Slashdot Mirror


Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

tobiasly writes The country's top five theater chains — Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment — have decided not to play Sony's The Interview. This comes after the group which carried off a massive breach of its networks threatened to carry out "9/11-style attacks" on theaters that showed the film. Update: Sony has announced that it has cancelled the planned December 25 theatrical release.

589 comments

  1. Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh huh...

    1. Re:Home of the brave? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Home of the financially weary.

    2. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, this only emboldens the bad guys, now that some hackers have actually gotten companies to run away screaming from a fictional movie.

      The movie theaters have just fscked themselves. Now they can't present any controversial material out of fear.

      Like the old counterstrike game:

      "Terrorists win."

    3. Re:Home of the brave? by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More like home of the pussies.

    4. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well. Lets see how well the Nsa really can figure out how to backtrack through the tor network and find the people who did this.

    5. Re:Home of the brave? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Sony is a modern Japanese company. Hari-kari isn't on the agenda.

    6. Re:Home of the brave? by GTRacer · · Score: 0

      Tomorrow morning, you pick up the paper. A bold headline declares a threat against your local mall. The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats.

      As it happens, you have an appointment at that very mall that afternoon. Do you go?

      Of course you do, Internet Tough Guy! Because why would a red-blooded American listen to rational cautions and plausible evidence? Can't show fear or "they" win, right?

      /sigh

      I hate the thought of censorship and paying blackmail as much as the next Slashdotter. But in this case I can't blame anyone for erring on the side of caution. Do *I* think GOP has the ability to pull off such attacks? Probably not. Not at scale. But could they hit one theatre? I'm not willing to take that bet. They've shown they're deep in Sony's business and even if it *isn't* GOP, there's enough crazy in this country to get copycats and sympathizers going if given a push.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    7. Re:Home of the brave? by Obscene_CNN · · Score: 5, Funny

      So if 9/11 style threats against theaters will stop a movie from being released, Why the hell didn't someone think of that when Twilight was released?

      --
      I don't want to do a sig now
    8. Re:Home of the brave? by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I'd go to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident driving to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed by lightning. Why not go? It's not a matter of being "tough". It's simply a matter of math. Do the math.

    9. Re:Home of the brave? by zerro · · Score: 1

      That's the plotline for Team America 2, but don't think Sony's gonna carry that ;)

    10. Re:Home of the brave? by mlts · · Score: 1

      What were the smaller threats? A brick through a window? Used to happen all the time when Austin was in a recession in the early 1990s.

      Would I go? Yes, because it is very hard to find a barber here in Austin at a reasonable time.

      Would I say yes, no matter what? Not without more info, but in general, it wouldn't affect me. If it was a threat significant enough to be worried about, the local PD would have their MRAP there.

    11. Re:Home of the brave? by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. And even more so.

      If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.

      Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.

      And in this specific case, what are the "terrorists" going to do? Steal your credit card number? Pay cash instead.

    12. Re:Home of the brave? by bughunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans are brave, and motivated by ideals like liberty and honor.

      Corporations are risk averse, and motivated solely by profit.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    13. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, I hate Sony (not for the geek PS3/linux reasons).

      But it does irritate me when people say hari-kari. I get that it's used in English a lot, but the original term is Hara-Kiri.

      Hari Kari to me sounds like a baseball announcer.

    14. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many malls and similar places receive daily threats yet they don't close or even add security unless it's credible.

    15. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh huh...

      Sure they're brave. When the leader being fictitiously assassinated is George W. Bush.

      Or the religion being mocked is Christianity.

      Why, they'll TELL YOU how BRAVE they are for those.

    16. Re:Home of the brave? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      Seems very hypothetical as I wouldn't normally go to the mall.

      But the chance for excitement would bring in a lot of people I bet.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    17. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well. Lets see how well the Nsa really can figure out how to backtrack through the tor network and find the people who did this.

      Sony is Japanese. Why would the NSA care if they get hurt. More likely the NSA perpetrated the hack to protect Hollywood campaign donations, er, important national interests.

    18. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, Sony was a Japanese company.

    19. Re:Home of the brave? by linear+a · · Score: 1

      Of course I go! Internet Tough Guy has No Fear!

    20. Re:Home of the brave? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      not that i disagree with your point, but note that by claiming that statistic, you are implicitly assuming that i chose (or would choose) my spouse/partner at random from the sampled population and, even further, that i myself was chosen at random from that population. neither of those are even close to true.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    21. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if Drew Carey has a cousin named Harry Carey ?

    22. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, I'd go to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident driving to the mall.

      I will bet your chances of being killed in a mall go way up if there are specific threats against that mall.

      I would bet that the decision to not show this movie was made entirely by whoever provides insurance to the theater chain. It must be killing the theater owners not to show a movie that has gotten this much publicity at opening. But if your insurance provider says "No", you do what they say.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, because it is very hard to find a barber here in Austin at a reasonable time

      I've been to Austin, and judging from the looks of the locals, it did not appear that the barbers had been very busy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the math.

      I will do the math in the form of a word problem.

      Scenario 1. I, an anonymous person on the internet, have just threatened to stab you in the face tomorrow. I have given no indication that I actually know who you are, or where you live.

      Scenario 2. I, an anonymous person on the internet, have just threatened to stab you in the face tomorrow. This time, however, you know that your neighbor two doors down from you was stabbed yesterday, and your next door neighbor was stabbed this morning.

      Now, which scenario offers greater odds of you actually being stabbed in the face?

    25. Re:Home of the brave? by righteousness · · Score: 2

      That last part is just pathetic.

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    26. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats."

      What bombings have these a anti-Sony hackers "delivered on" before? None. They cracked a badly secured server on the internet. That's it. I know 13-year-olds with a scarier rap sheet than this. And if little Jacob Johnson down the street issues a threat to blow up any cinema that shows a movie he doesn't like, I'm not going to take that seriously. Not at all. Because – unlike you and other terrorism-enabling pussies – I have a sense of perspective, and two working testicles, so I don't jump at every opportunity to be terrorized.

    27. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if you have a job at the mall that you need to keep what do you do? Hope the FBI and police stop spying on you long enough to do their proper job, or do you concel carry a weapon because you got a license and decided to live in a state with reasonable self protection laws?

      Glad I don't live in California. I doubt they would try that shit in Texas or Florida.

    28. Re:Home of the brave? by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I went to events where there were terrorist threats. New Years 2000 being a great example. No you don't live in fear and no you don't let them create hysteria.

    29. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      If somebody damages your car, would you want your insurance company to pay to fix it?

      That means they can set prices based on risk. And risk in this case means "perceived risk". It's not brave or not brave. It's just corporate behavior. This is why corporations are not considered people except by reactionaries and the far Right.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:Home of the brave? by kylemonger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they launch an attack on the U.S., North Korea can kiss their asses goodbye and they know it. They can threaten Sony and get away with it, because public corporations are cowardly by nature. But it is a whole other thing to kill Americans in a terrorist attack today. Iraq is still living in butthurt due to 9/11 and they weren't even involved. Sony should have released the film and called North Korea's bluff.

    31. Re:Home of the brave? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      The movie theaters have just fscked themselves. Now they can't present any controversial material out of fear.

      Sure they can. Just not any "controversial" material that bothers Muslims or dictators.

    32. Re:Home of the brave? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Referring, of course, to the two groups for whom terrorism pays off handsomely.

    33. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've gone from America, fuck yeah! to America, fuck.

    34. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.

      cop?

      And no, I'm not trolling.

    35. Re:Home of the brave? by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, SONY might not be as "All-American" as "Home of the Brave" implies.

      But, while the terrorists have won, SONY could do their part to rob the terrorists of their victory. Since they have decided NOT to release the movie to theaters anyway, they could score a great public relations victory by giving away lots of free copies. Imagine free DVDs at lots of retailers and/or sent to anyone who signs up for a free DVD on a Sony website getting a copy in the mail, delivered by an agent of the U.S. Government. And, of course, free digital downloads for people who don't care about quality. And it would send a nice message to all munchkin dictators. Hack us because you don't like what we say, you don't get to silence us, you get us to send out our movie to even more viewers than would have seen it before.

      Not that I expect Sony to do something that would have such a positive effect; I expect them to allow the terrorists to win and focus on making money. Just saying that it is what I would do if I ran Sony. I do not.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    36. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself, idiot

    37. Re:Home of the brave? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      If the threat is against my local mall?

      No, I wouldn't go..

      But this generic amorphous threat, yes, I was thinking of seeing the movie in the theater.. Not necessarily on Dec 25 (not because of this threat), but when it was in theaters, to use up a free movie ticket that expires..

    38. Re:Home of the brave? by skids · · Score: 1

      Yeah, really corporate liability concerns are the core of the matter here. Nations and individuals can stand up to assholes like these guys, corporations will only do so when the profit/loss projections favor it. They are truly the weak link.

      Not that the movie plot wasn't in rather poor taste in the first place. I kinda cringed when I first saw the ads, as it is sort of in the uncanny valley between an absurd envelope pusher and a bland clown show.

    39. Re:Home of the brave? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, I'd go to the mall. And if I didn't, it'd solely be because I'd turn back if I saw over-zealous TSA-style "security" at all entrances. That's right, I'm more afraid of the TSA (guaranteed to cause misery) than a terrorist (can only cause misery if extremely lucky.)

      I lived the first 25 years of my life in a county regularly attacked by real terrorists - not cartoonish villains wearing head dresses, but the sociopathic extreme of a (rightly, in my view, but that's another story) angry Irish Catholic community. I can honestly say I never changed anything I did based upon fear of being killed by terrorists. You don't live your life that way.

      In this case, Sony and various theater chains are pissing their pants over a group that has no record of terrorism and which, having "warned" us, is highly unlikely to get away with an attack anyway. And whose justification for an attack anyway is absurd and highly improbable to drive anyone into a murderous rampage.

      Wusses.

      This is the logical continuation of the Bush response to terrorism: show the entire world we're terrified and lashing out at everyone, because somehow that's helpful, moral, and not going to encourage more terror.

      It's time this nation stood up, and stopped pissing its pants every time someone phones in a bomb threat.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    40. Re: Home of the brave? by flanders123 · · Score: 1

      ...Asks the Anonymous Coward.

    41. Re:Home of the brave? by Frankie70 · · Score: 2

      The car insurance people also probably said no to all those people who called them and asked them if they could park it in a theatre showing the movie.

    42. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but but but... the koreans are gonna come kill us in our movie theaters!

    43. Re:Home of the brave? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Atari, is that you? :P http://www.google.com/search?q..."do+the+math"

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    44. Re:Home of the brave? by towermac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I go.

      Fuck 'em.

      I won't be bullied.

    45. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also choose your own children? You have that much control of your life?

      Anyway, even if you know someone very well, you never know if that person could one day suffer from a mental problem (and killing your partner is almost always because of a mental problem). Mental breakdowns are quite common, even the nicest person can one day suffer from one. Your choice may not be random, but mental problems are and there's nothing you can do about it. Stories of depressed people who decided to kill their family (in order to end their "suffering") before killing themselves are certainly more common then murders committed by psychopaths. Stories with neighbours saying "they were such a nice couple, we don't understand what happened" are more common than stories with neighbours saying "we always knew that couple would end in blood".

      We all like to think we're in control, but in the end that kind of things is pretty much random.

    46. Re:Home of the brave? by towermac · · Score: 1

      But that's our fault. We'll sic lawyers on them in a heartbeat and soak the shit out of them, or possibly break them.

      But in any case, terrorism now works. I guess that's our fault too.

    47. Re:Home of the brave? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      LOL have you seen other Rogan / Franco movies? their almost ALL in poor taste, that's why their so funny.

    48. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, we have reasonable self protection laws in OZ, for a start no guns. We find Americas infatuation with guns and violence alternatingly amusing and scary.

    49. Re:Home of the brave? by skids · · Score: 1

      Yes, and while that can sometimes be funny, and more often be so stupid as to cause me to channel surf, this was bad taste in a way that was neither funny nor boring; it was just bad taste, period.

    50. Re:Home of the brave? by Camael · · Score: 1

      Tomorrow morning, you pick up the paper. A bold headline declares a threat against your local mall. The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats.

      Bad analogy.
      There is a huge difference between the "smaller threat" aka hacking vs the "bigger threat" aka 9-11 style attacks.
      Hint: Only one of them carries the risk of death.

      Just because someone is good at hacking doesn't mean they have the capability to go all Rambo on you.

    51. Re:Home of the brave? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Do *I* think GOP has the ability to pull off such attacks? Probably not. Not at scale. But could they hit one theatre? I'm not willing to take that bet. They've shown they're deep in Sony's business and even if it *isn't* GOP, there's enough crazy in this country to get copycats and sympathizers going if given a push.

      What does the GOP have to do with any of this? I'm no Republican, but really, I think it's crazy to talk about them sponsoring attacks on theaters.

      Unless GOP means something else here? "Government of P*?" Please enlighten.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    52. Re:Home of the brave? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      What threats has North Korea actually delivered on? It's become an international joke for making threats that come to nothing.

      But now that the Hollywood studios have to submit their films to it for approval, it may gain some status in the world. I wonder how long before we start to see leaks of the NK review copies of movies?

    53. Re:Home of the brave? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Never mind. GOP = "Guardians of Peace", per the linked article.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    54. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invitro pre genetic screening. It is getting cheaper and better....

    55. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the enemy "keyboard jockeys" (to borrow the term from some other posters) were going to show up alqaeda and isis by targeting every theater owned by all five of the top theater chains?

    56. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.

      Well actually, if you are going to be killed by a terrorist at some point during the day, you would have to wake up alive first.

    57. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are a multinational. They also have the American Sony.... and others...

    58. Re:Home of the brave? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Yep, this only emboldens the bad guys, now that some hackers have actually gotten companies to run away screaming from a fictional movie.

      If they're not going to show it, they should at least release the movie to the file-sharing community. I just checked, but I couldn't find it.

    59. Re: Home of the brave? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Japanese companies are important to the US economy, Sony is a household name here and we have a very strong alliance with Japan. If you think the FBI will fail to do all they can to step on whoever perpetrated the Sony hack you're sadly mistaken.

    60. Re:Home of the brave? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, if I wasn't going to the mall, this would inevitably force me to get off my lazy ass and go. It's just the way of things, when you sell out due to cowardice you don't just sell yourself short, you sell out everyone else's future. You don't have a choice, either stand up and resist or suffer worse and worse and worse. So yeah, this is a movie I would not bother seeing at the cinema until now, I wonder if they planned it this way as a huge exercise in marketing, hmmm?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    61. Re:Home of the brave? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats."

      Except the 'recent smaller threats' are completely different, of the sending out email, posting torrents of private data.

      To go, well, if they can successfully do that, they can also pull of some giant terrorist attack at a bunch of movie theatres is just stupid.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    62. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless your mom says no.

    63. Re:Home of the brave? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Have you considered telling your elected officials? Most of them seem to be more of the "running around like a chicken with it's head cut off" variety.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    64. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, coz that guy in Sydney would have gotten as far as he did if there were a few guys in the café packing heat.

    65. Re:Home of the brave? by Lynal · · Score: 1

      I wonder about that. Terrorism is considered an uninsurable risk and so not often covered.

    66. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, Sony was based in Japan.

    67. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's play some JAAAAAAGGGG

    68. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent point, since Hollywood has not dared to release a single movie depicting muslims as bad guys after 9/11.

    69. Re:Home of the brave? by CalSolt · · Score: 1

      Yes, I go to the mall because there are 2 mitigating factors.

      1 - the threat was made by, for all I know, a bunch of script kiddies. From an isolated country that is unlikely to have sympathizers anywhere where people can escape the regime.
      2 - how often do terrorists announce their exact target ahead of time and successfully pull off an attack? I'm guessing not often.

    70. Re:Home of the brave? by kwbauer · · Score: 0

      You mean the far left, don't you. The only people I hear claiming that corporations are leftists. Nobody on the right has made that claim and no court within the US has ever issued such an opinion.

    71. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Howd that work out for you yesterday?

    72. Re:Home of the brave? by netsavior · · Score: 1

      The reality is the contract the studio has with the film makers probably has a "if this isn't released for some reason" clause in the contract... it probably doesn't have an "If we want to give away free copies to everyone for a PR move" clause. Even if Sony wanted to it couldn't do that... because Sony itself created a world where it is stuck between a lawyer brigade and a hactivist group.

    73. Re:Home of the brave? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Sadly, this is not the case today.

    74. Re:Home of the brave? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You have a larger chance of being struck by lightning in the us than being killed by a terrorist. Lightning killed about fifty people a year (US only), which is considerably more than terrorists ten-year average.

    75. Re:Home of the brave? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'd ask my appointment to move it somewhere else. Duh.

      There's a line between stupid and brave. Brave is to face danger when there's necessity. Stupid is when you face danger when you could easily avoid it without losing anything.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    76. Re:Home of the brave? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Well actually, if you are going to be killed by a terrorist at some point during the day, you would have to wake up alive first.

      The terrorist could conceivably kill you in your sleep, with a single shot at your head through your pillow...

    77. Re:Home of the brave? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Try living in a country which has actually been subjected to repeated terrorist attacks for decades, and see what the people there do. Hint: they carry on with their lives regardless of threats. You really do sound scared.

    78. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, SONY might not be as "All-American" as "Home of the Brave" implies.

      Except it was the American Theaters that pulled the plug until only the tiny outfits were left. I.e. The Americans bowed to the pressure of a few kids pretending to be terrorists. Now they've done so, expect a lot more of it as each special interest group of extremists see they can be heard by pissing off the public.

    79. Re:Home of the brave? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      ... or maybe the theater owners (and Sony) do not actually believe the threats, but instead fear that many spectators might believe those threats, and performance on opening might be very lackluster... Better cancel it all along, and do it 2 weeks later when there are (hopefully...) no new threats.

    80. Re:Home of the brave? by Mirar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they show it, and then something happens at one theatre, they will still get sued for millions.

      I bet they would show it if there wasn't a huge culture of suing everything out of everything.

    81. Re:Home of the brave? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      I know I'm late to the party but whatever, here goes:

      Instead of adapting your life to the terrorists or just depending on chance, you could just do the sensible thing and go there anyway but arm yourself.

      Seriously, I keep thinking about Sydney... 20 to 30 people being taken hostage... a guy gets shot, when he tries to take the DOZING terrorists weapon... Just ONE citizen with a concealed carry permit could have saved innocent lives there.

    82. Re:Home of the brave? by ninjaz · · Score: 1

      The 14th Amendment was used to grant corporations personhood rights, which happened in the 1800s.

      Here is a brief explanation:

      http://money.howstuffworks.com...

      The film The Corporation goes into a lot more detail:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    83. Re:Home of the brave? by aXis100 · · Score: 2

      It was a terrible situation but to put things in perspective, this kind of incident is incredibly rare in Australia and only 2 poeple died. If you had concealed carry, there would be orders of magnitude more accidental deaths. Doesnt seem worth it and the gun controls we have here generally do a good job.

    84. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you remember the years after 9/11? The majority of humans went into a terrified panic and few gave a shit about liberty. It hasn't gotten much better if at all since.

    85. Re:Home of the brave? by kernel_user · · Score: 0

      Now that China is the first economic power, nobody cares about the home of the brave anymore.

