The Sony Hack...

[The Oi]

Someone is always going to try to sue, but I'm not sure of liability when it comes to terrorist threats...

Me neither. Really interested to know if someone else knows.

From just a logical standpoint, and the legal system is rarely that logical, it seems to me that it's obviously the terrorists that are responsible for harmful, murderous actions. You certainly can't hold a business responsible for the actions themselves.

But again, LOGICALLY, if you believe there's a legitimate threat and you still put people in harm's way on a high level...you figure millions of people in thousands of theaters nationwide...that's a pretty negligent action on the part of the businesses involved.

At the very best, they're going to have to deal with massive PR issues, far worse than anything BP dealt with after their negligence. AND they're going to get sued and have to pay the legal costs for that, and almost definitely have to settle...if they are liable.

If thousands of people got maimed or killed and were deemed to be owed even let's say $1mm apiece...do the math.

 

[Soda]

Me neither. Really interested to know if someone else knows.

From just a logical standpoint, and the legal system is rarely that logical, it seems to me that it's obviously the terrorists that are responsible for harmful, murderous actions. You certainly can't hold a business responsible for the actions themselves.

But again, LOGICALLY, if you believe there's a legitimate threat and you still put people in harm's way on a high level...you figure millions of people in thousands of theaters nationwide...that's a pretty negligent action on the part of the businesses involved.

Yeah, I'd agree with you. I think the ambulance chasers, in this case, would argue that the threat is/was credible and that even with ample knowledge of the intent, they neglected the safety of others by allowing them into that situation.

I mean, I have no doubt some money would go to the victims. I'm just wondering if it will be because of a real legal issue or if it'll be because the public pretty much demanded it and Sony is trying to save face.

 

[The Oi]

Hell...if airlines can get sued after a terrorist attack when they had no idea they had terrorists on the planes, I don't see why Sony and theaters couldn't when they know they'll be exposing customers to terrorists.

 

[Cavatt]

Anyone think that maybe there is worse stuff not being released yet that Sony is terrified of getting out? Extortion may still be in effect.

 

[The Oi]

Anyone think that maybe there is worse stuff not being released yet that Sony is terrified of getting out? Extortion may still be in effect.

Occurred to me. But you figure...why would Sony trust that cyber-terrorists are going to negotiate in good faith?

I assume our government is consulting with them given the size of the company and risk to our country.

 

[KI4MVP]

If there isn't extortion still in effect, why wouldn't Sony at least release it on their own streaming PPV service? They have at least $44 million invested and were already struggling financially (1.2 billion loss last quarter).

This whole thing is unbelievable. Was NK really prepared to go to war with america over a mediocre comedy (47 tomatoes) created by a Japanese company? Did we really just allow another country to censor a movie in the united states? Has anything remotely like that ever happened before?

 

[Maximus]

Might be a hard pill for the American public to swallow, but it's the right decision for a COMPANY to make.

Horseshit...it's an awful decision by Sony. The Guardians have stolen over 100 terabytes of data from Sony. Of the dozen releases, they've only released 235G of data so far. Do you honestly believe by caving to this one request that these terrorists are finished? If anything, now that they know Sony will easily cave, they are probably lining up more demands...and more companies to attack. Again, this is just an awful precedent to set.

18 year old NK hacker: "Thanks Sony. Now for our next demand, cease serring Praystations or we wirr brow up any stores that serr them".

As far as liability goes, i don't see how Sony could be liable if i went to a movie at AMC by choice and got blown up. AMC isn't required to show it. No theater is. My guess is that AMC couldn't be held liable either. My guess is that getting killed in a terrorist attack is no different than an act of God. If a tsunami hits an AMC theater and i die, they aren't liable.

 

[Maximus]

Occurred to me. But you figure...why would Sony trust that cyber-terrorists are going to negotiate in good faith?

I assume our government is consulting with them given the size of the company and risk to our country.

