hasn't really thought through critically" is quite possibly the kindest way to phrase it.
@logn mentioned rallying around this like we did Apollo. It's a grand idea, but I can't say I have any hope that will be the chosen approach.
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard a Sony executive on NPR today say "If and when this movie is released... Let me stop, when this movie is released..." Sony Pictures clearly intends for the film to be seen, but they need a distribution partner.
I'd interpret that exactly to the opposite: They're not sure if they're going to release it, but they want to put on a brave face and say that they will. In reality, they're probably all scared shitless. If all of their employees' personal info has been compromised as reported, I can understand that they'd be worried about the possibility of someone getting hurt. Even a minor, harmless event could lead to bad press.…
> Of course, no one believes that NK actually has the ability to inflict physical harm outside of their own country
I wish. They're definitely capable of inflicting physical harm outside of NK. Just the first link that comes to my mind that has already been shared here:
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201306/kim-jong-i...
It's not so unusual for a Korean to be in Japan, and NK can surely provide falsified documents to "prove" their agent is actually from SK (NK and SK, aside from minor differencies, even speak the same language, so how would you tell them apart?)
Granted, their ability to move in the US might be severely smaller than their ability to move inside Japan. But you only need a person or two with an handgun to scare the living hell out of the media/country/people who worry about such things
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#64Sony CEO Michael Lynton says Sony still wants The Interview to be seen and is considering their options. Those include DVD and Blu-ray home video, YouTube, VOD, and other digital platforms but “there has not been one major VOD distributor, one major e-commerce site that has stepped forward and said they are willing to distribute this movie for us.” [1] Hackers to Sony: We'll stand down if you never release the movie.…
its time we all realize that we are all responsible for where exactly "reality" is at. I'll pay them 1BTC if they let this happen... https://twitter.com/hansent/status/546273749163466753
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#65Let us relook the issue here. Is it hackers attack on Sony or Sony making a movie on North Korean ruler(as I understand) or both? Every human/culture has likes,dislikes ...etc and every one expect others not crossing those lines for peaceful co-existence. In democracy, no doubt, there is freedom of expression but if that expression is uncomfortable to other, then there is responsibility to control/prevent that expres…
[deleted]
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory. No, no it's not. It's an insensitive, assholish and petty action, but it does not constitute an incitation to immediate violation of the law, including but not exclusively because it was announced beforehand.
Incitement to crime -- speech that spurs another to commit a crime -- is just one of 6 categories of speech which are not protected. The other five main exceptions to free speech protection include; Defamation, Obscenity, Sedition, and... Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Causing…
Considering that flag burning is infamously declared legal, it'd be hard to justify banning Quran burning on "fighting words" grounds.
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#67Very little content here. Seems more like self-promotion and a silly offer that Sony would be stupid to take. Why let someone distribute the movie for free when they spent over $40m making it and can (worst case scenario) put it on a website they build and charge $10 to everyone that wants to watch it?
im still hoping its a very genius marketing campaign...but either way, setting the movie free (not as in beer) would send a powerfull message. cant think of a better xmas gift to humanity right now...
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#68Let us relook the issue here. Is it hackers attack on Sony or Sony making a movie on North Korean ruler(as I understand) or both? Every human/culture has likes,dislikes ...etc and every one expect others not crossing those lines for peaceful co-existence. In democracy, no doubt, there is freedom of expression but if that expression is uncomfortable to other, then there is responsibility to control/prevent that expres…
a few years back we had Team America[0] in which kim jong il is painted as a crazy terrorist and in the end dies after the american world police gets to him, and is revealed to be an alien cockroach when he gets impaled on a tube. Apparently, that movie was ok, so why shouldn't this have been? There is always people whose sensitivity gets hurt by movies and books, but this should not automatically lead to stopping pu…
All things happened in the past may not be good for example financial crises, wars, tsunami's ...etc. So past is not reference to present or future.
>>> There is always people whose sensitivity gets hurt by movies and books, but this should not automatically lead to stopping publishing.
There are "defamation laws" in many countries. Many people/companies use them if they feel offended/hurt, even if they are not noble. This incident may be the same for NK.
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#69Let us relook the issue here. Is it hackers attack on Sony or Sony making a movie on North Korean ruler(as I understand) or both? Every human/culture has likes,dislikes ...etc and every one expect others not crossing those lines for peaceful co-existence. In democracy, no doubt, there is freedom of expression but if that expression is uncomfortable to other, then there is responsibility to control/prevent that expres…
Ok, let's fill in a little bit of background here: North Korea isn't a happy place. It's a tyrannical dictatorship that has earned its spot as, quite literally, the worst place on earth. The Kim family has spent decades systematically programming the North Korean people as part of a system that follows in the tradition of such evil as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Pasha. Concerning yourself with Kim's feelings is the…
North Korea may not be happy place. But expecting a movie would bring meaningful change is a stretch of imagination.
Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600
#70Let us relook the issue here. Is it hackers attack on Sony or Sony making a movie on North Korean ruler(as I understand) or both? Every human/culture has likes,dislikes ...etc and every one expect others not crossing those lines for peaceful co-existence. In democracy, no doubt, there is freedom of expression but if that expression is uncomfortable to other, then there is responsibility to control/prevent that expres…
I understand the sentiment behind your comment but applying this doctrine does more good than harm. The right to not be offended, quite simply, does not exist and should not exist in free democracies. Everything should be open for debate, discussion, parody, etc.. Not producing a movie because someone might feel insulted by it and then throw a temper tantrum is censorship by proxy in its purest form. The tyranny of s…
> The right to not be offended, quite simply, does not exist and should not exist in free democracies
Genuine question: Why is that?