    86. Re:Home of the brave? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Tomorrow morning, you pick up the paper. A bold headline declares a threat against your local mall. The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats. As it happens, you have an appointment at that very mall that afternoon. Do you go? Of course you do, Internet Tough Guy! Because why would a red-blooded American listen to rational cautions and plausible evidence? Can't show fear or "they" win, right? /sigh

      You are why terrorism works. go to that mall. keep an eye out and be aware but don't let them scare you off. Is this not why you all like to carry guns about anyway?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    87. Re:Home of the brave? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Do the math.

      I will do the math in the form of a word problem. Scenario 1. I, an anonymous person on the internet, have just threatened to stab you in the face tomorrow. I have given no indication that I actually know who you are, or where you live. Scenario 2. I, an anonymous person on the internet, have just threatened to stab you in the face tomorrow. This time, however, you know that your neighbor two doors down from you was stabbed yesterday, and your next door neighbor was stabbed this morning. Now, which scenario offers greater odds of you actually being stabbed in the face?

      Probably scenario 1 if you are serious. I take that as an idle threat and ignore it. In scenario 2 I realise the plausibility and take active measure to prevent aforementioned face stabbing. It may still happen or it may have never going to have happened. If I was the terrorist though I wouldn't even warn you at all.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    88. Re:Home of the brave? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      More British were killed at Islandwana than at Gettysburg. Therefore, spears are more lethal than guns.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    89. Re:Home of the brave? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually - not really, that statistic is simply based on crime numbers. More people are killed by spouse/partner than any other source. This is pretty much a global reality, the only significant exceptions are the middle of warzones.
      The vast majority didn't make random choices, they just made WRONG choices.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    90. Re:Home of the brave? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >Nobody on the right
      Mit Romney, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Ron Paul aren't "on the right" ?

      They've all said it out loud.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    91. Re:Home of the brave? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Where is the proven terrorist act committed by North Korea?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    92. Re:Home of the brave? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      that's why their so funny

      Only to people that lack the wit to differentiate between "they're" and "their".

      I'm not even joking. There's a whole class of hollywood comedy based around "stupid people being stupid" that just isn't terribly funny.

      I prefer my comedy to be very dark (Old Boy - in Korean) or played straight (Blues Brothers or Monty Python) or situational (Ferris Bueller). Don't be giving me some badly scripted shit based on stupid people doing blatantly stupid things (Dumb and Dumber).

    93. Re:Home of the brave? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      In the US, you probably have a way higher chance of being kill at a mall or random public place by some other American freak who has decided to kill as many people as he or she can for some reason; and takes their assault rifle they purchased at a gun show or corner gun shop and 2000 rounds of ammunition (even though they couldn't possible carry that much) and goes off on innocent people. It's not like it hasn't happened dozens of times before. And it's interesting that I have yet to hear of some gun totin' NRA wingnut with his right to bear arms concealed pistol taking one of these guys down. The only time I heard it tried was in Las Vegas when a married couple went off at a Walmart. And that guy was killed (real life is different). The police that everyone lately seems to want to protect themselves from are the ones who do the job.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    94. Re:Home of the brave? by jonney02 · · Score: 1

      That would be a hitman....just saying!

    95. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.

      Strictly speaking you beat the "terrorist" odds yesterday...

    96. Re: Home of the brave? by dave420 · · Score: 0

      Not great, but for the hundreds of times it didn't happen because guns are so hard to get, it worked brilliantly. Logic - try some.

    97. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Those cars didn't receive specific threats. The theaters did.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    98. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The Aurora shooting lawsuits are still working their way through the courts.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    99. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      It also increases interest in the movie. If it hadn't been for this threat, I doubt many of us would even be aware of "The Interview".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    100. Re:Home of the brave? by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the amount of guns was increased, the amount of lunatics with guns would also increase. That means you've just raised the chances of a bad situation occurring in the hope that when these now-more-common scenarios occur, they can be dealt with more easily by having untrained people firing guns off in public, doing what their complete-lack-of-training tells them is the right idea. Australia is of the mindset that the only people who should be firing guns off in public are those with sufficient training, frequent mental health screenings, and with medical, intelligence & logistical support.

      Judging by their homicide rate compared to that of the US, it looks like Australia is on to something.

    101. Re:Home of the brave? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Funny how you just throw the word profit out there without explaination. If your first statement is true that humans are brave and motivated by liberty and honor then the easiest way for corporations to make a profit is to sell people what they want. If humans were truely motivated by these ideals then corporations would be selling into that market.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    102. Re:Home of the brave? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Some people love to use all-capital acronyms when they're not necessary or even inappropriate. GOP works for Republicans because it's the Grand Old Party while it's the Guardians o Peace. GoP would be the appropriate acronym, or possibly GP although that one would be an overload, which is fine since the contexts are sufficiently separate as to not cause confusion. As you so clearly demonstrated, GOP is an overload that may not be clear in the proper context.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    103. Re:Home of the brave? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Sorry this is so late - I posted on my way out the door from work and I can't seem to get Slashdot Mobile right.

      Anyway, I think some comments above this one addressed it, but just to clarify my personal position: Yes, driving across the street is likely more dangerous than these threats. The actuarial risk for driving x miles in y conditions are fairly well calculated, and pretty much everybody accepts the risk to go about our lives.

      But why would I drive across the street to a location with an unmeasuable risk? And given the news this morning that they're now officially linking the Sony hack to NoKo, I'm feelimg more justified in caution.

      I never actually said I wouldn't go to see the movie in theatre - I was reacting a bit histrionically to Anonymous's assertion that caution = cowardice or that prudence = terrorist victory.

      Earlier replies from people used to living with full-on terrorism have been enlightening, if not a bit inspiring. Still stinks all the way round.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    104. Re:Home of the brave? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure hacking Sony implies the capacity to pull off "9/11 style attacks". Further, pulling off "9/11 style attacks" might be considered an overt act of war, and regardless of the difficult political situation there, little Kimmy might find himself the victim of "Iraq Style Liberation".

    105. Re:Home of the brave? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      China won't allow North Korea to be invaded by the US. They won't allow the US to set up shop on their boarder. There is definitely no chance of a major nuclear attack because aside from anything else it would screw up parts of China and South Korea too.

      The US actually has quite limited military options with NK, which is one of the reasons why it hasn't been able to act so far. NK is free to build nuclear reactors and ICBMs to use as leverage, and the US can't just fire a cruise missile in to take them out. The US can't even get its boats too close because that area of ocean is claimed by China and regularly patrolled.

      Of course, if there were an attack China would likely change its relationship with NK somewhat, and might even take action itself, so NK would still be screwed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    106. Re:Home of the brave? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Everything they said they were going to release, they've released (iirc). Their access has been as deep as bragged about. No, I don't expect the "keyboard jockeys" of the GOP have physical force projection. But whoever put them up to this (and apparently it *IS* NoKo) just might. Kim Jong Un and his lineage strike me as the sort that bluster all day long, but that will eventually make good on the crazy. I have no idea what his trigger is. If Dennis Rodman *isn't* a trigger then maybe he isn't all that volatile.

      Snark aside, I don't think anyone thinks the GOP acted alone. If a nation-state is involved, that nation-state likely has resources it may be willing to deploy in terror attacks. Remember, they don't need to strike 5,200 locations, or as said above, 10%. Half a percent of theatres experiencing a real terror attack on Christmas day wouldn't require a lot of manpower, and would be paralyzing, fear-wise. Which is the point of terror, y'know?

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    107. Re:Home of the brave? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Is this not why you all like to carry guns about anyway?

      See, here's the thing. Please reread my post. I never said I wouldn't go. I just questioned Anonymous's bravado. This is easily my most-replied comment in 8 years of /., and I find it interesting how many people assumed I would capitulate to the terrorists. All I said was I would exercise caution and think hard about the risks before acting.

      And as has been said before, the hackers likely have no physical attack vectors. But their puppetmasters might, and that's where the real risk comes from. That, and there are enough unbalanced people who might take up arms and inadvertently or deliberately aid the enemy.

      As for the guns, I'm more scared of open-carry zealots* than terrorists. By a wide margin. I know a couple. More than once I've had to hear how open-carry or workplace CCW would have prevented x or y standoff. Sorry, you can't sell that to me. And I don't feel like getting deep in that debate right now. Maybe later.

      * I don't oppose gun rights. I just wish there weren't so many people itching to carry everywhere they go. Honestly, /. loves to talk about the need for computer licensing cos users are too dumb on average. Do you think the average American really has what it takes to have a weapon at hand at all times? We get mad at each other over the stupidest things - guns, or merely the threat of a gun, would needlessly escalate things...

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    108. Re:Home of the brave? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Sadly there are a lot of people who carry firearms because they believe that they need protection from some remote threat in civilized society and probably think they will be a John Wayne style hero. There are also individuals like myself who while having a permit to carry only does so only in remote areas where there is a real danger from wild animals. Since I can't have a loaded firearm if I am walking down a dirt road out there unless I have a permit to carry I decided to get one as I have had run-ins on the road. Over the years I have been 4 feet from a black bear, been stalked by wolves, have seen a mother bear and cubs at a distance of about 50 meters, saw a cougar at about 150 meters and just this year had a cougar walk right up to the tree my deer stand while I was in it.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    109. Re:Home of the brave? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      (because I'm swimming in karma and I have a bad case of "don't give a toss" today)

      Because Twilight wasn't that bad of a love story + vampire action, if you weren't married to the classic monster manual vampires.

      Team Ed by the way.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    110. Re:Home of the brave? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I will bet your chances of being killed in a mall go way up if there are specific threats against that mall.

      No, it doesn't. The mall could have been attacked at any time with no announcement at all. The only difference is now you know somebody out there has an axe to grind.

      Knowing the odds does not change the odds.

      In fact, I'd argue that you might actually have a slightly LOWER chance of being killed or injured if the the intent to attack is announced. They could be bluffing. Increased security could ward off or apprehend the attackers. Law enforcement might be able to intervene and prevent the attack.

      The most realistic outcome of this scenario? The mall would be closed and your appointment canceled... but assuming for the sake of argument that doesn't happen, you might as well go because your odds are certainly no worse than at any other time.
      =Smidge=

    111. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2007 insurers paid out $4.55 billion to Larry Silverstein for the terrorist attacks on the twin towers.

    112. Re:Home of the brave? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      It's time this nation stood up, and stopped pissing its pants every time someone phones in a bomb threat.

      Sony couldn't give a flying fuck over whether a terrorist attack happens during one of their movies. What they are pissing themselves about is the promise of lawsuits should an attack happen.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    113. Re:Home of the brave? by JerryLove · · Score: 1

      If Sony wants to fight back ideologically: release the movie for free on the internet.

    114. Re:Home of the brave? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2

      Spoken like a true anonymous coward...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    115. Re:Home of the brave? by brownshoe · · Score: 1

      Humans are brave, and motivated by ideals like liberty and honor.

      Corporations are risk averse, and motivated solely by profit.

      Humans are brave, and motivated by ideals like liberty and honor.

      Corporations are risk averse, and motivated solely by profit.

      Well said.

    116. Re: Home of the brave? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Whoops - I missed this and here I am at work, alive again. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    117. Re:Home of the brave? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Mullets take a ridiculous amount of time and labor to craft...you'de be surprised.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    118. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the perceived risk of a terrorist attack by North Korea? Your odds of being killed by a police officer are something like 8 times greater than being killed in any act of terrorism. Now consider the odds of an attack by a nation that has shown zero capacity to carry out, and would effectively be an act of war against one of the largest military powers on the planet that would also make its own biggest ally extremely pissed off at them. Better stay home under your bed wrapped in bubble wrap, you'll be dead if you set foot outside.

    119. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd go to the mall. As other commenters said its a simple matter of statistics.

      Also, the threat is a bunch of hot air. It's easy, safe, and costs little for a state actor to perform a cyber attack. However, an actually physical attack where lives are put at risk is another matter entirely especially when that state actor is already known. Bottom line is there would be consequences to such an action. Consequences North Korea isn't willing to take.

      I think movie theaters weighed the potential monetary gains of showing the movie vs. the potential liability if something were to happen. IMO, they made a miscalculation. There is little evidence to support that this was a credible threat.

      At such odds, I would take the risk and show the movie, especially because everyone wants to see it now. It would undoubtedly be a huge success.

    120. Re:Home of the brave? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Remote threat? Your really going to argue that threats from four legged predators are more common than two legged? Even if you spend a lot of time in the wild your in more danger from two legged animals.

    121. Re:Home of the brave? by c · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'd go to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident driving to the mall.

      I will bet your chances of being killed in a mall go way up if there are specific threats against that mall.

      Absolutely. If there's specific threats against that mall, there's going to be a fuckton of heavily armed law enforcement types swarming the place. Anybody with a grasp of statistics and/or current events should know that's a situation to avoid.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    122. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you are failing in risk analysis. If you decided to not do anything that had a higher risk than this threat then you'd never do anything at all. Just driving the car to the mall has a higher risk. In fact just sleeping in your bed has a higher chance of killing you than being killed by a Guardians of Peace terrorist attack on a mall, have you seen how many people die from falling out of bed each year?

    123. Re:Home of the brave? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats.

      The group here has not carried out any physical terrorist attacks.

      And according to slashdot, anyone can hack into Sony because their security is so bad.

      So, you're basically acting scared of what is probably a bunch of twelve year olds in their bedroom.

      Truly pathetic.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    124. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do wish everybody would quit stereotyping concealed weapons license holders as some kind of hero wannabees. It's demeaning, it's wrong, and it gets old. Quickly.

      Threats to one's safety are very real in some places, but almost all CWP holders have one wish and that's to never have to draw a weapon in public for any reason. Very little good comes of that even though most times it happens the results are better for innocent people than if it hadn't. You have to have a sick mind to WANT to be in a situation where you have to shoot someone. Planning and training for what to do IF that happens is another matter though. Even when things work out, the media attention is another matter we could do nicely without. Witness how in Florida now every instance of self defence touches off complaints about the "stand your ground" law even where that law does not apply (which is most cases, btw).

      CWP holders have stunningly lower rates of violence in general, let alone crimes involving guns, than the general population too. So much so that on the occasion when somebody does do something wrong it becomes the focus of a media circus usually.

      I get you can't seem to stand the notion of responsible gun owners carrying weapons in public, but it happens all the time with a very low instance of trouble.

    125. Re:Home of the brave? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'd go to the mall. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident driving to the mall.

      I will bet your chances of being killed in a mall go way up if there are specific threats against that mall.

      I would bet that the decision to not show this movie was made entirely by whoever provides insurance to the theater chain. It must be killing the theater owners not to show a movie that has gotten this much publicity at opening. But if your insurance provider says "No", you do what they say.

      Yes, but the threats surely have to be plausible?

      When the PIRA were bombing England, they would (depending on their mood) give coded warnings to the police/newspapers. As they had in fact set off previous bombs, such threats were credible.

      There is no evidence that this group of hackers have any physical terrorist capability whatsoever.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    126. Re:Home of the brave? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      How precisely would your gun stop a car bomb or suicide bomber?

      The Sydney siege sounded more like a lone maniac. If you were a serious terrorist in a country where people carried concealed weapons, you'd just go in mob handed with automatic weapons anyway.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    127. Re: Home of the brave? by trelanexiph · · Score: 1

      a coward will die a thousand times before his death.

    128. Re:Home of the brave? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Try living in a country which has actually been subjected to repeated terrorist attacks for decades, and see what the people there do. Hint: they carry on with their lives regardless of threats. You really do sound scared.

      Exactly: if people had panicked like this in Britain, our major cities would have been ghost towns during the 1980s and 1990s with no one going to work.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    129. Re: Home of the brave? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      No, it is because five of the major theater chains backed out of showing it and Sony doesn't want to release it wem half the country can't go yo see it. It was all about opening box office

    130. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: Sony is a Japanese corporation.

    131. Re: Home of the brave? by briester · · Score: 1

      I love statistics in these situations, but they undermine you if they're the wrong ones. (I agree with your point though.)

      You can't meaningfully say "you are more likely to die of domestic trouble than terrorists" in a general sense just before you go tempt them in a specific way.

      The relevant statistic would be the number of theaters showing the film, divided by the number of theaters these people could reasonably attack, times the historical liklihood that similar threats are carried out, times a coefficient (either positive or negative) of local police effectivness (where they try to help or hinder the terrorists.)

      Compare THAT to the liklihood of dieing to domestic troubles in the day immediately following a significant emotional event, selecting only from those sampled who have received actual threats from their loved one.

    132. Re:Home of the brave? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Well I voted for Obama not McCain in 2008 as did millions of other Americans. He played it cool and McCain freaked out. So score one against heads cut off. And arguably his victory in the primary was another vote against a hysteric.

      Actually our government isn't panicking on this one. The media, the theater chains and Sony are the ones panicking.

    133. Re:Home of the brave? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling that Sony gave the theatres the option because they wanted them to choose not to show the movie. Why are Sony afraid of releasing the movie in any form? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the hacks are far far worse than we already know, and Sony high-ups have decided that on balance, it might be better if they forget about this movie all together.

    134. Re:Home of the brave? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      You can also choose your own children? You have that much control of your life?

      Yup. It's called adoption.

    135. Re:Home of the brave? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      You mean the far left, don't you. The only people I hear claiming that corporations are leftists. Nobody on the right has made that claim and no court within the US has ever issued such an opinion.

      Then you must be deaf. The supreme court (controlled by the Right) has said so. See Hobby Lobby, Citizens United.

    136. Re:Home of the brave? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      Considering that I have never had to deal with threats to my life from another person but have with the wild critters it seems unlikely that I would be more threatened by people than the critters. With wild critters something as simple as a warning shot will usually send them off in most cases where as if it comes to needing a firearm with a person the first shot had better be center of mass instead of the waring shot because you just escalated the situation at that point. For example the cougar went running back from whence it came when I shot the ground near by but the wolves were a bit different as the one that I could see ran off but I could hear the rest of the pack just off the road most of the way back to camp as they were stalking me. Add in that if you have a mother bear and cubs and if you get between them it doesn't usually end well for you.

      In general there are more problem people but that seems to be more of a function population size since there are probably more people in the US than there are wolves, cougars, and black bears combined. Also given that I don't live in a shit hole crime ridden city with drug and gang problems I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than being the victim of gun violence.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    137. Re:Home of the brave? by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      I have a niece and nephew via adoption, there are a surprising number of kids needing homes. After the first, a year+ boy, they were offered a variety of other children. They wanted to wait a few years until taking on another. Later on a baby girl was delivered to my sister at work - talk about convenience. Total cost was less than 200 bucks a kid for court costs. Good investment.

    138. Re:Home of the brave? by Aereus · · Score: 1

      They breached a poorly protected computer network from halfway around the world. What are they going to do to a local theater? Hack their movie time listings?

      This should be ignored exactly because it *isn't* a rational caution, as you put it. NK has no physical force projection available to it, and the average small business has nothing worth defacing. Is NK going to hack their Coca-cola Fusion soda dispenser or something?

      The ultimate revenge: Making everyone drink... WATER!

    139. Re:Home of the brave? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      that's Harry Caray You Insenitive Clod!

    140. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if he didn't do it for pay. If he just likes killing people the he very well could be a terrorist.

    141. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is no warning, there is no "terror" which is the desired outcome above just the killings.

    142. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hasn't just fired a cruise missile or ten to take things out. It's not a matter of "can't".