...and that is why you never negotiate with terrorists.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Why can't evil totalitarian dictators ever have a sense of humor?

 

[The Oi]

Horseshit...it's an awful decision by Sony. The Guardians have stolen over 100 terabytes of data from Sony. Of the dozen releases, they've only released 235G of data so far. Do you honestly believe by caving to this one request that these terrorists are finished? If anything, now that they know Sony will easily cave, they are probably lining up more demands...and more companies to attack. Again, this is just an awful precedent to set.

18 year old NK hacker: "Thanks Sony. Now for our next demand, cease serring Praystations or we wirr brow up any stores that serr them".

As far as liability goes, i don't see how Sony could be liable if i went to a movie at AMC by choice and got blown up. AMC isn't required to show it. No theater is. My guess is that AMC couldn't be held liable either. My guess is that getting killed in a terrorist attack is no different than an act of God. If a tsunami hits an AMC theater and i die, they aren't liable.

I don't think unexpected tsunamis are the same as terrorist attacks that you're warned about in advance.

Again, of all people I think you'd be able to recognize that to a business profit comes first and PR isn't too far behind it. If something were to happen, they were warned and they're liable...Sony would be fucked six ways til Sunday.

If a company is given the intelligence to believe a terrorist attack is imminent if they take certain actions, I can understand them avoiding those actions.

Look, I'm not saying this is best for the country. Just that it's Probably best for Sony and the theaters showing the movie, assuming there's a real risk here.

 

[Cavatt]

I don't think it is anyone's patriotic duty to see a movie in the theater. I think the theater chains are within their rights to not show it. However, if all they really want is to show their power by seeing that this movie never sees the light of day, Sony should make it as widely available as possible.

I guess if there is nothing huge and secret being withheld, then maybe they are mostly concerned about the hundreds of million or Billions in unreleased content that the Hackers may still release. If they have every movie and album slated for release in the next year and all appear on the internet before their release date, that would have a huge impact on their bottom line.

 

[kosis]

Completely agree with Jigo's argument. If Sony had held strong and showed the film and there was an attack? Everyone would be citing the greed of Sony and how they put lives in danger just to make a buck. Lose/lose for them.

Agree that we shouldn't be bowing down to cyber bullying this way, but it's a tough one to handle if you're Sony.

One topic no one is discussing is the moral dilemma behind the film in general. I get it that we don't care for Kim Jong Un and what he stands for, but should large film productions be making movies about assassinating current world leaders? Surely Sony wouldn't promote a film based on getting in a room with Obama...

Seems like overstepping some sort of ethical boundary. Not sure.

 

[The Oi]

Making it as widely available as possible and offering incentives for Americans to purchase the movie is the answer here now that they've given in.

Would probably give streaming companies a little uptick in sales as well. Perhaps prime, netflix etc co-market with Sony to offer holiday discounts to people who want to fight terrorism by getting a subscription and buying their movie.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Sony should have canceled the theatrical release but put it up on demand. It would be a win all around for them. They say "go to hell" to the hackers that stole their data and are trying to strong arm them, they still make money (probably more than they would have theatrically because now everyone wants to see this movie), and they're not risking being held liable for any theater attacks.

 

[macbdog]

Sony is a corporation and they do what they must to survive. They simply weighed the costs of further leaks vs. showing the movie, and they chose to relent. The lawsuits they face from pissed off employees alone could have been an impetus. To protect their employees could also be one. Point is, a corporation is not an actual person and has no pride- if the smart money decision tips one way, that is the way you go. This is what happened here. They felt less damage to their bottom line could be done by caving instead of the repercussions of showing it.

I would not be shocked if this movie never sees the light of day now. All I can hope for is the pride of actual people takes over and the internet gets flooded over the next few years with as much satire mocking Un as can be manufactured. Skits, cartoons, puppet demonstrations, donkey shows, the works. Oh and for the love of all that is good just send them Rodman outright and be done with it.