Slashdot Mirror
Sony To Release the Interview Online Today; Apple Won't Play Ball
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports: "Sony Pictures is to distribute its film The Interview online, after a cyber-attack and a row over its release. The film will be offered on a dedicated website — seetheinterview.com — as well as via Google and Microsoft services." Notably absent among the services to provide The Interview is Apple. The New York Times reports: "According to people briefed on the matter, Sony had in recent days asked the White House for help in lining up a single technology partner — Apple, which operates iTunes — but the tech company was not interested, at least not on a speedy time table. An Apple spokesman declined to comment. "
Actually, most notably not in the list is Netflix. The number one streaming service on the planet doesn't have it. That's the big story here.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Nah, I'll wait for it to show up on bittorrent. It's Sony after all.
Uh, how about you release it on the Playstation Network, Sony?
Their Communist Chinese hackers will use DDR3 exploit on all viewing sites to infect our computers.
An exploit on SDRAM? That’s why I insist on only using write-only memory on my computer.
Everyone should watch this movie just as an act of patriotism.
If you think watching a movie is an act of patriotism you are confused.
What's next, you will claim that an American flag decal on your pickup truck is "patriotic" ?
Everyone should watch this movie just as an act of patriotism.
Most idiotic thing you could have said.
What happened so far: Sony makes a (for all we know) second-rate movie which takes the piss out of a foreign head of state. Unknown hackers have a field day with Sony's security, as has happened on many occassions before. FBI makes claims that a foreign state is behind this and calls it "Cyberwar" while anyone knowing anything about security and especially Sony's security just says "WTF".
Hackers threaten violence against theatres showing the second rate movies. The motivation most likely somethng called "lolz". Every one panics, especially. Sony.
Now some places decide to show this second rate movie, which is in the end mostly about taking the piss out of a foreign head of state. And you are saying that watching a second rate movie is somehow patriotic?
Sony had in recent days asked the White House for help in lining up a single technology partner - Apple, which operates iTunes
I'm not even sure how to react to this. Why is it that Sony, a private company, feels that the White House, the executive branch of the United States federal government, should help them seek out a technology partner? This bothers me on multiple levels. One, that Sony would feel it appropriate to ask the White House for help conducting their private corporate business. Two, that Sony expects the White House to have that level of influence over Apple, another private company.
I understand that money buys influence, and that Hollywood and Silicon Valley both historically have Democrats in their pockets (full disclosure, I voted for Obama twice, I'm not attacking Democrats). That said, I don't understand how Sony is so brazen as to assume that they can just call up the White House, ask for help, and suddenly Apple is going to capitulate to their demands. Their line of thinking goes in this direction for a reason. Either Sony has successfully coerced companies into similar relations in the past, with the White House as a mediator, or vice versa.
Sony is a corporation. Apple is a corporation. In my own experience, executives have each others' contact information and can get in touch with one another directly. I guarantee you that Sony executives have the private numbers to Apple executives, and it's up to them to work out a deal. There is absolutely no reason for Sony to involve the government in their appeals to establish a business relationship. It's corporate prostitution at the highest and most obvious level. Government "transparency," indeed.
The entire premise is disgusting to me. I for one will not be paying to see this movie on any medium.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Anyone that has EVERY put anything out with Apple -- Apps, Books, Music, Movies -- knows that Apple sends an email several weeks in advanced telling that they are going into a freeze for a week or two EVERY YEAR. They let their people go on vacation and spend time with the family and all that shit.
This was sent out in November: http://www.macstories.net/news...
Guess what? It takes about a week from the time Apple gets a movie until they post it. They do a QA check on it, and make certain the ratings are correct and ask that the folks on the other side to verify the same. The quickest this happens is about a week. And now Sony wants Apple to order their employees back in from their vacation, all the while not putting this up on either of their two services.
I know /. hates Apple these days (I was around when /. loved them) but damn...
Long live clever marketing campaigns.
I don't doubt that this has been excellent publicity, but I don't think, when you consider the facts, this can be a calculated marketing campaign (the initial pulling and then reinstating of the film may have been, but the hacking and the threats? No).
Where does that leave the claims that NK threatened Sony?
Nobody has made such claims, at least nobody that knows what they were talking about. Anonymous internet users threatened cinema chains. If Sony were behind these threats they could be prosecuted for making a true threat or blackmail. Thus I think it was unlikely to have been Sony.
What is the possibility that this is all part of a clever marketing campaign to get all of us to see the film.
If only unreleased films had been released that might be a valid suggestion. However by releasing private employee data Sony would have exposed themselves to significant reputational damage and legal liability (regardless if they were caught or not). If caught both of those would be astronomical. So no. Sony may have capitalised on it (although their response gives the impression of unprepared chaos, rather than planned marketing campaign).
Sony said it was far too dangerous to release the film...
No they didn't. They said they were pulling it because cinemas weren't showing it:
“In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release” source
If it wasn't an intentional marketing campaign, should it have been?
Bar release of private employee data etc. and threats to life and limb then yes, it could have been very effective. But I (and most people) don't like been lied to so if they got caught it would probably backfire spectacularly. (side note: this is the first high profile data security incident I can think of that has elicited sympathy for the victim company rather than anger that their security wasn't up to scratch. Is this because people are recognising that these are increasingly inevitable and the real bad guys are the criminals, and we're reaching a turning point in the way customers and the media view such breaches, or is it because everyone's favourite comedy villain, NK, was involved?)
tl;dr: The hack was real, although may not have been NK. Same for the threats. It's been good publicity for the film but Sony's response has been too incoherent to have been planned.