    143. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Slashdot is fucking stupid. It would be nice to fix my omitted italics tag but noooooo! Fuck this site. I'm out!

    144. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you still pissed about me pushing your mom out of the bed resulting in her breaking her neck? I mean, seriously guy, get over it. She was a freak and she liked being thrown around!

    145. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was an M60 gunner. 2000 rounds ain't shit to carry!

    146. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So since you're so sarcastic, point me to these movies. I haven't seen any. The terrorist bad guy movies you're alluding to always portray them as misunderstood and those be sympathized with.

    147. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Team Faggot more like it!

    148. Re: Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, an insane foreign leader with a cyber army that just got retasked from Balistic missile secrets to take down a movie because dear leader started drinking his own kool-aid with intelligence and paramilitary assets internationally that include small armed forces might be insane enough to shoot up a few theaters.

      Either that or hackers good enough to get enough secrets to earn millions of dollars in blackmail and other manipulation a just blew it because they cared more about NK's glorious leaders reputation...

    149. Re:Home of the brave? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      So this is all a Republican plot against Hollywood?
      That explains a lot.

    150. Re:Home of the brave? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure. I carried a GPMG before too. I call bullshit. There's no way you're carrying 10 boxes of ammo on your person. That's why they distributed it to carry.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    151. Re:Home of the brave? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're probably right. I hadn't thought of it that way.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    152. Re:Home of the brave? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Er, I love Old Boy myself. But how on earth would you classify it as a comedy? (Though I must admit the dude jumping to his death through the car while holding onto his pet poodle as the main character just smiles and walks away did make me chuckle).

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    153. Re:Home of the brave? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It may not be 'a comedy' but it very intentionally includes a lot of comedy elements to it.

      Maybe that's my problem. Maybe I like funny films rather than comedies.

    154. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if 9/11 style threats against theaters will stop a movie from being released, Why the hell didn't someone think of that when Twilight was released?

      Solutions often come too late

    155. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Americans were killed in the Holocaust?

    156. Re:Home of the brave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Team America: World Police. (Dirka dirka jihad jihad)

    157. Re:Home of the brave? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      you never know if that person could one day suffer from a mental problem

      sure but these probabilities are not uniform across all subpopulations.

      i wish you the best in recovering from whatever you've experienced that caused you to go on this weird, marginally relevant rant.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    158. Re:Home of the brave? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      yeah, it's exactly as valid as saying that, as an American, i have a 14.1% chance of being black. that statistic is "simply based" on demographic numbers, and just as good as the overall average of murder numbers.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    159. Re:Home of the brave? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Citizens United stated that just because a group of people form a corporation for the purpose of pooling their money in order to produce a film about a candidate for political office (aka making political speech, aka exercising their first amendment rights) do not lose their first amendment rights. IOW, US law requires that group of people to form a corporation for the purpose of pooling money and the people have a first amendment right so such a corporation inherits that right from the people forming it. The majority opinion also discussed shutting down every media outlet in the country because they are all corporations or other forms of non-person businesses and would have to be treated at least as strictly as Citizens United because their primary purpose seems to be to make money.

      Hobby Lobby said that just because a person or family members form a corporation does not mean that they lose any of their rights.

      Neither of those decisions said anything about a corporation being treated as a person. It is a huge difference.

    160. Re:Home of the brave? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      quotes please from a source other than your ass.

    161. Re:Home of the brave? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Of course the decision didn't explicitly state that the corporation should be treated as a person, but the effect is essentially the same. Hobby Lobby can avoid complying with the ACA based on religious freedom. You did a great job of not seeing the forest for the trees.

    162. Re:Home of the brave? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      No, I saw the reality. That people have rights and they don't lose those right simply because the give somebody else a job or pool their money to make speech happen. I know, i know. I also missed the point about Citizen's United saying that money equals speech. Whatever.

    163. Re:Home of the brave? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      stupid phone autocorrect. R/F movies are mostly stoner movies, so if your not high it's mostly nonsense. And I didn't realize Dumb and Dumber was a R/F movie (which is the topic here)...neither are anywhere in IMDB's complete cast list. Yet I agree, most American "comedies" are complete crap; I too would much rather watch Monty Python all day than be subjected to Dumb and Dumber!

  2. Terrorists Win by mcolgin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrorists seem to win over and over.

    --
    I made this: http://www.bpftpserver.com
    1. Re:Terrorists Win by boristdog · · Score: 2

      These "terrorist" fellows seem to know how to get the US to do what they want!

      They've got moxie, I'd like to be one of those guys!

    2. Re:Terrorists Win by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." – W. Shakespeare

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that by design?

    4. Re:Terrorists Win by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It seems that the terrorists also seem to know how to get the UK/Germany/France/Other EU country to pay millions in ransom to ISIS.

      I'd rather live in a country where an inconsequential movie is dumped over a country stupid enough to pay a ransom.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    5. Re:Terrorists Win by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems that the terrorists also seem to know how to get the UK/Germany/France/Other EU country to pay millions in ransom to ISIS.

      I'd rather live in a country where an inconsequential movie is dumped over a country stupid enough to pay a ransom.

      Appeasment only works for a while - and the UK should know better.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re: Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      UK doesn't pay ransoms.

    7. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the case of AQ / ISIS / others, it's because they will never give up and we never "finish the job" in the way Churchill, Stalin, Caesar, Ganghis Khan, early Americans, etc, would have done..

      But, in this particular of Sony vs. North Korea, it's pretty hard to blame a private company that's under attack from a military totalitarian state. Especially one that's used to always bullying its way in every possible manner for every possible topic.

    8. Re:Terrorists Win by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US? I believe the US is larger than Sony. Just in case you are not aware of it, the decision was not made by the White House, the Congress or the Senate. So, keep it to the right proportions.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    9. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before, it took actual planes and training. Now we are down to just anonymous threats causing the top corporations in the world to cower.

      This has empowered every criminal and Internet troll out there since they know they can threaten shit, and movies that cost millions of dollars to make will get pulled.

      As for hacking, this is a "pay now, or pay later" type of thing. A company like Sony should have an IDS/IPS in place with people who know what the hell they are doing.

    10. Re:Terrorists Win by TropicalCoder · · Score: 2

      But, in this particular of Sony vs. North Korea, it's pretty hard to blame a private company that's under attack from a military totalitarian state. Especially once its nose has been badly bloodied.

    11. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd rather live in a country where an inconsequential movie is dumped over a country stupid enough to pay a ransom.

      And yet the ransoms paid by those countries are few and far between. France, for example, has officially paid about $60M in ransoms. We, on the other hand, have spent trillions on military action and our citizens are still being kidnapped, held, and executed. Why? Because taking Americans hostage is a worthwhile endeavor regardless of whether the captors actually expect to get paid.

      We pay the ransoms, we just pay exorbitantly more indirectly in attempts to stop future kidnappings. Which might be fine if anything we were spending that money on was actually capable of stopping kidnappings. Instead, we just look like a dumb, lumbering giant swinging his club, destroying himself and everything around him except for the actual targets.

    12. Re: Terrorists Win by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 2

      I thought the quote was "Cowards die many times before their deaths;Â The valiant never taste of death but once.Â"

    13. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The $60M France has paid has gone to funding ISIS to rape and kill people. I guess you're OK with that.

    14. Re:Terrorists Win by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      In the case of AQ / ISIS / others, it's because they will never give up and we never "finish the job" in the way Churchill, Stalin, Caesar, Ganghis Khan, early Americans, etc, would have done..

      But, in this particular of Sony vs. North Korea, it's pretty hard to blame a private company that's under attack from a military totalitarian state. Especially one that's used to always bullying its way in every possible manner for every possible topic.

      It's pretty hard to blame a private company that made a movie about killing a current head of state?

    15. Re: Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It depends on the translation.

    16. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we all won.

    17. Re:Terrorists Win by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      And yet the ransoms paid by those countries are few and far between

      We have absolutely no way to substantiate this claim.

    18. Re: Terrorists Win by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Translation issue, maybe?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    19. Re: Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The UK does not pay ransoms to terrorists. UK nationals die as a consequence. There is almost no opposition to this policy despite that.

    20. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know the UK doesn't pay ransoms, the 'official' position is not to pay ransoms, or negotiate beyond release of hostages

    21. Re:Terrorists Win by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Comically the BBC is currently getting bashed for supporting a book about assassinating a former British Prime Minister.

      But verbal feedback is some way from threatening mass murder. I'm not sure that any movie justifies that, and particularly one that gravely offends some cunt with no sense of humour.

      Yes Kim, I mean you.

    22. Re:Terrorists Win by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Precisely - the UK figured out that it's much better to talk about the issues at hand, rather than to ignore them and simply try to brute-force the symptoms away. Earnest dialogue with the terrorists (or, preferably, their political factions) is the key to disarming them - if they have real grievances, address them (even if it means taking a big bite from a shit sandwich). If they are simply insane, you've just proven to the rest of the world that they are insane and you are righteous, which can only gain support. It also bears repeating that it's better for governments to engage in dialogues with concerned citizens than ignoring them and waiting for the citizens in question to take up arms. The UK knows this better than pretty much any other country out there, considering the length of the issue, the speed of progress, and just how recent it was. Countries which don't mercilessly screw over people don't get attacked by terrorists - weird, huh?

    23. Re:Terrorists Win by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Al Qaeda can be, or at least could have been (before the death of OBL), stopped by simply addressing their manifesto, and highlighting any actual cases of wrong-doing on the behalf of the countries/parties named, and dealing with them honestly and earnestly. If the manifesto is full of outright nonsense, the world can see that attempts were made and that the manifesto is indeed nonsense, gaining widespread support. If the manifesto has real points, then by addressing former wrong-doings (and making up for them by deed, promise, compensation, whatever), you cause them to want to disarm themselves, so they can go back to simply living.

      Happy people don't wake up and decide to be a terrorist. It takes years of systematic abuses and the ignoring of issues. Once that's more than a generation, your work is really cut out for you.

      Oh, and early Americans would just kill nearly everyone who remotely looked like the people who were causing them problems - it worked with the Indians, didn't it? Your appeal to nostalgia isn't doing you any favours.

    24. Re:Terrorists Win by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      We, on the other hand, have spent trillions on military action and our citizens are still being kidnapped, held, and executed. Why? Because taking Americans hostage is a worthwhile endeavor regardless of whether the captors actually expect to get paid.

      Taking an American hostage is hugely more fun than getting some ransom. You take a French dude hostage and maybe you get a few million dollars out of it - but that doesn't really buy much military hardware or support very many jihadis for long. It happens in quiet, so you don't get any PR out of it. If you just want money, it's easier and more certain just to rob a couple of banks. You take an American hostage, though, and you can be sure of whipping the most powerful government on the planet into an irrational frenzy. They'll make big threats, blow up a few wedding parties, and generally, brazenly, demonstrate themselves to be nationalistic assholes. If you're interested in gaining support for your own nationalistic pride, there's no better way than to get the other guys to make asses of themselves.

    25. Re:Terrorists Win by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Countries which don't mercilessly screw over people don't get attacked by terrorists - weird, huh?

      Umm, not certain if sarcastic, or misinformed, but you would think there's no terrorism in the UK. Taint so:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      would seem to indicate that it's one or the other. Certainly engaging in earnest discussion hasn't worked.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    26. Re: Terrorists Win by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      From English -> English?

    27. Re: Terrorists Win by pweidema · · Score: 1

      Translation issue, maybe?

      ummm-you do know that Shakespeare wrote in English, don't you?

    28. Re:Terrorists Win by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Chaos wins, not because Order is stupid (though Mel Brooks had a good point), but because its victory conditions are simpler.

    29. Re:Terrorists Win by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Umm . . . no. What seems like rationality and logic to you is irrelevant to the other side (whoever the other side is), and vice versa, so one side pointing out that a "manifesto is full of outright nonsense" just translates to "refusal to acknowledge our legitimate concerns" on the other side. As an example, consider the "right to choice" vs. "right to life": if one side insists that human life begins at conception, then abortion is logically murder, and it DOES NOT MATTER that the other side considers that initial premise to be false because of its origin in religion; in fact, that very failure to "accept" the premise is grounds for the one side to invalidate anything the other side says. The two sides are arguing completely different logical structures based on completely different premises that have nothing to do with each other, and could not possibly disprove each other.

    30. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you! We all know that this was Obama's fault! Why does Obama hate Seth Rogen?

    31. Re:Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this only proves Shakespeare was a hack.

    32. Re: Terrorists Win by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      From the original Klingon

    33. Re: Terrorists Win by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't mean tverbeek originally read Shakespeare in English. Mr. T. Verbeek could have read Shakespeare in a Dutch translation, and is translating it back to English from memory.

      Not saying that is what happened, but it is a possibility.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  3. Terrorists Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's official.

  4. Sets a precedent by guytoronto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now every terrorist organization around the world will see how easy it is to control North American media.

    1. Re:Sets a precedent by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      And you don't even need to get elected to do it!

    2. Re:Sets a precedent by marcello_dl · · Score: 0, Troll

      Now every PR agency in the US will see how easy it is to promote a product by making it target of real or faked hate groups.
      JK they already know the technique.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think we saw how easy it has been already with Hamas.

    4. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... this is life imitating South Park.

    5. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess, except that they cancelled the release for that. Pretty sure that this is not a PR stunt. Certainly not a successful one, in any event. Christmas is a big opening day, you don't just cancel your slated movie for that day.

      Besides, playing with that sort of threat requires a solid plan to take advantage of that kind of PR, and given the intelligence level of the people in the emails, I'm not guessing that they play that long or risky of a game.

    6. Re:Sets a precedent by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      True, it's a bad precedent but on the other hand it's also questionable whether a lousy comedy is worth that some people die. If this was like Chaplin's The Great Dictator or Lubitsch's To Be Or Not To Be I would think otherwise, but judging from the trailer it's really just trash.

    7. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they use some of their clout to resurrect TPB

    8. Re:Sets a precedent by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

      I thought the three-letter agencies were spying on all of us to prevent things like this - you know, stop the terr'ists, protect our freedoms, etc. etc.

      Seems like a vote of no confidence from various businesses here...

    9. Re:Sets a precedent by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. We are talking about Sony only. And it is working with Sony because they have a lot of valuable information on Sony they just stole few days before. This is not likely to work with any North American media, if any other. You should also take into account Sony is not particularily good at protecting its own systems and they are reknown for that in fact. It is not the case of all the media.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    10. Re:Sets a precedent by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      DHS openly stated they don't think there was any credible threat. Major theater chains panicked anyway. Seems sort of telling how much stock they put in that, doesn't it?

    11. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it has *Seth Rogen*! That's a sign of quality right there!

    12. Re:Sets a precedent by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      Sony may fear retaliation - far from the USA. Don't forget, they have assets in many different countries where they may be vulnerable - to more than just hacking. Perhaps they have already received threats of violent retaliation that they aren't telling us about.

    13. Re:Sets a precedent by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I'd say it was the day the DHS and TSA were creaed.

    14. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, I wonder. What have the hackers not released?

      Companies fear fiscal repercussions, most. Even employee risk, is more about how the appearance of 'not caring' might impact the bottom line.

      So -- what do the attackers have on Sony? Is it something that might result in lawsuits, and criminal charges? Because, that seems most likely to me...

    15. Re:Sets a precedent by headcase88-2 · · Score: 1

      201's ending speech, in particular (the one that was censored for recursive reasons). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    16. Re:Sets a precedent by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Now every terrorist organization around the world will see how easy it is to control North American media."

      A lot of Americans have been pointing this out for years.

    17. Re:Sets a precedent by steelfood · · Score: 2

      You got it wrong. Getting elected is how to get the American media to control you.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    18. Re:Sets a precedent by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I dunno if "If you watch that movie, chances are you're going to die in a terrorist attack" is a tagline that would make people want to see it. "A movie to die for" might be, but its literal application sure isn't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that anybody is actually going to kill somebody over the stupid movie? Like most death threats, these are empty.

      On the other hand, is the ability to freely express ourselves not worth dying over? It shouldn't matter the quality of the movie; Sony should be able to release it.

      dom

    20. Re:Sets a precedent by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You got it wrong. Getting elected is how to get the American media to control you.

      You all got it wrong. Controlling the American media is how you get elected.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Sets a precedent by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the DHS did a terrible job predicting safety around the Boston Marathon, then number of underwear bomber copy-cats, and the number of bombs hidden in non-functional laptop computers.

    22. Re:Sets a precedent by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I thought they already did.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    23. Re:Sets a precedent by Beat+The+Odds · · Score: 1

      Now every terrorist organization around the world will see how easy it is to control North American media.

      Someone needs to.

    24. Re:Sets a precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all, all of you, and you, yourself got it wrong.
       
      Controlling America is how you get elected.

    25. Re:Sets a precedent by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Now every terrorist organization around the world will see how easy it is to control North American media.

      Sony is a Japanese corporation.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
  5. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out the rotten tomatoes score. Not missing much...

    1. Re:Good by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Check out the rotten tomatoes score. Not missing much...

      I have to reluctantly say, that's not the point. To not show it because it stinks is fine. (I've seen the reviews, and it has all the characteristics of a true stinker.) But to not show it because some third-world dictator pitched a fit is a different thing. That truly offends me. We should be showing it precisely because it pisses him off.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Good by Hussman32 · · Score: 2

      The decision to not show it is based on the other movies that wouldn't be seen because 5-10% of the populace would rather not take the chance, however small, of a terrorist action. The studios count on Christmas holiday revenue and to risk that much is not acceptable.

      That being said, I agree with you completely. Before, this was a hack, a nasty one at that. Now this is terrorism, and I almost pity the fools that made their veiled threat behind the keyboards...they will pay.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But to not show it because some third-world dictator pitched a fit is a different thing.

      Inside scoop you have there, eh? This is precisely how Bin Laden and Hussein were 'convicted' before being sentenced to death. You all did it again! Go show!

    4. Re:Good by TropicalCoder · · Score: 4, Funny

      I almost pity the fools that made their veiled threat behind the keyboards...they will pay.

      And I am always thinking that the FBI must know a lot more than they let on. Just think of all the resources the NSA has to track this down - taps into every internet trunk line in the world. Surely they can follow the trail to the perpetrators, and deliver a punishment to fit the crime in their own time. They may never even tell us about it, but somewhere, someday, some people will mysteriously meet up with a premature death. For sure the US Gov has an interest in this, above and beyond what they would have in hacks of Target & Home Depot, because the unique wanton destructiveness of the hack and the terrorists threats.

    5. Re:Good by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      But to not show it because some third-world dictator pitched a fit is a different thing. That truly offends me. We should be showing it precisely because it pisses him off.

      Exactly. But since the theaters dun goofed and Sony compounded their incompetence with a double-helping of cowardice, we need to compensate. Clearly, what needs to happen now is for Anonymous to hack Sony again and release the movie to Bittorrent.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Good by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      Umm... Thanks for the mod points guys... but (Score:4, Funny)? I was being serious, and I don't see what I wrote could be funny. I mean, if I managed to amuse you somehow that's fine, but I don't get the joke myself.

    7. Re:Good by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      Did you like these guys, Bin Laden and Hussein? Would you have prefered they got a trial and a court appointed lawyer if they couldn't have afforded one? As a matter of fact, Hussein did get a trial as I recall. Only Bin Laden didn't. Was that a miscarriage of justice do you think?

