If you haven't seen the news anywhere, essentially, SONY was hacked by a group that's definitely not North Korea. Or actually, may not be North Korea.
And these hackers got a lot of information but the main thing I've seen in the news recently are just these big emails. Emails where these big movie execs were talking crap on directors who were talking crap on actors.
And there's still stuff constantly being posted. Even the group that did the hack said they were working on releasing a really big Christmas present.
So, all of this is happening but what are people saying?
Aaron Sorkin, who of course just ended his series: The Newsroom, wrote an op–ed in the New York Times where he said that he gets the hacker group — they did this for reason — but the media that is still posting this information, they're doing it for a nickel.
Essentially saying that these hackers, they have a cause, they have a purpose, while the media is just a whored out version of its former self.
SONY Pictures Entertainment told certain news organizations to stop publishing information containing documents stolen by hackers who have hacked the movie studio's computer network.
Also, according to The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter,
and Variety...
...they have each received a letter from David Boies an attorney for SONY, demanding that the outlets stop reporting information contained in the documents and immediately destroy them. Saying the studio "does not consent to your possession, review, copying, dissemination, publication, uploading, downloading, or making any use" of the information.
And then we had director (of SONY) Judd Apatow who tweeted:
Really, that tweet rubbed me the wrong way. Lol, I get what Judd Apatow is saying. I like Judd Apatow. What you're saying is essentially you have this widget, this thing that's the property of one or two people, and someone broke in, against the will of the owner of the widget, took the widget, and put it out there, against the will of the original owner of those things, and that person took that private thing and made it public, without, at the very least, the consent of the widget's owner. In that way, it is very much the same thing. But, I also ask the question, is it really???
I'm not saying that you're so off base like it's the difference between actual rape and when a 12-year-old boy screams that he's raping me when I'm playing FIFA 15. But I am saying that it is kind of along the same thing as someone scoring a bicycle-kick goal in the Premier League and me saying that's just like when I scored a bicycle-kick goal in middle school, during PE, playing sand soccer.
There is a difference between reporting a bunch of rich people talking crap on each other, and me actually having seen a picture of Judd Apatow's butthole. They're both private but there's a difference between looking like an asshole and seeing someone's asshole. But, you're still kind of right, and I give it to you that it's hard to get a full point in 140 characters or less.
And with all that typed, what are your thoughts on this? I'd love to know your thoughts.