    8. Re:Good by dave420 · · Score: 1

      To any truly impartial person it was a miscarriage - when someone is summarily executed without a trial, it's not a good thing. We value due process for a reason - when it is applied selectively, it might as well not exist.

    9. Re:Good by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      Umm... so in a war, before we shoot the guy that has been shooting at us, we should stop and read him his rights?

    10. Re:Good by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He was unarmed, in another country. Summary execution for crimes committed is something tyrants and despots do, not supposedly civilised governments.

      You can reduce it to a pithy generalisation if you want, but that simply shows you can nor argue the actual facts of this one particular instance, where an unarmed man who easily could have been removed and taken for trial was simply shot on sight for no other reason other than vengeance.

    11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's because you thought that all of the illegal stuff the NSA is up to is actually good for anything other than a few bureaucrats digging up dirt. Maybe this is their way of saying they need more funding and more invasive abilities to be effective.

    12. Re:Good by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Umm... so in a war, before we shoot the guy that has been shooting at us, we should stop and read him his rights?

      "Execution" and "Self-Defense" are different.

  6. Anonymous Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are they afraid of me? I hide behind a computer screen and have no face.

  7. The release date is 25 Dec? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason Sony would release "The Interview" on the 25 Dec would be if it stinks.

    1. Re:The release date is 25 Dec? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Right, like that crapfest "To Kill a Mockingbird"...

  8. Boycott by ottawanker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I'm boycotting any theatre that isn't showing this movie because of a terrorist threat. If they don't want to show it because it's crap, that's fine with me.. But not because of some threat.

    1. Re:Boycott by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah... Although I have not gone to movies in the last 7 years or so (since renovating a house with home theater in it), I was thinking of going to see this one just to stick to those assholes ("Guardians of Peace").

      I was just deliberating with myself, whether I am, perhaps, falling for a sneaky marketing ploy, but now Sony officially pulled the movie release making the answer easy and the question moot.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm boycotting any theatre that isn't showing this movie because of a terrorist threat. If they don't want to show it because it's crap, that's fine with me.. But not because of some threat.

      Terrorist threat?

      You are mixing up your terrorists with communists.

    3. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea- count me in. I'm going to boycott Sony and the listed theater chains as well. It's utterly ridicules to accept censorship over this. While I was iffy on the film being any good anyway I was probably going to have gone to see it. Particularly after the terrorist announcement- I don't want to let ANYBODY-not Sony, not the media, not the government, and certainly not terrorists determine what I can and can't see.

    4. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was planning to go to see this movie just to support Sony.
      I have not been in a movie in the last 10 years for reason to boycott the MPAA heavy-handed approach.
      I guess they will miss my support.

    5. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd join your boycott if Sony was worth caring about, but it's not. Sony can go jump off a bridge for all I care. Sony's business practices already were horrible enough to justify boycotting the film, so it just doesn't make sense to boycott someone for /not/ showing the film.

    6. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though you probably were already boycotting Sony...

    7. Re:Boycott by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Communists can also be terrorists. They are not mutually exclusive.

    8. Re:Boycott by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately all five of the major chains had backed out. Luckily for me, when I do go see movies in a theater I usually do so at Alamo Drafthouse, so I can drink beer while watching. At least prior to Sony's announcement, Alamo hadn't backed out (and it wouldn't be their style either), so this just confirms that I'll be skipping the major chains in the future.

    9. Re: Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am going to download this movie illegally so hard. I'm not going to let the terrorists win.

    10. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be perfectly frank, I've been boycotting those companies for years already. Haven't been to a cinema in probably 10 years, and I ended my dealings with Sony when they nerfed my PS3 by removing OtherOS.

    11. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you, I on the other hand support any theater that refuses to show Sony movies.

    12. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm boycotting any theatre that isn't showing this movie because of a terrorist threat. If they don't want to show it because it's crap, that's fine with me.. But not because of some threat.

      You may want to wait and see the movie on disc or streaming before you start boycotting. I have a feeling the movie is shite anyway and you may thank the theatre operators for not showing it.

    13. Re:Boycott by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Maybe everyone who believes in freedom and also has the facilities should torrent the movie and show it in small groups across the planet in December. Or at least have it looping on a TV somewhere in their house on the 25th lol

    14. Re:Boycott by mi · · Score: 1

      Only if some kind of hacker steals it from Sony and makes publicly available. Oh, wait...

      Seriously, a free release of the movie is what Mitt Romney just called on Sony to do.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Boycott by schnell · · Score: 1

      I'm boycotting any theatre that isn't showing this movie

      How? By not going to see the movie that they aren't showing? NOMAD ERROR ERROR ERROR EXAMINE

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    16. Re: Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Future movies, you fucking idiot

    17. Re:Boycott by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Terrorists are to you today what communists were to your father and fascists to your grandfather. Just one intangible group of people that we kinda-sorta know where to find on this globe (along with "there might be some in our country" that we can't find without some new laws that cut down your freedoms) to project your 2 minute hate o

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear lord. I might show support for some company that actually deserves it. Sony tried to fucking backdoor my computer! Hacking them made the worlds karma balance turn toward more balanced. Bombing people is another thing, but I still wouldn't show sony any support.

    19. Re:Boycott by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Stick it both of them - torrent it then sit outside the theater and watch in on your tablet/lappie.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Boycott by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. They didn't choose not to show the movie because of a terrorist threat. They chose not to show the movie because it would cost them money. Regardless of what they say, they are not taking the threat seriously.

      They are acting like they are, so the damage is done. They have promoted kowtowing to terrorists.

      What they are taking seriously is the number of customers who would choose not to come see The Interview

      That sounds to me like taking it seriously.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Boycott by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      wait a minute - since when has "being crap" stopped anyone from showing a movie?

  9. Pussies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to make a point of seeing that movie whenever it shows. This is a Nation State threatening us, something Obama needs to deal with. Oh yeah, I forgot. ----never mind.

    1. Re:Pussies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking dick. So a Nation State (you mean North Korea? It had nothing to do with them) hacks a Japanese company (you know Sony is a Japanese company?) about a movie being shown in the US and you see that as ground for being "threatened".

      Fucking idiot.

    2. Re:Pussies!! by vakuona · · Score: 2

      Sony Pictures is an American company that happens to be owned by a Japanese conglomerate. Sony bought out an American company.

      Put it this way, no one considers Chrysler an Italian company. Neither is Sony Pictures.

    3. Re:Pussies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Sony is an Italian company? I'm so confused... I thought the car analogy was supposed to make things easier to understand?

    4. Re:Pussies!! by wed128 · · Score: 1

      I think it's incredibly naive to think that this has nothing to do with North Korea. It's extremely likely that this group of attackers is North Korean, and just as likely that they are under the North Korean government's employ. Also, they threatened attacks on movie theaters on american soil. The fact that the movie playing would be (distantly) owned by a Japanese company is irrelevant, the American moviegoers are the ones that would suffer.

      That said, I think canceling showings of the film sends a shitty message, and sets a bad precedent.

    5. Re:Pussies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "fucking dick".. "fucking idiot".. Such anger and naivety. Here see the troll in it's native habitat, or perhaps, a smug basement dweller who fancies himself smarter than others because his best friend is his left hand and he doesn't get out much.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/... They've been officially linked.

      Also, Sony Pictures is an American subsidiary of Sony Corp, on american soil, with american employees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    6. Re:Pussies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does! Both brands are shit and now you know it!

  10. If you really want to take away the GOPs power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just put the thing up for public download?

  11. Recipe by NetNed · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1/2 a dash of PR


    1/2 a dash of bullshit (fresh)


    Two sprigs of the Smith Mundut act repeal


    1 whole FUD, chopped


    1 government w/control issues


    Mix ingredients in a large water cammode briskly then flush on to American public

    1. Re:Recipe by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And don't forget, with the old wars winding down, we might get another one out of the deal. win-win!

      Cheney/Nugent 2016!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Recipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. What happened to by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "we do not negotiate with terrorists."?

    Dude, you don't understand. This is like acknowledging your stalker. It will never stop now.

    1. Re:What happened to by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't negotiate. They just capitulated.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:What happened to by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Who are "they"? Do they have any authority? Don't confuse the government and a chain of movie distributors.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:What happened to by Megol · · Score: 1

      So you understand neither terrorists nor stalkers...

    4. Re:What happened to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had a digital attack. They should fight fight back digitally.

      Release straight to Youtube I say.

    5. Re:What happened to by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Better idea: Sony should hire a black hat team to hack into NK's infrustructure (if that's even possible LOL) and forciebly display "The Interview" on as many screens as possible on the 25th. NK only has four TV stations; couldn't be too hard to get into one of them and make it "The Best Christmas Ever"

    6. Re:What happened to by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Just park a nuclear aircraft carrier offshore, and set up a TV antenna on the deck, and blast the strongest possible signal.

    7. Re:What happened to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. I hate to break this to both of you, but the usual statement is: "We will not negotiate with terrorists nor give in to their demands."
      People apparently quit listening after the "nor."

    8. Re:What happened to by kernel_user · · Score: 0

      Whose stalker ? I don''t get it.

  13. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Interview" must really suck to get cancelled so quickly and easily, even after the publicity stunts going on with the movie.

    1. Re:In other words by bpechter · · Score: 1

      If the movie was an blockbuster they'd have hired security at the theaters if it would make money. They figure it's a loser and are cutting the losses.

    2. Re:In other words by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      Yeah.. after a real, actual shooting (Dark Knight Rises) a few years ago -- people still went and saw it. An actual, physical event, with a body count, and it did not scare people away. Copycats be damned.

      this is just sad. Sony perhaps looking for a reason to pull the movie to save face (IE, they know it's shit.)

    3. Re:In other words by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Internet Explorer? Everybody knows it's shit!

    4. Re:In other words by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/....

      nice try bucko, you made me question myself -- and i actually had to look it up. But what you said is of course true.

    5. Re:In other words by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      IE != i.e. ;-)

  14. So stream it... by studpuppy · · Score: 2

    I can easily see how to capitalize on this by releasing it via pay per view/on-demand or other services (assuming, of course, these providers can do a better job at protecting their servers than Sony did in the first place). Who says you have to sit in a physical movie theater with a bunch of strangers that you don't talk to in order to enjoy this movie?

    --
    The last time I wrote code, it was Morse
    1. Re:So stream it... by jandrese · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sony should say screw you to North Korea and release the entire movie for free on the internet. Make sure everybody has a chance to see it. Of course they won't because they still have to monetize it somehow, but it would be something to say "we're not going to give in".

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:So stream it... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      I'd be more likely to buy it streaming or DVD than going to a theater. Frankly, the "theater experience" sucks anyway.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:So stream it... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      They don't have to monetize it at all.In fact, by not monetizing it, they can claim North Korean Economics in the process, in a double slam. Screw the commie bastards.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:So stream it... by Matheus · · Score: 2

      Um... that already happened (of course ti was against Sony's will but none-the-less it's out there if you want to see it!)

    5. Re:So stream it... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Air drop the movie and portable DVD players into NK.

    6. Re:So stream it... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And food. But not movie theater food.

    7. Re:So stream it... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Movie theatre food is so expensive that it could bankrupt Sony Pictures.

    8. Re:So stream it... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's no good -- we can't have Sony actually do something good; it'd be too out of character.

      No, what really needs to happen is that Anonymous should hack Sony a second time, replace the Sony.com website with a copy of The Pirate Bay, and release a torrent of the movie there.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:So stream it... by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      If it was a movie critical of North Korea, that would send a message. But it seems it's just a none-too-deep Hollywood comedy.

      What they might do instead, is sponsor a documentary highlighting the dictators' long history of "air nut" behavior and the horrors of their prison state.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    10. Re:So stream it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony should say screw you to North Korea and release the entire movie for free on the internet. Make sure everybody has a chance to see it. Of course they won't because they still have to monetize it somehow, but it would be something to say "we're not going to give in".

      With or without a free rootkit embedded?

  15. Sony should call up a TV network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And offer to show it there. You don't want it shown in theaters? Fine, it'll be shown on every TV in the country.

  16. Edited for Slashdot by tobiasly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not sure why they truncated my submission but the questions this raises was more interesting to me than the news itself.

    For posterity: What should Sony do? Cut their losses and shelve it? Release it immediately online? Does giving in mean "the terrorists have won"?

    1. Re:Edited for Slashdot by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      The terrorists will take it that way, yes.

      Sony should release, even in a limited way. Online would be great.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    2. Re:Edited for Slashdot by dalias · · Score: 1

      Post it on a torrent site. That's about the best possible PR they could do.

    3. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Sony should give free license to the South Korean groups that send balloons over the North Korean border to include DVD copies of this movie.

    4. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should premiere it online on the same day as original opening date as a big FU to the 'terrorists.' Also have premiere parties where people can post their premier parties on FB and twitter and have a chance to win a few anniversary Sony PS4s.

    5. Re:Edited for Slashdot by qzzpjs · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone in North Korea owns DVD players to watch them. Probably not allowed to have them, or could be lack of any movies to rent due to censorship.

    6. Re:Edited for Slashdot by sh00z · · Score: 2

      Post it on a torrent site. That's about the best possible PR they could do.

      Looks like it's already available.

    7. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      According to this - http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... - many of them do.

      Key quote:

      The balloons carried with them USBs containing Korean-language versions of Wikipedia, 500,000 leaflets, DVDs with South Korean TV dramas and radios able to be tuned to foreign broadcasts.
      "Mr Gladstein says most North Koreans do not have access to technology.
      "Obviously high level military and political figures have access to pretty much anything you'd expect to have in a similar sized city or country, with the exception that it is not connected to the outside world."
      "So they have access to the intranet, which is a closed internal-only internet. But that's just the elite, the average North Korean, many of them do have TV and DVD players that have actually been provided to them by the government so that the government can show its propaganda."
      He says the most effective media is probably still DVDs.

    8. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Release it on bittorrent free. Only conclusion that circumvents the threats, and leaves individuals who are interested in viewing, relative anonymity. Sure you can track an IP to an ISP for torrenting, but so what. If 5 million people in the US watch it, are they going to come after 5 million citizens in the US? Good fucking luck getting into the US! Oh, there already here? Well, the FBI and DHS will be quite busy rounding these people up then won't they!

    9. Re:Edited for Slashdot by loosescrews · · Score: 1

      I didn't find a copy and this article says it isn't available:
      https://variety.com/2014/digit...

    10. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not. Release it to BitTorrent. If they're not going to show it, then they won't lose money that way, eh??

    11. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I kind of thought this was a good thing for Sony. I hope I'm not mixing up movies, but I thought I had heard that Sony executives were internally saying how terrible this movie was and that it was a total disaster. Now instead of seeing it bomb at the box office on its own and having to take the blame, they can save face and blame the failure on the hackers.

    12. Re:Edited for Slashdot by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      How about: "rely on the national security services to do their job, and make sure the screenings can go ahead safely"?

    13. Re:Edited for Slashdot by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      They could make a comic book version and send that over.

    14. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not sure why they truncated my submission"

      Because slashdot editors like to do stupid shit like that. They've done it to one of my own submitted stories.

      Slashdot editors are bullshit.

    15. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look on oldpiratebay.org. The anti piracy firm quoted in that article has a vested interest in claiming there are no real copies, but .avi files can't be "riddled with viruses."

    16. Re:Edited for Slashdot by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Not sure why they truncated my submission

      Because questions like that are basically just trolling.

    17. Re:Edited for Slashdot by balbus000 · · Score: 1

      Not sure why they truncated my submission

      Slashdot obviously has strict requirements for submission lengths. </sarcasm>

    18. Re:Edited for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They (rightly) truncated your submission because the second part was your opinion rather than factual information.
      I understand why submitters like to voice their opinions on the summary - it will have the most visibility.

      The problem is that it also steers the discussion where almost all topics will be replying to the author's opinion rather than the news itself. I'm hopeful that the /. editors have finally recognized this problem and are trying to solve it by removing non-factual editorials.

  17. Cowards. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I don't like Rogan or Franco, don't like that kind of film, but was planning to go anyway just because I was pissed off at a bunch of script kiddies pretending to be a tinpot dictator's henchmen. Sony should have acquired some 'nads and shown it anyway. At least in the theaters courageous enough to put it on the marquee.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Cowards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol I love the script kiddie monkier. Way to signal that you are an elite hacker, laughing at everyone who doesn't use their own 0-day exploits because do to some absurd notion that write the down for the purpose of sharing or trading is inferior. on the other hand, perhaps you are attempting to elevate "script kiddie" from a simple degeneration. Afterall this is probably one of the most successful cybercrimes in history: they gathered an epic trove of information and executed one of the most outrageous and successful public blackmails ever.

  18. Well, expect more of these, then by stonecypher · · Score: 2

    All they've done is taught attackers that they can force our media around.

    Really disappointed in everyone involved here. Especially the cinemas. At least Sony *was* going to follow through.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
    1. Re:Well, expect more of these, then by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      They were, yes. I already had ordered my ticket from a minor chain (not one of those who chickened out). Furthermore, the US Government is now openly attributing the hack to North Korea (according to CNN). What I want to know is what we (for any of the appropriate values of 'we') are going to do about this, because this kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on.

    2. Re:Well, expect more of these, then by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is what we (for any of the appropriate values of 'we') are going to do about this, because this kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on.

      'We' have allowed unimaginable atrocities to 'go on' in North Korea against innocent men, women and children for decades and we've done nothing.

      Yet NK makes empty threats against movie theatres and now we're supposed to do something about it?

      How does NK survive? China. You want to do something about it then everyone in the USA needs to stop buying stuff from China. Once China turns off the NK money taps (money that comes from you, indirectly) then regime will collapse.

    3. Re:Well, expect more of these, then by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have phrased things in better context. North Korea is an unrepentant rogue state that threatens, and occasionally attacks, just about anyone within its reach (save for its protector, China). For the most part though, aside from some things like the bombing of KAL 858, North Korea's reach has historically been limited in that regard. The internet has apparently changed that, and their reach extends pretty much anywhere around the world... nor do I think that they're likely to stop or change any of this behavior if things continue as they have.

    4. Re:Well, expect more of these, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Especially the cinemas"

      The first domino to fall was the actors cancelling some appearances.

      Then Sony stated that they would allow cinemas to not show the movie. Sony should not have done that.

    5. Re:Well, expect more of these, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, America does two things: 1) take it like a bitch and cry or 2) go liberate their country while crying like a bitch.

  19. Sad by nytes · · Score: 2

    I couldn't have cared less about the movie. It didn't really sound like my kind of humor.

    But after the threat was made, I was planning on seeing it just to show the (newly become) terrorists what I think of them.

    I'd have liked this to be Sony's most successful release of the year.

    I'm getting mixed messages from the news, though. Has the release been completely scrubbed, or are they just canceling the formal premier?

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    1. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Think they are pushing back the release from the Christmas holiday so it doesn't impact movie theaters during what I assume is a pretty good time of year for them. The threats don't just impact this movie, but all movies at a theater showing the movie, as people might not just avoid The Interview, but anything else there.

      So I assume this will be temporary. Perhaps they will wait until these threats are tracked to their originators and they are removed.

    2. Re:Sad by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      They are pushing back the release to give them time to put that scene back in where Kim Jung Un gets his head blown off and his glasses and the top of his head can be seen flying. That scene was cut in the current version.

  20. Brilliant. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now that Sony has cancelled the premier, if I want to see this movie I'll have to find a pirated copy.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Brilliant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're in luck. It might be a part of that 100tb haul that is working its way around.

    2. Re:Brilliant. by davydagger · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the "terrorists" can torrent it for us, just to show they aren't about cenorship.

    3. Re:Brilliant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theatres that were going to carry the movie should play Team America in its place.

  21. Jeez by Xaemyl · · Score: 2

    As an American, when did Americans become such fucking pussies?

    1. Re:Jeez by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      'Sony' != 'America'

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    2. Re:Jeez by jeepies · · Score: 1

      What about Regal, AMC, Cinemark, Carmike and Cineplex? They're the ones who decided not to show it, not Sony.

    3. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Regal, AMC, Cinemark, Carmike and Cineplex? They're the ones who decided not to show it, not Sony.

      Regal, AMC and Cinemark are all owned by the same conglomerate.

    4. Re:Jeez by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      The moment a large segment of population started cheering up torturers as Protectors of the Homeland.

    5. Re:Jeez by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      9/11/2001. But probably long before that if you wanted to get down to the brass tacks.

    6. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friday, 9th of November 2001?

    7. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off euro-dick.

    8. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you guys started believing in the awesomeness of your ancestors rubbing off on you.

      If you guys want to be awesome and fearless, then be awesome and fearless, don't say "My great-great-granddaddy was awesome and fearless so I must be, too!"

    9. Re:Jeez by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      after/during 'Nam.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    10. Re:Jeez by mister2au · · Score: 1

      As a non-American I'm not sure if you are joking or not ...

      The answer is forever ... the macho stuff is only when the tough 99% can sit at home and cheer on the 1% in uniform that throw their bodies and billions in weapons at a foreign enemy ... bring that closer to home and it's a different story, hence why 9/11 had a huge impact but bugger all outrage over losing 3x as many soldiers in the direct response (and god knows how many to PTSD and other issues since)

      and don't kid yourself, it's the same in most affluent western countries

    11. Re:Jeez by kernel_user · · Score: 0

      Since 2014 when China become the first economic power.

    12. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butthurt americunt detected.

    13. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even just affluent western countries. It's more of a cost-benefit analysis on what you have to lose and what you have to gain. Most reasonable people in any country would respond similarly. I assume none of the management in these theaters want their theater to be where a terrorist attack occurs.

  22. I'm confused by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we backing Sony at the moment?

    1. Re:I'm confused by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately. Screw North Korea for making me feel sympathy for Sony Pictures.

    2. Re:I'm confused by sosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Internet mob wants to agree on what is just and attack those who are against that. Sony is bad, they do tons of crappy things, but what is happening to Sony Pictures right now is worse. We'll bash Sony another day when they aren't be eviscerated by a group threatening to kill people and still put peace in their name.

    3. Re:I'm confused by davydagger · · Score: 1

      on this issue, yes.

      reason, when your right, your right. Censorship is bad, regardless who does it.

    4. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hack developing into terror threats does that easily. Send in the black helicopters please, governments involved. This 14-year old script kiddie bolstering shit must cease.

    5. Re: I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's basically my opinion. I feel like I should care because it's censorship and giving into the demands of terrorists.

      But on the other hand, it's Sony and an awful Seth Rogan film. So I really can't help but smile at all of this. I shouldn't, I know, but I can't help but applaud the hackers. I don't support what they did, but their victim was Sony, and I just can't feel bad about Sony being harmed.

    6. Re:I'm confused by chispito · · Score: 1

      I'm critical of how Sony has handled the breach and now I'm critical of this move. What part is confusing?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    7. Re:I'm confused by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Unless it's a really shit movie then I'm all for it!

      Oh - and before you ask - me! *I'M* the one who decides what's shit and what isn't.

      You're welcome.

    8. Re:I'm confused by davydagger · · Score: 1

      something in the back of my mind is telling me there is a potential this is a really shit movie, and this is one giant publicity stunt. Yeah, watch this movie or the terrrists win.

    9. Re:I'm confused by steelfood · · Score: 1

      People are emotional creatures who lack internal consistency.

      News at 11.

      It's a shame the theaters caved to the threats. But the movie looks pretty bad from the previews and just because of the cowardice of some corporate heads won't make me suddenly change my mind and acquire a sudden desire to spend 2 hours of my life watching it. There are better ways of showing any outrage I might have over this matter.

      For starters, I could go see a different movie (one presumably I'd want to see) in a theater that's playing The Interview on a different screen. Or not do anything special because all this really is none of my business to begin with.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    10. Re:I'm confused by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      I was right there with you around Thanksgiving, when we heard stories of ominous skulls displaying on Sony workstations, and we saw a huge list of files that the hackers were threatening to release. It all sounded like a Hollywood plot. After they actually started leaking the files? Assuming they're real, there's no way it's a publicity stunt. Sony isn't going to damage itself, its employees, and its reputation just to hype one movie.

      That said, I remain unconvinced that North Korea are really the bad actors here. Several articles mentioned that the hack was ongoing for over a year. The movie hadn't even been announced to the public back then, had it? There was supposed to be a press release a few weeks ago squarely and officially blaming NK. If that happened, I didn't see it. I guess tomorrow's scheduled announcement might shed some light.

      Are there any Americans currently imprisoned in NK? I get the feeling they're really not going to have a good time soon.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  23. Opposite of the reaction they should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should be advertising the sht out of this movie as the film that terrorists are afraid of, including funny made up quotes from bogus North Korean hackers and party officials, etc.

    They should be running to the fire on this, not away. It could send a message and increase their sales at the same time. The ONLY people in the whole world who really care about this two-bit movie are the North Koreans. They're not going to pull off any real terrorist attacks. Their hack of Sony was impressive, and I can understand the studios being wary of that, but really, some consulting dollars could mitigate a lot of that risk. Run a security blitz at the studios and poke NK in the eye. It's what they deserve.

    1. Re:Opposite of the reaction they should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their hack of Sony was impressive

      That's the point. The theater chains are probably as much or more vulnerable and the lost revenue from not showing the movie is probably less than the cost of getting hacked. I think it would be great if Sony did advertise as you suggest. They've already been hacked, why not get some mileage out of it? Was the hack that impressive that nobody's got a better handle on who did it?

    2. Re:Opposite of the reaction they should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are NK spies all over SK & USA, some of them are trained in "special operations". Occasionally, they blow things up, derail trains, or try to assassinate political leaders that take a hard line stance against NK.

      If they do start carrying out actions under orders against Sony, it won't be like the guys with box cutters. It'll even look like industrial accidents.

    3. Re:Opposite of the reaction they should have by c · · Score: 1

      The ONLY people in the whole world who really care about this two-bit movie are the North Koreans. They're not going to pull off any real terrorist attacks.

      Sony is a Japanese corporation. Japan is, if you glance at a map, within spitting distance of North Korea. North Korea is well known for being collectively batshit insane, and for pulling some bad stuff on Japan with less cause.

      I wouldn't be making bets either way on this one...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:Opposite of the reaction they should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to advertise. We're doing that for them, for free.

    5. Re:Opposite of the reaction they should have by swell · · Score: 1

      Not so much an opposite reaction but ...

      The tragedy here is not the fate of Sony or the movie or the movie-going public. It is the people who live in North Korea and their suffering.

      What if every citizen of the free world displayed a bumper sticker or t-shirt that displayed the words "Kim Jong Un has a teeny weeny", along with appropriate artwork? Even better if done in Korean and other languages. [I can't take credit for this ridiculous idea as a similar one was already used]

      Repressive regimes rarely exhibit a robust sense of humor. I believe the people of N Korea would quickly become aware of the campaign and maybe they would be inspired to see their leader in a new light. Maybe they would act toward change. That would surely inspire the rest of the world to help the citizens of North Korea.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
  24. ... or a brilliant PR move. by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know what this movie is, and I don't follow or watch movies in general, but I suddenly almost want to find out more about this movie is all about now.

    Almost.

    1. Re:... or a brilliant PR move. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 0

      I don't follow or watch movies in general

      Wow.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:... or a brilliant PR move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm yes, except it seems like a lot of effort to promote a likely shitty comedy movie with a low potential for out-of-this-world profits. For Hobbit 3 or Avatar 2, something like that could have worked for absolutely blowing the sky away.

    3. Re:... or a brilliant PR move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I don't follow or watch movies in general

      Cool story, bro. Now, I want to know more about these "movie" things. I've never heard of them. I mostly entertain myself with contemporary epics by local poets engraved on sustainably-produced, artisanal clay tablets.

    4. Re:... or a brilliant PR move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care about movies either, so...

      Unicorns. Unicorns everywhere.

    5. Re:... or a brilliant PR move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen the trailers and can't understand why anyone would want to see it.

    6. Re: ... or a brilliant PR move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember green hornet?

    7. Re:... or a brilliant PR move. by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      So the irony is that I actually worked for Disney for a few years. So yes, I did go to the theater to see some of their stuff in the past decade, but only because the company gave us tickets for lack of any other perks in our area. And yes, I do get caught up by watching movies on long airplane trips every so often, so I did see parts of Gravity and Elysium and Transformers and the thing with Smaug. But the discount airline we fly has a really crappy DVR system that apparently can't handle VBR streams very well, so it would just start stuttering and skipping over any action sequences with lots of motion.

      Yeah, I don't have a TV either, so the other irony is that I worked on designing and building multi-million dollar AV systems for distributed Command and Control theaters.

      But whatever, it doesn't count since we spent plenty of time binge-watching serials back when we had Netflix, so just forget I said anything that might have obliquely supported the bit about the PR move :P

  25. Outstanding! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is actually the best marketing this stupid loser of a movie could ever get, since without this too-doo, it would have opened and closed within two weeks.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Outstanding! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Direct-to-video with huge sales.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  26. No winner here, except for us all by gman003 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's pretty transparent that these hackers are North Korean. Fuck North Korea.

    On the other hand, fuck Sony. I can't say that enough - FUCK SONY.

    This doesn't help NK in any way. Oh, this movie is blasphemous to their state-mandated religion, worshipping the rotting corpse of Kim I and Kim II? This movie was never going to be seen by anyone in that entire country, if for the simple reason that so few of them can even afford it. I doubt they can even use this hack as internal propaganda, because the simple fact that such a movie exists shows how little the outside world cares about North Korea. And nobody's fooled by their disavowal - this is just more proof that they're a bunch of thugs.

    This hurts Sony. First the humiliation of the hack. Then the financial damage. Then the humiliation of acceding to terrorist demands. They may have had a bad reputation in our circles for years now, but they've now lost face in the mainstream media, too.

    So yeah, our enemies are fighting and both of them are losing. Time to break out the popcorn.

    1. Re:No winner here, except for us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have to be extremly ignorant to think these hackers are NK.

    2. Re:No winner here, except for us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the SONY threat, but just for your small business and home... and happening close to as often as plain old USA identity theft does. Bad.
      Imagine the security side 5 years down the road ... we're going to have standard laws and corporate policies from the big wigs that try to prevent future humiliation and threats from hitting them by individual employees' lack of control. The new policies will not be nice. Nevermind the infrastructure should be more accountable than the individual employees being held to the lax password, renewal, browser and device policies

      I am not looking forward to how bad the average ransomware will be with the file-encrypting, bitcoin-charging.

    3. Re:No winner here, except for us all by spitzak · · Score: 2

      Except NK denied being behind the hacking.

      Now there is no reason to believe anything NK says, but I would think they would be very proud of their computer achievements if they had been behind it.

      The reason they don't falsely claim they are behind it is because they are worried the actual hackers would be found and then it would be clear they were lying.

    4. Re:No winner here, except for us all by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I covered that. Read their denial closely - they spend as much time praising the attack as they do denying that it was them in an official capacity.

      If they officially state that they did it, there would be official responses. But unless there's some absolutely definitive evidence found, even though it was quite obviously North Korea, no prosecutor would be willing to make that official accusation. By unofficially endorsing it, but officially disavowing that it was them, they are claiming responsibility in a fully deniable, un-actionable way.

      Who else has motive to threaten the moviegoers? That doesn't fit with any alternative hypothesis, unless it's misdirection to make us think it's North Korea. If it were for profit, that doesn't get them any more money. If it were revenge for the shitty things Sony has done, they wouldn't threaten their customers (who are pretty much just innocent bystanders as far as that goes). If it were a rival studio, that could have just as much an effect on their movie performance as Sony's (terrorist attacks are notoriously imprecise).

      Perhaps I'm wrong, and it's a group that's trying very hard to make it look like North Korea is behind it. As misdirection ploys go, it's a brilliant one. But their act is too convincing - this fits North Korea too well, in my opinion, to be anyone but them.

      I know they're a bunch of unreliable liars, but it seems the US government agrees with me, for whatever that's worth.

    5. Re:No winner here, except for us all by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sony are sometimes jerks regarding stuff like DRM. They don't starve millions of their own people to death. I'm not unclear about which side I'm on in this one.

    6. Re:No winner here, except for us all by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Now all we need is for Anonymous to hack Sony again, replace Sony.com with The Pirate Bay, and put up a torrent of the movie. Then the lulz will be complete.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:No winner here, except for us all by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Why do you have to take either side?

      North Korea is the greater of the two evils, undoubtedly, but they gained nothing by doing this. And maybe, just maybe, this will be the final straw that makes the world take action against them. Meanwhile, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.

      It's like if Adolf Hitler started heckling Fred Phelps during a speech. Sure, you hate both of them, but you're not going to stop him unless he either starts targeting someone who isn't a walking piece of crap, or he starts benefiting from it somehow.

    8. Re:No winner here, except for us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Godwin the discussion, isn't that a bit like saying "Stalin is just a jerk regarding his ruling of the country, he doesn't create death camps like Hitler, I'm unclear about which side I'm on in this one."

      Here's a thought, how about "neither"?

    9. Re:No winner here, except for us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Seriously people, read a little - like maybe "Escape from Camp 14" (http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Camp-14-Remarkable-Odyssey-ebook/dp/B005GSZZ1A). There is simply no comparison between the NK system and even the worst corporate malfeasance.

    10. Re:No winner here, except for us all by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Sony Pictures for whatever reason is being considered American and not Japanese. The place this attack took place is the USA. Protecting the territory of the USA from attack from foreign powers is the number 1 job of the USA government. Since the USA is a democracy that means it is my government's job.

      I think Fred Phelps is a jerk (worse than Sony). But if he were still alive he's an American. One a foreign power attacks an American it really doesn't matter too much whether he is a jerk or not.

    11. Re:No winner here, except for us all by spitzak · · Score: 1

      The new news that the government thinks they did it certainly changes my opinion, though I would be curious exactly what the evidence is. I find it hard to believe they would risk making a stupid blunder of an incorrect accusation, so the info must be pretty good, such as directly from a spy inside NK at the hacker facility.

      My gut feeling is this is disgruntled Sony employees. Somebody thought it would sound cool to threaten theaters and are probably amazed at the result.

  27. Hello Idiots At Sony - USE BITTORRENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Release this comedy via bittorrent - PROBLEM SOLVED!

  28. The joke could be on them by jacobsm · · Score: 1

    Since Sony is going to eat the production costs anyway, why not declare the movie to be in the public domain and make it downloadable by anyone at no charge?

    That'll piss off the terrorists, but they'll be powerless to stop its distribution.

    1. Re:The joke could be on them by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      it would KILL the uber capitalism company known as sony to give ANYTHING away for free.

      they'd go out of business first.

      (well, lets all hope...)

      but waiting for sony to do anything good for anyone BUT sony is like waiting for the 2nd coming of jesus. neither is gonna happen.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  29. Until Sony caved, yes.... by david.emery · · Score: 2

    I was planning to go see this, not that I'm interested in the movie, but to show that I won't kow-tow to terrorists and extortionists. But since Sony has caved by deferring its release, Sony has joined the ranks of the chicken-droppings.

    Several sites have called for Sony to release this on the Internet, and that's what I think they should do. And someone needs to make "we don't negotiate with Young Weasel" stickers with Kim Jong Un's face in the background.

    1. Re:Until Sony caved, yes.... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      In defense of Sony (I know, right?), the vast majority of Theater chains had already balked, so they probably figure they're cutting their losses. It certainly doesn't make Sony look any better, but it was the Theater chains that panicked, not Sony.

    2. Re:Until Sony caved, yes.... by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      That "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is a lie:

      http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/...

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

      Please stop repeating it.

      Thank you.

    3. Re:Until Sony caved, yes.... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Another internet tough guy.

      Look at it this way. Are you prepared to go see a mediocre movie, where there's a slight chance of the cinema being targeted for a terrorist attack (made greater because it is the only cinema showing it), just to prove a point? And if the worse happened, you (or your bereaved family) would in no way ever consider suing both cinema and Sony for negligence in showing it, when they knew there was a chance of this happening?

      If you aren't prepared to do all the above, why should anyone else?

    4. Re:Until Sony caved, yes.... by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Short answer: Yes.

      And I've also served in the US Army.

  30. Do we have reason to believe... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do we have reason to believe that this group is actually capable of or prepared to carry out the attacks that they're threatening? If theaters around the country showed the movie, can these terrorists bomb them all?

    Or did all these companies simply buckle to a random threat without anything behind it? Because, yeah, I guess if someone calls in a bomb threat to the local high school, you might have to go evacuate the school while the police check it out, but you should have some plan for keeping the kids from calling in new threats every day and shutting the school down permanently.

    1. Re:Do we have reason to believe... by CaTfiSh · · Score: 1

      They've been forewarned, so if anything did occur the studio and theater could be argued financially culpable. However, the press release stated they were pulling the Christmas release, not shelving the release altogether.

    2. Re:Do we have reason to believe... by celle · · Score: 1

      "but you should have some plan for keeping the kids from calling in new threats every day and shutting the school down permanently."

            I'm all for that. With the internet the damn brats could be taught at home and community centers for larger common needs(ex. equipped classrooms, etc) with less risk all around and no cost to anyone but the parents. I'd see my property taxes go down to nothing rather than shelling out thousands a year for other peoples spawn. But that would make sense, can't have that.

  31. Oh, good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, now I know what to say whenever I don't get my way.

  32. Release it free online by PsndCsrV · · Score: 1

    Then *everyone* will watch it, with no large gatherings of people to target. And it'll be a big f*** you to the terrorists. Sounds like a win-win to me!

    --
    Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.
    1. Re:Release it free online by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Better yet, the attackers will get made at torrent sites, and take them out. Win-Win for Sony!

    2. Re:Release it free online by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      *mad. sorry about the typo.

  33. If the movie was The Avengers they would've opened by bpechter · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is more a comment on movie than the fear of Korean Terror or hackers. Perhaps the studio has no faith in the production.
    Another stupid comedy that would go quickly to cable... no big deal if it wasn't for the hackers.

  34. Hyperbole Much? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '9/11 style attacks'? So if these movies are screened, attackers will sneak in, fueled up with convenience-store-bought Raisinets and armed with box knives? Or are they going to crash an airliner into each theater?

    We've become a nation where a college kid wishing to avoid a final exam can call in a bomb threat to close a campus. All threats, however implausible, must be taken seriously, just in case it truly is a real threat and an attack occurs. 99.999% of the time the threat is bogus, but if one doesn't act hysterically and it turns out to be the 0.001% situation, you're screwed (more likely by lawyers after the fact, not so much by the attack itself).

    By caving to the threat, they are validating the use of this strategy, and are ensuring that they will get more threats like this in the future. It works.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Hyperbole Much? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      We've become a nation where a college kid wishing to avoid a final exam can call in a bomb threat to close a campus.

      That ship sailed decades ago. We used to be surprised at how well-behaved our high school class was if we made it through the year with only a couple bomb threats.

    2. Re:Hyperbole Much? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about the airliners too when I heard about the 9-11 type threat. Does this mean the TSA is going to be screening us before we get into the theatre checking our shoes and the like? For our safety of course!

    3. Re:Hyperbole Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello ma'am, we're the Theatre Safety Administration.

    4. Re:Hyperbole Much? by Maow · · Score: 1

      We've become a nation where a college kid wishing to avoid a final exam can call in a bomb threat to close a campus. All threats, however implausible, must be taken seriously, just in case it truly is a real threat and an attack occurs. 99.999% of the time the threat is bogus, but if one doesn't act hysterically and it turns out to be the 0.001% situation, you're screwed (more likely by lawyers after the fact, not so much by the attack itself).

      To be fair, that happened in small-town Canada 45 years ago too.

      Make no mistake, I think it's cowardly to capitulate to this threat against movie theatres, however shutting school due to bomb threats isn't new.

    5. Re:Hyperbole Much? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      no, they are going to crash the theaters into the world trade center.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:Hyperbole Much? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      To be fair, that happened in small-town Canada 45 years ago too.

      True. And it happened in the U.S. and other places as well. But we had a sense of perspective back then and took it for what it was.

      These days? Odds are that it would make national news, and to the fill the void of information the pundits would argue whether it was terrorism, a disturbed child, etc.. and sit and argue that everyone is a potential terrorist or disturbed child (or both!). We must be vigilant! More police, cameras, and surveillance could have prevented all this. And so it spins.

      It's the lack of perspective that is killing us. Terrorism isn't much more of a threat these days than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. Your odds of being injured or dying in a terrorist act in a theater are much lower than the odds of dying on the car ride to that theater. But the lack of perspective, perpetually seeing small town fake threats tossed up on the national news, gives people the impression that there is a bomb in every trash can and a terrorist at every bus stop. And the government has capitalized on this fear to curtail our freedoms.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    7. Re:Hyperbole Much? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Hello ma'am, we're the Theatre Safety Administration.

      Now, bend over.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    8. Re:Hyperbole Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, as usual, lawyers are ultimately the ones to blame.

    9. Re:Hyperbole Much? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Now, bend over.

      That's the Toilet Safety Administration

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  35. This is fantastic news! by rainwalker · · Score: 1

    Guys, you're clearly missing the massive societal benefit of this news. Say you go to see a movie, only to find out that it's terrible. What do you do to help your fellow man from wasting their time and money? Write a review? Tell your friends? That's just not good enough! Now, all you have to do is send Sony an email and they'll cheerfully pull it from US distribution!

  36. I am cynical by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have the feeling the reason the show was cancelled , was because the pre-release feedback was very negative, that it was a bad film, but with those threat they saw an opportunity, and now they are priming the US market for a massive "buy it to spite terrorrist !" direct to DVD.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:I am cynical by sh00z · · Score: 1

      I have the feeling the reason the show was cancelled , was because the pre-release feedback was very negative, that it was a bad film, but with those threat they saw an opportunity, and now they are priming the US market for a massive "buy it to spite terrorrist !" direct to DVD.

      Then the next round of threats will be against Amazon, BestBuy and Walmart. Bittottent is the only real solution.

    2. Re:I am cynical by nytes · · Score: 1

      Or, as others suggested, stream it. Cable operators and Netflix would be decentralized enough to not be an easy target. They should have their act together WRT network security, as well.

      Even if they were actually physically targeted, there probably wouldn't be any human casualties. Just a lot of cut wires.

      I would pay for a streaming event just to give the middle finger to these guys.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    3. Re:I am cynical by celle · · Score: 1

      " now they are priming the US market for a massive "buy it to spite terrorrist !" direct to DVD"

          Well that failed as I refuse to buy from ball-less companies.

    4. Re:I am cynical by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      I have the feeling the reason the show was cancelled , was because the pre-release feedback was very negative, that it was a bad film, but with those threat they saw an opportunity, and now they are priming the US market for a massive "buy it to spite terrorrist !" direct to DVD.

      You know, I wouldn't be surprised if beyond you being right, Sony has insurance that covers this situation. "Political turmoil preventing or delaying release of film." Could be a clause. They may actually make money by holding it back. Maybe.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    5. Re:I am cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd, I've heard nothing but amusing things. And the team behind this is the same one that's made some great movies in a similar budget that have gone on to make lots of money. "This is the End" may have gotten some bad reviews from moms because it has a giant Satan with his dick out, but it made lots of money.

      If this was a Miley Cyrus movie I might nod, but Seth Rogen & the Smarmy One? It doesn't hold up.

    6. Re:I am cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Jong Un Death Scene (The Interview) = helicopter is blown up while a slow version of Katy Perry's "Firework" plays.

      No matter your politics or your opinion of the man, it's completely tasteless to glamorized the hypothetical assassination of a sitting world leader.
      This is reason enough to boycott the film (as in hundreds of US citizens standing around with pickets in front of any cinema that shows the film).
      Sony realized this and decided it was better to spin this for higher DVD sales.

    7. Re:I am cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. My ex works for AIG and they apparently sell insurance for nearly everything. You might be on to something here...

    8. Re:I am cynical by Wargames · · Score: 1

      Totally in agreement. I would go further and say that it is not only in bad taste, it is probably illegal. I mean, the plot of the movie seems to be the killing a living person, whether he is a leader or not is irrelevant. How could this be funny? They could have chosen someone fictitious or historical as the arch-villain but they didn't. I can't believe how many people on slash.dot seem unaware of how blatantly evil this is. Mod parent up.

      I would hack your ass into global thermonuclear war if you did this movie about me.

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
  37. This is such BS by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    This comes after the group which carried off a massive breach of its networks threatened to carry out "9/11-style attacks"

    I can't believe anyone is cowering to these little bastards. Who in their right mind believes any group is going to hijack planes, or even gas trucks and suicide bomb movie theaters? If they would have threatened Batman/Aurora style attacks I would have given them a little more credence. I mean why didn't they just go for broke and threaten Nagasaki style attacks? Or really go all out and threaten Chicxulub or Krakatoa?

    So they managed to break Sony's "security" and steal a bunch of data. Wow! From what I've read about Sony and their IT security, this could be a 12 year old girl in Tajikistan who did this for fun. There's been no indication that there is any credible physical threat to anyone. Yet everyone's running around in a panic. What the hell has happened to this country?

    1. Re:This is such BS by jbolden · · Score: 1

      We've lost it. It is pathetic. Agree completely. Even if this was a credible threat we shouldn't cave.

    2. Re:This is such BS by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      This comes after the group which carried off a massive breach of its networks threatened to carry out "9/11-style attacks"

      I can't believe anyone is cowering to these little bastards. Who in their right mind believes any group is going to hijack planes, or even gas trucks and suicide bomb movie theaters? If they would have threatened Batman/Aurora style attacks I would have given them a little more credence. I mean why didn't they just go for broke and threaten Nagasaki style attacks? Or really go all out and threaten Chicxulub or Krakatoa?

      So they managed to break Sony's "security" and steal a bunch of data. Wow! From what I've read about Sony and their IT security, this could be a 12 year old girl in Tajikistan who did this for fun. There's been no indication that there is any credible physical threat to anyone. Yet everyone's running around in a panic. What the hell has happened to this country?

      With these guys skillset and equipment I don't know how they could more that set the sprinklers off mid show.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  38. This nation is run by idiots by davydagger · · Score: 2

    The other side of promoting this fear mongering over terrorism, is that people get so scared, they believe their own bullshit. What decades of fear mongering have done is made us a nation of cowards, unable to cope with idle threats, most likely by people incapable of pulling them off. the largest army in the world, the most advanced weapons, the biggest navy by far, with the most amount and most advanced carriers, and we are still scared of unspecified threats on the internet. Sweet Jesus fuck. I think instead of spending millions on tanks, and Jets, and aircraft carriers, and shit that won't protect us, lets spend some time learning not to be affraid, and sticking up for what we believe in, instead of paying the defense industry out the nose for what ultimately won't protect us?

    1. Re:This nation is run by idiots by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      The DOD tried procuring stiff upper lips. But the analyst contractors they hired put together a 30 minute power point presentation outlining the how and why they were incompatible with our current military strategy. Ending with the simple fact that a retrofit would slash everyone's budget across the board.

      So, this is what we get.

  39. What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then? by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know... Police, Army, Navy, Air Force, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, bronies...
    If they can't secure a fuckin mall for an afternoon... What are you paying them for?

    Also, WHAT "rational cautions and plausible evidence"?
    All the public got so far was some overdue candid insight into scheming of a mega-corporation and what it REALLY thinks about people it uses, hires and its customers.

    If that's terrorism, seems to me there's a great demand for more of it.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  40. Torrent time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess I'll have to find a torrent now...

  41. Please!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Release the movie. Noone really cares what the head thinks of angelina jolie, or whomever's SSN. It's not as if everyone out there believes sony is a pristine organisation that values its actors and talent like golden geese. Unless this is a diversionary tactic that will buy time to track these people. These are just nonsensical threats used to inflame lone operators but mostly to throw everyone off the scent.

  42. Slight reality check here by Spy+Handler · · Score: 0

    The decision to make this movie has been a complete unmitigated disaster for Sony. In fact Webster should place a picture of Sony and the Interview poster next to the dictionary entry for "disaster".

    Financial loss to Sony will easily be in the hundreds of millions, not just from losing a major film release but also from the hacking, which is still ongoing. Employees are scared, many Hollywood bigwigs are angry, and head of Sony Pictures likely will lose her job.

    And all for what? Depicting the gruesome murder of a nonfictional living person is normally off-limits for mainstream entertainment. Let alone the sitting head of state of an actual nation. Sony was warned that this would be going into uncharted territory.

    According to the leaked emails, the screenwriter had originally written in a fictional dictator of a made-up country, but a few Sony execs thought it would be funnier and punchier if they put Kim Jong Eun instead. In their arrogance they had not considered repercussions of what could happen.

    1. Re:Slight reality check here by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      In fact Webster should place a picture of Sony and the Interview poster next to the dictionary entry for "disaster".

      That spot is already taken by Battlefield Earth.

    2. Re:Slight reality check here by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Sony is a big corporation. They do about $200m in revenue per day. The idea that some tin pot dictator can import his censorship into the United States is unthinkable.

      The head of the Port Authority was not fired for 9/11, no one is going to want to fire the head of Sony pictures for this.

  43. There is a difference. by Chirs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A "real and present threat" on a specific mall is a very different thing from a random threat.

    There are 5300 movie theaters in the USA. If half of them show the movie, that's 2650 showings. If the terrorists attack *ten* showings (likely an overestimate), that's still less than half a percent chance of being impacted.

    I'd take those odds.

    The alternative is that random groups start making threats against everything they don't like while carrying through on just enough of them to keep people scared, and the population lives in fear.

    1. Re:There is a difference. by noshellswill · · Score: 0

      Yes --- the difference. If movie viewers are CCing, then the terrorists get shot-down. Do the body count and pay-the-price. If it's then shown that North Korea pimped the terror, then we drop a few dozen 300KT nuks on them.  Back to Stone age motif etcetcetc... If China objects we take them out also; still possible and desirable.   Helps out with balance-of-trade. Russia stays on sidelines while we secure its Eastern border hahaha. Balls-out long overdue. You want to live forever ? 

    2. Re:There is a difference. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man, talk about being an arm-chair general.....

      I guess when you're in the basement, everything looks like a bomb shelter.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re: There is a difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only in america will you find such jocular and confident advocacy of cold-blooded mass murder that would even make andrew jackson hesitate

    4. Re:There is a difference. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd take those odds.

      Even for a shitty movie from Sony?

    5. Re: There is a difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... because US military history is full of wars you've started and then won.

      It's unlikely you could nuke DPRK without some sort of global upset, but if you really think you could 'just' take out China you've been smoking Meth.

      Not to mention Putin would probably see it as an excuse to launch, even if it means bankruptcy and death.

      The Middle East would probably get more unpleasant too....

    6. Re:There is a difference. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Maybe the popular theaters will get hit instead?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:There is a difference. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, if you're lucky, the terrorists may kill you before the movie starts.

      If you're not so lucky, the last thing you hear before your death is Seth Rogen laughing...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:There is a difference. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Even for a shitty movie from Sony?

      A shitty movie that takes and endlessly long piss on Kim Jong-Un? Yeah.

    9. Re:There is a difference. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      I was thinking the same thing. And the MO here is an "electronic attack" anyway, it's not like NK has been able to do much of any phyisical force projection outside of their own little corner. The "real threat" is that Sony will have even more internal documents leaked, and MAYBE AMC, Cinemark, etc could eventually get hacked too?

      Seriously, what would the GOP (Guardians of Peace, not the Republicans lol) do? Fly over into the US and set fire to 5000+ theaters? Attack the US's critical cyber infrastructure and start WWIII over a Seth Rogan movie? Even though that would be the FUNNIEST reason ever to destroy humanity (they could film it and call it "This REALLY is The End, PS we're sorry!" lol), there's little the GOP can do outside of what they've already done.

      Maybe if Sony didn't have unencrypted Excel and Word docs all over the place in their HR department and used an end-to-end encrypted HR solution like most other corps use this wouldn't happen. Maybe close off the $C, implement some vlans and VPNs... you know, catch up 10-15 years with the rest of the planet and it might make this a bit more difficult. Personally I don't blame the GOP...I blame Sony for having circa-1992 coffee shop security.

    10. Re:There is a difference. by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I imagine they were going to hack AMC and rig the film projector to overheat and explode, setting off the thermonuclear warhead it was attached to by the secret CIA program to hide nukes under film projectors.

      Well, they did specifically say they were going to blow up every theater, not hack them. Almost certainly an idle threat unless North Korea has planted thousands of sleeper agents and activates them to do such a strike.

      As for having unencrypted docs all over, I've seen that, even at corp levels - once you're behind the firewall, everything is unencrypted unless sending between sites or sending a secure mail such as to HR (our HR system requires it).

    11. Re:There is a difference. by Therad · · Score: 1

      You have even better odds than that, since they will probably show the movie more than once at every theater.

      Is it just me, or does the response seem to be a bit disproportionate? I wouldn't be surprised if the group got some other juicy tidbits from their hack and that is the real reason they shut down the release. Or maybe it is a PR stunt.

    12. Re:There is a difference. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      If you're not so lucky, the last thing you hear before your death is Seth Rogen laughing...

      Just kill me.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    13. Re: There is a difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you look up any of the past wars and compare their merits.

      Did the US start the Crusades, WWI, WWII?
      Or are you saying those few examples were more civil?

      Everything berfore the Geneva Conventions must have been better right?

    14. Re:There is a difference. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Remember that this is Sony. Their execs probably think computers work just like the do in the movies. North Korean hackers can take down a few aircraft or make random buildings explode just as easily as they can lead DVD screeners of unreleased movies onto the internet.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:There is a difference. by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      I'd take those odds.

      You'd be an idiot to take those odds for 2 hours of entertainment. A 0.5% chance of getting killed each day would mean you'd probably be dead within the year.

      Risk/reward-wise, it would be better to knowingly have unprotected sex with an HIV-positive partner than to watch a movie where you have a 0.5% chance of getting killed. There's (supposedly) a 1% chance or so that AIDS gets transmitted through heterosexual unprotected sex per act. I imagine you'd get more entertainment out of the sex than the movie. And, even if you do get HIV, you'd still have a decade or so of good life left before the AIDS gets you. Blown up movie theater = dead right away.

      If you're going to use statistics, make sure you know how to use them at least mostly correctly...

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    16. Re:There is a difference. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      apparently Sony's HR system doesn't lol

    17. Re:There is a difference. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      in a similar note, when I put an SSD in my PC it finally started running almost as fast as Hollywood movies.

  44. The thin end of the wedge by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

    As Doc Martin once said "it's the thin end of the wedge."

    Now that terrorists have successfully prevented a movie release with threats of "911-like attacks," everything they want done will be done using that threat as the basis.

    1. Re:The thin end of the wedge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Doc Martin said "The soles are Bouncing Soles!"

  45. missed opportunity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    release it to the cinemas anyway, sell no tickets, staff make the venue look open then leave discreetly. terrorist honey pot.

  46. horrible outcome by ecorona · · Score: 1

    Damn, this is a horrible outcome. They've just let NK gov feel like they actually have authority and standing outside of their prison nation.

  47. Decision made by spineless bean counters/lawyers by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Sony decided it wasn't economically worth going to war with North Korea over this. That's all. Even the very slight risk of a theater bombing could have cost millions, so they said no.

    That said, I hope they carpet bomb North Korea with Korean dubbed DVDs of the movie, complete with DVD players. Also hoping Netflix will start streaming it tomorrow, or that they just release it for free.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  48. Sony Pictures stands to make a gazillion bucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy stock now.

    Everybody will go see this movie if it ever gets released now. This could be the most ingenious marketing campaign ever if Sony was the one who hired the hackers and fed them dirt they already knew about the MPAA in regards to take down notices for URLs so the public's curiosity about what the movie was actually like if they had gotten the chance to see it.

  49. Extending the existing Sony boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the club! So many technical people are boycotting Sony already that you'll be joining quite a large community.

    In case you're not aware of it, Sony has a long history of doing things that techies tend to consider evil, their rootkit and "Other OS" shenanigans being the best known. They stopped being an electronics leader and became a lawyer-infested content company many years ago, and it has made them take the wrong decision at every turn.

    And so here comes Xmas, another opportunity to not buy Sony equipment as presents and yet another year to tell relatives why Sony doesn't deserve supporting.

    And adding your suggestion to the list, an opportunity to avoid Sony media content as well. The boycott grows.

  50. My money is on Blackmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sony is really capitulating because the Hacker-terrorists found pictures of the dead hookers in a Execs closet.

    1. Re:My money is on Blackmail by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Why is it always blackmail? Isn't that a little bit racist?

  51. Irony? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    So, protesting a fictional, comedic film about assassinating their leader, the "Guardians of Peace" hack the studio that produced the film and then threaten violence against theaters showing and people who might watch the film. Wow. (I guess that's in line with people who follow a certain "Religion of Peace" threatening violence against those who draw, even respectful, images of their prophet because it's against said religion.)

    Narrow minded people thinking mindlessly...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Irony? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And racist people gonna race!

  52. Re:If you really want to take away the GOPs power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didn't the GOPs do that themselves?

  53. Sony made the film as an "act of war" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2014, NATO, the UK and USA all released public statements saying they were entitled to treat NON-VIOLENT acts of propaganda and hacking as IDENTICAL to a physical military attack by an enemy, and respond accordingly, including using physical military strikes against the source of the cyber-activity. In the USA, threatening the President, regardless of intent, is a class-A criminal offence. In Texas, a man who made a drunken reference to a 'Burning bush' in a bar when Bush was in office receive a lengthy prison sentence.

    Sony employed extreme racist zionists at the US governments behest to make a movie specifically about the murder of the ACTUAL head of North Korea. There is no doubting that the existence of 'The Interview' was designed to be an 'act of aggression' against North Korea. Seth Rogen thought the North Koreans would have to 'roll over and take it', just as when Team Rogen carried out their filthy Holocaust against the Humans of Gaza a few months ago.

    Sony is Japanese, and a little while back Japan announced sanctions against Russia in the midst of a key Russian-Japanese trade deal, because Obama twisted their arm to breaking point, just like all those 'heroes' torturing the 'bad guys' on shows like '24'. Meanwhile, Israel has the closest relationship possible with Russia, and has enacted not one sanction. Neither has Saudi Arabia. Neither has Egypt. Yet the sheeple are told that Israel, Saudi Arabia and the current regime in Egypt are the closest of friends with the USA.

    No other major studio would have made 'The Interview'- not even Rupert 'Goebbels' Murdoch's 20th Century Fox. Only Japanese owned Sony could be this dumb and servile. There are rules- everyone knows this- but when Obama says kneel, the Japanese still say "how low?". And why? Because US presence in South Korea is the ONLY reason Korea does not reunify, and the one thing Japan fears in all the world is a re-unified Korea.

    But there are rules, and Sony broke them. You don't promote the murder of a currently serving head-of-state. The USA is now a gangster state, and gangsters define themselves as being beyond all the rules. The USA waves evidence of its unthinkably evil torture policies in the face of the world, and laughs as it tells everyone that every depravity involved in torture has been given total immunity against punishment by Presidents Bush and Obama.

    When America was exterminating Russia's attempt to modernise Afghanistan, and bring equal rights and social justice to that land (the Russians, not the Saudi loving Americans, that is), Hollywood had Rambo and James Bond work side by side with the 'brave' Taliban (in their 'Mujahideen' incarnation). But depicting fictional state-sponsored 'heroes' in a proxy war is one thing. Neither Rambo nor James Bond were ever shown attempting to MURDER the serving USSR head. There are rules- and Sony broke these rules.

    The US War Machine is out of control- gathering rapidly accelerated funding every year. Google has dedicated itself to providing the US armed forces with fully robotic, semi-autonomous genocide machines to help fight in future battlefields like Iran. The heads of Google are convinced the US politicians will support far more wars for Israel if the US sheeple believe far fewer US forces will be put at risk. ISIS is a key project of the USA, expanding deadly Saudi influence throughout the Muslim world- destroying secular Muslim states like Syria, Libya and Iraq, and turning them over to Saudi trained 'clerics'. Israel is an active ally of ISIS in Syria's Golan Heights region.

    If the world doesn't act to halt the US War Machine, US authorities will engage in the worst aggressive militaristic 'fantasies' imaginable- and black propaganda like 'The Interview' is merely preparing the ground in readiness.

    1. Re:Sony made the film as an "act of war" by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      Is this guy off his meds again?

  54. This can't be the real deal by white+russian · · Score: 2

    Something seems off on this whole thing. They are afraid of 911 style threats... at a movie theater?! The Koreans probably got something else on the executives. Something so good that the execs are giving in to these crazy demands. The whole 911 thing sounds like an alternative explanation for whats really going on.

  55. Update2 by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

    U.S. investigators have determined hackers working for North Korea were behind the Sony attack, and an announcement could come as soon as Thursday, U.S. law enforcement sources tell CNN's Evan Perez.

    Because of the North Korean regime's tight control of the Internet in the reclusive country, U.S. officials believe the hack was ordered directly by the nation's leadership.

    The hackers have exposed documents from Sony's servers, including personal information about celebrities and embarrassing emails from executives. They also said that people should avoid going to theaters to see "The Interview," which is about an attempt to kill North Korea's leader.

    Sony on Wednesday canceled the film's December 25 release.

    Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile.

    1. Re:Update2 by fnj · · Score: 1

      U.S. investigators have determined hackers working for North Korea were behind the Sony attack

      No shit, Sherlocks.

    2. Re:Update2 by nytes · · Score: 1

      And a thriller set in North Korea, staring Steve Carell, has also been dropped:
      http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  56. The reply is to give the movie away for free on ev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Sony was smart..

    The would print the movie and give it away on the street corners in random cities of America AND download for free. It should be Sony VPs, and company directors giving
      the movie away.

    I'm quite sure I wouldn't like this movie, but Sony must protect to artistic freedom if they have dignity.

    This is war.

  57. I hang my head in shame by Goat+of+Death · · Score: 1

    This is a very sad day for the United States and for freedom of expression. It's so disappointing that we've allowed terrorist fear and propaganda to suppress our culture and art.

    1. Re:I hang my head in shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA - The land of the..... Pussies!

  58. Sony could still get the last laugh ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Interview BlueRay 1080p" coming to a bittorrent server near you ! Hell throw in a few ads for Sony pictures on from the torrent server 8-)

  59. False flag by zorkdork · · Score: 0

    Now this assures an even wider torrent release. We all know more people watch torrents over actual movie theaters these days.

  60. "well, you see, you just don't have enough of us" by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2

    "well, you see, you just don't have enough of us..."

  61. Re:What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are you paying them for?

    Choking black people?

  62. Re:Decision made by spineless bean counters/lawyer by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    Very likely Sony decided that even if all North Korea could do is 3 attacks of theaters like that Joker wannabe a couple of years ago, it would be enough to cost Sony a billion in lawsuits.

  63. Re:If you really want to take away the GOPs power. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I thought they did, actually... purportedly along with several other not-yet-released movies, though I didn't go searching to verify this myself.

  64. OT: Seppuku by mi · · Score: 2, Informative

    But it does irritate me when people say hari-kari. I get that it's used in English a lot, but the original term is Hara-Kiri.

    Actually, the proper term is "seppuku". "Harakiri" is a word used by lower classes...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:OT: Seppuku by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      But it does irritate me when people say hari-kari. I get that it's used in English a lot, but the original term is Hara-Kiri.

      Actually, the proper term is "seppuku". "Harakiri" is a word used by lower classes...

      I think that the shareholders might have this in mind anyway... Sony's next shareholder meeting is going to be interesting.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:OT: Seppuku by Cederic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm. Does that mean that literal translations are
      Seppuku : Ritual disembowelment
      Hara-Kiri: Stupid posh bloke killing himself

  65. Counter-threat by bennini · · Score: 1

    By induction, we should be able to issue a counter-threat to all the movie theaters that do NOT show The Interview this holiday season.

    1. Re:Counter-threat by 4pins · · Score: 1

      It is too late to threaten the theaters for that, Sony pulled the release so they cannot show the film. Or is the lack of logic your point?

      --
      I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
  66. Streisand Effect x Kim Jong-un Effect by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Seeing how often Hollywood remakes movies, and how much attention Kim Jong-un has given this particular picture, it may become the Oedipus Rex or Nutcracker of the next century. After this blows over, Sony's going to rake in the DVD and rebroadcast and international sales, and North Korea will redefine the "Streisand Effect"

    --
    Gently reply
  67. There will never be movie involving Islam in USA by clay_buster · · Score: 1

    Sony just told the Jihadist how to make sure there will never be any movies involving Islam shown in the US.

  68. Could just be a liability issue by ikhider · · Score: 1

    Bog corps have a CYA (cover your ass) policy. It has nothing to do with safety. If there is a threat and only one attack is carried out, Sony could be held legally liable for not doing their due diligence. The family of the injured/deceased could sue Sony because there was a threat and Sony ignored it. USA is a nation of litigation, not the betterment of her citizens. But hey, we're in a multinational corporation-run world so the rest of the planet will have to comply. Corporations love to say "it's for your own safety" but that is really one of the biggest lies.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  69. change.org petition by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I can't do much about this and neither can you. But if you would to be a little bit constructive I started a petition:
    https://www.change.org/p/regal...

  70. Re:Decision made by spineless bean counters/lawyer by jbolden · · Score: 1

    First off Sony has already lost millions from the hacking. How would a bombing have cost millions to Sony?

  71. Stream it online Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way they'd have to bomb everyone

  72. boycott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never go to any of these theaters again. Let them know why.

  73. Nope by Controlio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work for a sizable sports network. Sony had a ton of inventory purchased across many networks to promote the release. They pulled ALL of it, ridiculously close to airtime. Way closer than we normally allow.

    They were negotiating down to the wire to not have to cancel this movie. And why wouldn't they? They stand to lose tens of millions unless they're smart about how they do a private release now.

    Trust me. Sony has released FAR shittier movies than this. This one had buzz going for it. Remember that months ago, NK declared it an act of war.

    This looks completely legit. A ridiculously weak - and in my mind completely wrong - move, but legit.

    1. Re:Nope by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They stand to lose tens of millions unless they're smart about how they do a private release now.

      They will release straight to DVD, and they will make a killing. Wait, that came out wrong

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Nope by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, if this is from the North Koreans, they definitely got the last laugh from the panicky reaction. They got the money shot they were looking for, and *all you had to do was, act naturally*. Award winning material was provided by all. Thank you all very much, ladies and gentlemen, the check is in the mail. Don't call us, we'll call you.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  74. Not going to give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't give a fuck.

    In fact I give so little of a fuck that I'm not going to watch it online, I'm not going to watch it pirated, I'm not going to watch it on Netflix, and I'm not even going to fucking look it up on Wikipedia.

    And I'm not even going to announce it on Facebook or G+ that I don't give a fuck. I'm just going to ignore that entire mess, just like I'm doing with Star Wars and Star Trek.

  75. No, no, no by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It's pretty transparent that these hackers are North Korean. Fuck North Korea.

    Really? What would North Korea have to gain by doing this? They already have less than one friend on the global stage (ie, only partial support from China). If they go around encouraging cyber warfare like this they are only inviting more pain back towards themselves.

    Even more so this is likely beyond the technical capabilties of North Korea. Some people have suggested that this hack took upwards of 100TB of data. First of all, it is unlikely that North Korea has the ability to move that much data through their connection to the internet in the amount of time that transpired. Second, even if all the "best" hackers from North Korea did their best job to steal this data and place it elsewhere, it would have been pretty easy to figure that out as well.

    So really, scratch North Korea off the list.

    Some people have suggested that the hackers are "sympathetic to North Korea". To this I say bullshit as well. If someone wanted to make North Korea look like victims, launching a cyber attack is not a good way to do that. And how would a cyber attack on Sony make North Korea look strong or capable?

    I would say the most likely case is we have some hackers who really despised Sony and found a way in. They then laid this "North Korea" cause as a red herring.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:No, no, no by gman003 · · Score: 1

      The current prevailing theory is that North Korea hired outside hackers for this job. That fits the level of skill shown (less than CIA-level, more than skiddie level), the damage done, and even North Korea's response (had it been homegrown hackers, I'm not sure Kim could have helped but shout it out to the world).

      Also, pointing out that an action was illogical in no way proves that it was not North Korea. They have shown time and time again to be a country that makes bad decisions, and acts with little regard for the consequences.

    2. Re:No, no, no by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The current prevailing theory is that North Korea hired outside hackers for this job. That fits the level of skill shown (less than CIA-level, more than skiddie level), the damage done, and even North Korea's response (had it been homegrown hackers, I'm not sure Kim could have helped but shout it out to the world).

      That is a rather difficult hypothesis to support. How do you show that the hackers were hired by North Korea? What would North Korea be able to offer in compensation?

      Also, pointing out that an action was illogical in no way proves that it was not North Korea. They have shown time and time again to be a country that makes bad decisions, and acts with little regard for the consequences.

      The third generation Kim is not quite the rogue actor his predecessors were. Jong-Un seems to be aware of the fact that his country is under a microscope now and that he can't always just do what he wants. Furthermore he seems aware of the fact that the support they used to enjoy from China is quickly becoming exactly that - support they used to enjoy. While not the most logical guy at the party, Kim Jong-Un seems to have a little more awareness of the world than what we used to see from North Korea.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  76. Can Sony file a terrorism insurance claim? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I know my own business insurance has the ability to file a claim if there is loss or damage due to a terrorist attack. Maybe Sony is going to try to recoup their losses on this film that way.

  77. How do you do that? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    Unless I'm forgetting something, 9/11 involved planes crashing into large buildings. Most movie theaters in the US are single-story buildings and seldom have much around them of great significance (ie they are in big empty suburban parking lots). They would have to completely destroy dozens of theatres in order to match the death total of 9/11, and in the process wouldn't come close to the monetary damage.

    But that leaves the giant question of how. You can't take down a full movie theatre with one suicide bomber, you would need several (at least one for each screen, somehow synchronized to maximize damage). 9/11 was 19 terrorists killing almost 3,000 others; you can't get anywhere near that level of destruction with suicide bombers.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:How do you do that? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can't take down a full movie theatre with one suicide bomber, you would need several (at least one for each screen, somehow synchronized to maximize damage).

      So you attend several ahead of time and plant bombs while you're there, there's loads of places in the average theater where you could hide an explosive. Then you set them off by cellphone. It's not rocket surgery. That nobody has done this already proves just how few terrists there actually are active on merican soil.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:How do you do that? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Or one idiot with a truck full of diesel fuel and fertilizer.

      Such a bomb would completely level a movie theatre and most of any mall it was in.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  78. They are there to take your money ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3

    ...You know... Police, Army, Navy, Air Force, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRA, bronies...

    If you are an American, you should know ...
     
    The cops are there to enjoy Dunkin Donuts

    The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine are there to be used to invade yet another foreign country

    The NSA, CIA, FBI are there to invade our privacy

    The IRS are there to harass us and to take our money

    As for the congress ? They are there to talk shit

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:They are there to take your money ... by seededfury · · Score: 1

      And all of the above work for the rich elite, all of the above are servant of corporate america.

  79. That's just not capitalisim by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Sony does things for profit. Only North Korea is free to do things to promote an ideology.

  80. Capitalism is terrorism by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Capitalism will never stand up against terrorism. Capitalism is based on terrorism. To live in capitalism is to live in terror.

    1. Re:Capitalism is terrorism by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Hey, you saw that poster too? Which memorabilia shop did you see it in?

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  81. Turn the tables on them ! by bigjoeb · · Score: 1

    Sony should release it via torrent sites, Bring the freakin thing to the whole world , right up to their firewalled doorstep!

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you
  82. Re:If you really want to take away the GOPs power. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    From what I've seen they DID release the other films, but not "The Interview". And I'm assuming any actual torrents of said movie will have something nasty in it; at least that's what I'd do lol.

  83. The real damage? by Hartree · · Score: 1

    I have this sneaking suspicion that the real damage that could be done to Sony is if the group that broke in got into the internal financial data rather than what gets reported.

    Word has long been that the accounting practices of Hollywood and the music industry make Enron look pretty tame. And Sony is into both.

    Imagine how many lawyers/accountants would be going over any financial records that get released. There are lots of actors and musicians that have felt they got shafted with what they were paid versus what they were actually owed.

  84. threatened to carry out "9/11-style attacks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    threatened to carry out "9/11-style attacks
     
    They are going to fly airplanes into theaters?

  85. +1 Interesting by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

    Mod this guy up please

  86. Team America: World Police ? by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

    .. And Team America: World Police by the South Park guys, which completely ridiculed Kim Jong Il - was cheerfully sent to theaters without issue?

    Oh, here's why- Team America: World Police was distributed by Paramount Pictures, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. media behemoth Viacom, which couldn't give a flying fuck about a despot on the other side of the world.

    Sony, on the other hand, has its parent company headquartered in Japan, where North Korean missile tests fly over their island on a regular basis, and has actually had citizens literally kidnapped off the beach by North Korean intelligence officers.

    Where does this stop? Will Sony approach media outlets like Amazon Instant Video, Google Play Movies and iTunes, only to be told off? It wasn't bad enough that Sony has suffered huge losses from the hacking, now they also eat nearly $50 million on the films' production costs and sunk advertising to date.

    During the Cold War, Hollywood ROUTINELY made films depicting the Soviets as drunken bumbling incompetent bloodthirsty warmongers, with fare like Stripes, Spies Like Us, Red Dawn (original), and many many others - This, at a time when there were literally hundreds or thousands of KGB agents active on American sold and > 10,000 ICBMs pointed at us - And you could turn Johnny Carson's monologue on every night and listen to him crack about Brezhnev being a drunken idiot.

    Did Sony react to a real threat? Or is this part of the new culture of not offending anyone?

     

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  87. So North Korea Attach Bagdad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2014/12/17/sony-decides-not-to-release-the-interview/?partner=yahootix

    Guardians of Peace[?] = Guardians of Shit[!]

    Just a 12-year old Viagra addict with a suger-daddy account ... Sugar Daddy at Sony!. All PR.

    Fuck King Um. Fuck Fuck Fuck. Donkey Fuck Kim Um. Bastard "King" gets rectum hose-pipe hydrations 24-hours of day. Ass Wipe Kim Um.

    King Kim Um is a girl!

    Ha ha Fat Farting Bitch.

  88. What if this is all just a hype prank? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the backlash to the non existent backlash it'd be a great time to drop the movie full spread and everyone got see it... just sayin

  89. The best thing that Sony can do here... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    ... is to give the movie away for free download.

    Nothing would piss of North Korea more, unless they could convince Apple to force you to download it, like U2 did!

  90. So..... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

    We shut down movies now over terrorist threats of 9/11-style attacks?

    If they are so worried that a few hackers could hijack a plane, and pull this off successfully, that they are willing to sink a multimillion dollar film that's probably already in circulation on the net.....

    Why do I need to have people try to feel my nuts at the airport and treat me like I'm entering jail?

    If they can't stop a few nerds with laptops from hijacking a plane, how can they ever hope to stop an actual skilled boogie man terrorist jihadist child molestor movie pirate? I know a lot of us play flight sims but come on..... f**king seriously? This is a whole new dimension of retarded. Why couldn't someone do this when they were about to release Titanic or Pearl Harbor?

  91. Execution Rumors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was widely reported.
    http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-north-korea-executes-80-20131111-story.html

  92. 20,000 Movie Collection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Kim Dynasty likes movies. This was reported back in 2011.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16245174

  93. Jesus this is embarassing by DRMShill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Borderline despicable behavior on Sony's part actually. The movie industry makes an enormous amount of money because of the freedom of speech. But when it comes time to defend that freedom this is how they behave.

    1. Re:Jesus this is embarassing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of the movie "The producers". If they produced a flop, they could claim it didn't make any money, and wouldn't have to pay their investors.

      Sony has probably already "cha-ching"ed their lawyers who have made sure AIG or whoever will honor their insurance contract, and the whole company will get paid more than they would have made otherwise... except for just about everyone else involved - including actors/support/investors/taxes and teenage movie-theater ticket rippers. None of those people have an insurance contract for taking a loss on film profits.

  94. This is just a ploy cooked up by sony. by nbritton · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is just a ploy cooked up by sony to increase sales. You watch, after christmas the theaters will cave in and show it and then everyone will want to watch it to see what all the hoopla is about.

  95. Sony should release directly by harryk · · Score: 1

    If Sony decides to shelf the release indefinitely, then I think they should just release it publicly for free and let the world have at it. I'd honestly rather give to Sony directly than to let any shit hacking group decide what I can and can't watch.

    Hey Sony, if you want to setup a torrent, I'll be a seeder. Otherwise, let me know where I can send *cryptocurrency of the day* for a nice clean DRM free copy of the movie.

    --
    think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
  96. Is this the real reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, the threat to a theater is (certainly to the outside world) highly impressive, so it is a good excuse...
    But I wonder if the real threat to Sony Pictures isn't the mails and internal documentation that we haven't seen released by the hackers yet. If for example they found documents detailing how 'Hollywood bookkeeping' really works, or perhaps some juicy details about agreements with congressmen and senators with links to money that can no longer be whitewashed as 'lobbying' but indicate it for what it really is: bribery.

    Because THAT would really scare Sony Pictures management.

  97. ... or a brilliant PR move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess. Next you're going to pontificate about how you "don't even own a TV", right?

  98. Boycott by Radak · · Score: 1

    You're missing the point. They didn't choose not to show the movie because of a terrorist threat. They chose not to show the movie because it would cost them money. Regardless of what they say, they are not taking the threat seriously. What they are taking seriously is the number of customers who would choose not to come see The Interview, and particularly the number of customers who would choose not to come see anything at a theatre that is merely showing The Interview, out of fear for their own safety. The potential for empty theatre complexes for an entire holiday season scared the shit out of the theatres, and they made the safe financial decision.

    Their reaction has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the almighty dollar. Claming it's a reaction to the terrorist threat is merely the popular way to present the financial decision to the terrorist-sensitive public.

  99. Until Sony caved, yes.... by Radak · · Score: 1

    But since Sony has caved by deferring its release, Sony has joined the ranks of the chicken-droppings.

    Sony didn't cave. Sony stood by their guns the whole time. It's the theatre chains who caved, so blame them, not Sony.

  100. You [Slashdot] know by mlauzon · · Score: 1

    that Cineplex Entertainment is Canadian, and not american, don’t you..?!

  101. Not that simple ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    You have a larger chance of being struck by lightning in the us than being killed by a terrorist. Lightning killed about fifty people a year (US only), which is considerably more than terrorists ten-year average.

    But far less than the fifteen or twenty year average, even less than the 50 year average. The "data" has some infrequent by quite large outliers. Its difficult to compare naturally occurring random events (lightning) or accidental events involving humans (car accidents) to intentional events engineered by humans.

    That said I was planning on waiting for the movie to show up on HBO but now I feel like seeing it in a theatre. I guess there really is no such thing as bad press.

  102. Supremes never said corps are people ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Supreme Court never said that corporation are people. That's just a talking point of the left, taken from the post-decision spin of the losing side in the court case.

    All the court really said is that
    (1) Groups of people have the same speech rights as individuals.
    (2) The nature of the group (corporation, labor union, activist group, etc) does not matter.
    (3) Media corporations (i.e. traditional news) have no special rights with respect to speech, all corporations have the same speech rights.

    1. Re: Supremes never said corps are people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the employees of Hobby Lobby.

    2. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Groups of people have the same speech rights as individuals.

      For-profit corporations are not groups of people, they are aggregated capital.

      The nature of the group (corporation, labor union, activist group, etc) does not matter.

      See above.

      Media corporations (i.e. traditional news) have no special rights with respect to speech, all corporations have the same speech rights.

      They don't deserve ANY rights at all. They are just aggregated capital allowed to exist for the purpose of deferring liability. Why should money have rights?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      That's just a talking point of the left,

      And Mitt Romney, the republican presidential candidate who the republican party voted for over Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and beat out Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Richard Perry, and that Cain guy.
      He was the figure head and leading member of the republican party. It's not just a talking point of the left. It's something the republican leadership wanted to be true. If that rubs you the wrong way, you really ought to take another look at your political party.

      Because of course corporations aren't people. That's crazy talk that will make you unelectable.

    4. Re: Supremes never said corps are people ... by JWW · · Score: 1

      Shit the government better fits you "aggregation of money" description better than big companies do. Hell it even prints its own money. Your use of the term capital gives away your commie sympathies.

      So companies aren't people, but ginormous government is your mommy. Got it.

    5. Re: Supremes never said corps are people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If companies WERE just groups of people, how exactly can they limit the liability of said people? Sounds like you want companies to be the best if both worlds, all the rights and none of the limitations.

    6. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For-profit corporations are not groups of people, they are aggregated capital.

      That's your opinion. The Supreme Court disagrees, and between you and the Supreme Court, it's not going to be you whose opinion matters.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Majority_opinion

      A group of people does not lose its free speech rights by forming the group. Full stop.

      The ACLU and other freedom-supporting groups have approved of this ruling.

      P.S. Citizens United is a non-profit. It's ideological as hell but it's a non-profit. Presumably you are not in favor of stripping people of their free-speech rights just because they form a non-profit?

      If you think Citizens United should have been prevented from airing ads related to Hilary: The Movie do you also think that Citizens United should have prevailed in its efforts to block the airing of ads for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11? Citizens United felt that Moore's movie had political impact, and they were unable to block it, so they decided to make their own movies with political impact. Do you think it's proper to allow ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 and block ads for Hilary: The Movie?

      Just how much government control of free speech do you support?

    7. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's just a talking point of the left, taken from the post-decision spin of the losing side in the court case.

      Mitt Romney, leftist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

    8. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Groups of people have the same speech rights as individuals.

      For-profit corporations are not groups of people, they are aggregated capital.

      Corporations consist of two groups of people:
      (1) Stockholders.
      (2) Employees.

      An individual piece of corporate speech may represent one or both of these groups. For example a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports. Such a statement represents both stockholder and employee interests.

    9. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      That's just a talking point of the left,

      And Mitt Romney, the republican presidential candidate who the republican party voted for over Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and beat out Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Richard Perry, and that Cain guy. He was the figure head and leading member of the republican party. It's not just a talking point of the left. It's something the republican leadership wanted to be true. If that rubs you the wrong way, you really ought to take another look at your political party.

      That is not my party. Pointing out a Democratic party lie does not make one a Republican.

      The video you cite proves you wrong. Romney, in a very confused and inelegant way, was trying to say that corporations consists of two groups of people. Stockholders and employees. He specifically says in the video that the money that corporations earn goes into people's pockets, human's pockets.

      Again, inelegant and confused, but something entirely different than the losing lawyer's spin that the left adopted. That corporations are themselves "people". Its brilliant spin, easily deceives those not paying attention, but spin none the less.

    10. Re: Supremes never said corps are people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the employees of Hobby Lobby.

      Tell them what, that *every* corporation gets to pick what insurance policy and what insurance coverage is offered via the company sponsored insurance plan? Some corporations pick/offer more, some less, for various reasons. Reasons that may be non-financial but public image or politically motivated, motivations that may be conservative or liberal.

    11. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ergo, corporations are people. All corporations have people, but not all people are corporations. Besides, the effect is what your side was after- that corps be treated like a person. Only now that we're calling you assholes out, you start playing the "technically" card. Your post is not "Informative" at all!

    12. Re: Supremes never said corps are people ... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And it's the control of that very government that is at issue.
      A public company is not a democracy: all of its economic power is in the hands of the majority stockholders.
      Why should they have millions of times the influence on who the government is and what is does than I do?

    13. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      The employees have no influence on the political activities of the corporation.
      Only the majority stockholders (who are commonly fewer than 20 people) determine
      how the company's "campaign contributions" (i.e. bribes) will be spent.

    14. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The employees have no influence on the political activities of the corporation. Only the majority stockholders (who are commonly fewer than 20 people) determine how the company's "campaign contributions" (i.e. bribes) will be spent.

      Sorry, but you are wrong. Perhaps you missed my example where a corporation speaks on behalf of both its stockholders and its employees:
      "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports."

    15. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Those employees and shareholders already have their individual rights. Do you believe that the corporation should confer upon them additional rights? So that people who own stock have rights to certain speech that others do not? Because that's exactly the current situation.

      Nossir. Corporate personhood was a legal shorthand that has gone out of control. It will be looked upon by history with embarrassment.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re: Supremes never said corps are people ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I understand that you weren't trying to make a serious point, but no, the government is not a person, either. The government has no constitutional rights.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      A group of people does not lose its free speech rights by forming the group. Full stop.

      Nor do they gain additional rights, which is the current situation under Citizens United.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Those employees and shareholders already have their individual rights.

      As do members of unions and members of activist groups. Using your logic these groups of individuals should also be silenced.

      Do you believe that the corporation should confer upon them additional rights?

      As the court has said, a group of people have the same speech rights as individual persons. There are no additional rights, just the same right.

      So that people who own stock have rights to certain speech that others do not? Because that's exactly the current situation.

      Using your logic employees may have even more rights than shareholders. In your logic shareholders may have two voices, individual and corporate; while employees may have three voices, individual, corporate and union. Again I am referring to a situation such as "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports". The steel workers union would probably want the government to maintain the tariff too.

    19. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      As do members of unions and members of activist groups. Using your logic these groups of individuals should also be silenced.

      I agree. No additional rights because you have pooled your money.

      As the court has said, a group of people have the same speech rights as individual persons. There are no additional rights, just the same right.

      Except, corporations are allowed to participate in elections to an extent and in ways that private citizens cannot.

      Using your logic employees may have even more rights than shareholders. In your logic shareholders may have two voices, individual and corporate; while employees may have three voices, individual, corporate and union. Again I am referring to a situation such as "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports". The steel workers union would probably want the government to maintain the tariff too.

      Right. Everybody gets the same vote. Everybody gets the same campaign finance limit (and citizens only). That's simple. Corporations, unions, etc are not citizens. They cannot vote or run for office. Why should they be allowed to participate in politics financially?

      And if it was all about "rights" why has Citizens United allowed corporate donors anonymity in political finance when individuals are not allowed to be anonymous in the same way?

      You make the mistake of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You have an image living in your head that is not real.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree that's not what the supreme court ruled. And that this interpretation is a post-decision spin of the losing side. The talking point that PopeRatzo was using was stating that the far right does not hold this view. They believe it and want it to be true. As shown by their leadership. Neither you, I, or PopeRatzo believe that corporations are people, but I present you with the republican presidential candidate himself saying that corporations are people.... and you think this is some sort of democratic party lie? We most certainly don't want corporations to be treated like people. That's a horrible thing. Even PopeRatzo is claiming that only crazy right-wingers believe that.

      Romney is responding to a heckler who called for taxes to be raised, not on people, but on corporations. Mitt's response is "corporations are people my friend", "Of course they are".

      And sure, he goes on to try and point out that the money that goes to corporation goes into people's pockets and corporations are made of people, but none of that matters. Because the entire argument here is whether or not corporations can be treated as people. Sure, they're made of people, usually, but are they treated like people? Do they have right like people? And Romney in on the record buying into the belief that the supreme court ruled that corporations are people. Because he wants that to be true.

    21. Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Mitt's response is "corporations are people my friend", "Of course they are". And sure, he goes on to try and point out that the money that goes to corporation goes into people's pockets and corporations are made of people, but none of that matters ... And Romney in on the record buying into the belief that the supreme court ruled that corporations are people.

      Actually it does matter because he is explaining what he meant by "corporations are people". His "record" is that corporations are made of stockholders and employees. The false myth based on an out of context excerpt is that he was saying the legal entity of the corporation itself is a "person". That's just not true and listening to the video for a minute after he says "corporations are people" proves it.

      This incident is an awesome example of public speaking. Of how an opponent can take a sound bite out of context and twist a statement around to create a false meme. In politics, and other areas where the reader's/listener's attention is shallow and emotional, one can not make a general/simplified statement and then follow up with details explaining it as one might do with a more rational audience.

      Romney was speaking as if he were writing an essay. Ex. Title: "Corporations are People". Body: "Corporations are people because they are made up of two groups of people, shareholders and employees.". The spin machine is quoting the title and ignoring the body.

  103. Draw the terrorists to particular theaters ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Funny

    There are 5300 movie theaters in the USA. If half of them show the movie, that's 2650 showings. If the terrorists attack *ten* showings ...

    The terrorists can be trapped. Have a few theaters where there is a double feature of "The Interview" and "Team America: World Police", that should lure the NK agents to those theaters.

  104. a sad day.... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    This really is a sad day, those moronic scriptkiddies have won..
    I really hope they can catch the persons who did this, and who made the threats. The should get life in prison if it were up to me (well actually they should just get the deathpenalty if it was really up to me)...
    These morons ruined the lives of a lot of hardworking people..

  105. Recursive beloved leader trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, that would make a good movie.

  106. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will #GOP go after the torrent trackers that index the movie? Inquiring minds need to know.

  107. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the movie is cancelled does this mean anyone that shares the torrent can't be done for loss of revenue to sony?

  108. Instigation? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    This just sounds like the media is trying to get an emotional reaction from the American people with regards to North Korea so they can garner support for more warmongering.

    Remember Dubya?

    "Iran, Iraq and North Korea form an axis of evil..."

    I'm still waiting to hear what 'evil' these countries have actually done - and the "proof" of their links to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  109. Re: Kim Jong-un Is Feelless Reader! by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Feelless Reader is blocking this post. We have mod down this post -4. Victory for Feelless Reader is guananteed

    --
    Gently reply
  110. Re:Feelless Reader Deny you first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North Korea Movie censor army superior. You will be modded down. Hair Feelless Reader!

  111. Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you remember the actual incident at a showing of Batman? The one that actually happened? Where people got shot?

    Do you remember how Batman was not pulled from the cinema?

  112. Buy the rights to broadcast the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should start a kick-start campaign to buy the rights from Sony and make the movie public.

  113. Revenge screening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about having a huge public showing of this movie, on a portable projector shining on the side of the Nork Embassy?

  114. Meme Gallery by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Feelless Reader Reaps Streisand Effect http://www.complex.com/pop-cul...

    --
    Gently reply
  115. What is a terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now NK are terrorists? Since when?

    If a movie were made about Koreans/Iranians etc. planning to assasinate Obama, I'mt pretty sure it wouldn't be welcomed in USA, similarly to this mockumentary:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President_%282006_film%29

    Hacking is another thing, and also hard to prove.

  116. Sony, show us some gumption by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

    Sony, you can't release this thing in theaters, and the same will probably be of brick-and-mortar retail. Your reputation is going in the crapper because of the awful things your executives say in email. Release the movie on a torrent. Let people watch it online. For free. It's not like these idiots aren't going to eventually distribute all of your dirty laundry anyway. Show us you at least have some dignity, if not class.

  117. Fight fire with fire, just TORRENT THE FUCKER by funkymonkjay · · Score: 1

    and here is why we need an outlets like TPB to do the things that corporations and governments won't or can't do.

  118. Time to blow the shit out of North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, that's pretty much hall I have to say.

  119. A bold suggestion by JerryLove · · Score: 1

    Dear Sony,

          Release the movie for free on the internet. Perhaps issue a bargain-rate DVD as well. If the people behind the hack really don't want this movie out there (as opposed to this being a smoke-screen), and you really are concerned that capitulation will inspire future attacks; up the ante and do the opposite.

          To be sure: there is a fiscal cost... but that ship has sailed. Take more of a hit now to save ongoing bleeding.

          Heck: Start a commercial campaign about how you stand up to terrorists.

  120. And the terrorists win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good job Sony. You just taught the dog that shitting on the floor is rewarded.

  121. Team America World Police and Pay/Streaming Releas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Everyone must now watch Team America: World Police in protest
    2) The Interview should immediately be released to [HBO|Showtime|Starz] and [Netflix|Amazon Prime|iTune] for widest dissemination and viewing. As a one off, there should be no windowing who gets the rights. Sony will still make some money on it, and also gets to make a bit of a statement that while they will be scared into changing their behavior (and I'm pissed about that) they will not be censored.

  122. Re:Team America World Police and Pay/Streaming Rel by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

    Congratulations, you've just fallen victim to the reverse-Streisand. Can't say that I blame you though, this is the biggest one since New Coke.

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  123. Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That began in the 1960's with the anti-war movement. Anytime a significant portion of a nation decides that it won't fight for anything, the end is at hand. It's been all pussification from then on. (Yes, I'm talking about you hippies.) At least for a large percent of us.

    But at a deeper level, it begins when a nation loses all vision for its future, and begins to sit back and take it easy. Having conquered a continent (for better or worse, with all the evils that happen along the way), we no longer had a goal to pursue as a nation. You begin to slowly fall apart at that point. Today, we don't live for anything except for entertainment and games, sex, drugs, pleasure. That's a dead society in my opinion.

  124. Sony secured the movie... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Sony secured the movie...for future release. If you saw the trailer, you know where they secured it.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  125. Was John Kerry involved? by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Was John Kerry involved in making this decision?

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  126. Re:What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting, there are 18,000 different theatres, it's not so easy, there's no magic to stop these kinds of things (if they're real, that is) as you imagine. Even the NSA, police, etc.. can't read minds, use a crystal ball, or have Superman's x-ray vision, even with all the data they collect.
    But even if it is a ruse as we suspect, the hackers still hold tons of personal information about Sony's employees, their addresses, medical records, etc.. so possibly Sony is more concerned over abuse of that data, and is trying to appease NK.
    Not that it matters, because appeasement never works. Never in the history of man has it worked, as an end to itself. Even war has a better track record of stopping aggression than appeasement. Unless the appeasement is used merely as a delay tactic, then it may have some strategic value there.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  127. Re:Team America World Police and Pay/Streaming Rel by imatter · · Score: 1

    Shit! release it on YouTube in a private channel. Then get everyone who wants to see it to send an email to someguy@sony.com with "x-mas gift" in the subject line.

  128. What they should have done: by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Rather than run it normally, show it for free, or at least at a huge discount.

    Get as many people to see it as possible. That would send the message that you are going to achieve the exact opposite should you try this garbage again.

  129. Sony shoots self in foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazingly, the Sony leadership just leapfrogged ahead of Kim Jong Un in the race for most reviled public entity.

  130. Re:What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *phppht*!

    All we'd need to do is put up a bunch of pix of kim un or WTF he's called and pickup all the obviously N koreans drooling over the pix. Job done. Even mall security could handle it or a boy scout sans swiss army knife...

  131. Terrorists win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice.

  132. Fuck yeah its Black Flag! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy fuck! Thank you! I was just a dumbass knuckledragging slashdotter before reading your post. Now, I too, see this for what it really is: a Black Flag Op. It wasn't NK, it was our own NSA & CIA working together to take away moar uv mah freedumbs! This is why I love you guys, I would have never thought in a million years that our people could be capable of this but that's just because I'm a dumbass. Thanks for pointing out the TRUF!

  133. Re:What's the purpose of all those bodyguards then by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Last time someone made fun of North Korea and its leaders exactly nothing happened.
    Same with demonizing them as "invadorz" instead of Chinese.
    Or that time James Bond fought a North Korean villain who made himself into a rich and powerful white man.

    In fact... Last time anyone actually went out and committed a terrorist attack killing a bunch of people in a a theater - it was a crazy, white, male, American. With store and online bought guns.
    And the movie was kept in theaters despite the bodycount.
    Why?

    Cause it was a final sequel of a very successful franchise whose last movie made over a billion dollars.

    In other words...
    Corporations have brass balls when gold is on the line.

    And again... If they can't really cover a mere 18000 targets...
    What good are they? Along with all the other "terrorist fighting" measures?
    Trillions of dollars and unquantifiable liberties went up in smoke - and 18000 theaters turns out to be "too much"?

    Maybe they should think outside the box on this one? Or more like inside a different kind of a box.
    Maybe what's needed is a better kind of a theater? A safe and secure kind, where nothing bad can happen.
    We can call it Security Theater.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens