Sony pirated K-pop anthem in The Interview



Effectively infinite. Sony, collectively, is an immense amalgamation of affiated companies, including banks. Worst case scenario, it’ll cut back on riskier endeavour for a bit and take out a low-interest loan from Sony Bank.

There’s a good chance their system was insured too.


Where are all the people who were against downloading The Interview when it wasn’t clear if it would ever see any kind of for-profit release? They seemed to be pretty outraged by copyright infringement, talked a lot about artists and stuff. I’m sure they’ll exert just as much effort in condemning Sony for this.

1 Like

Someone has to speak up for the apathetic.

1 Like

I’m waiting to see the war on the streets between the MPAA and RIAA astroturfers.


That’s not really how things work, and Sony’s pictures and music division is actually one of its most profitable arms—so much so that there is investor pressure to spin those units off.


No wonder Sony hates pirates so much they are actually closet pirates themselves.


No, no, you misunderstand, they oppose other people using their stuff, regardless of what the law says, and support their own right to use other people’s stuff with the same regard for the law. This is why they had no problem installing rootkits on users computers and why the CEO’s family is (from what I rememberm it may have been Time Warner but I doubt it’s different here) a group of notoriously prolific music pirates, because the rules exist only insofar as to further their own interests.


The really fun part of this (and the lawsuit) will start when YouTube starts yanking videos, monetizing videos, etc. for Sony because obviously Sony owns the rights to the song.


I had the same question. It is the holidays, maybe Cory was drunk blogging. Either way, the article disagrees with itself, or so it seems. I saw the movie and I am pretty sure that it was “Pay Day” not “Touch Love”.

I would guess some combination of holiday spirit, eggnog, and K-pop sounding all the same.

As bad as Sony is I don’t really care about this incident.

It’s obviously just a screwup in the licensing process where they thought they’d obtained the license but didn’t. Yes the artist should get whatever the license fees would have been, plus a substantial bonus to stop Sony from being careless, but it doesn’t mean Sony is guilty of attempted piracy.

If this individual incident has any effect it will just be to add more paperwork to film productions, pushing more film making to major studios and making major studios even more risk averse.

‘Guilty’ obviously implies the result of a legal process and your extraneous use of the word ‘attempted’ is unnecessary. Let’s just call them the pirates that they are, applying to sony their own standard of rhetoric.

Insofar as we do apply their own standards to them, you are an apologist and embody the spirit of unnecessary obfuscation in the service of powerful corporations hiding behind a wall of lawyers, lobbyists and the twisted interpretation of the law they have used their money and influence to foist upon us.

How does it go again? Oh yeah.

So brave.


And, had Sony not been one of the parties pushing absurd copyright maximalism as hard as they could for the past decade plus, I might be inclined to be understanding about the matter, advocate a reasonable settlement, keep things in proportion, and so on.

In this case, though, I say that he who lives by the sword should die by it. Let them feel the full extent of the laws they pushed so hard for. Maybe this makes my alignment Kantian/Evil; but I’d be inclined to say that there is no greater justice than treating someone as they would wish to treat others. In the case of Sony, that’s gonna hurt a bit…


Out of respect for the English language please don’t plop the phrase “unnecessary obfuscation” in the middle of a giant run-on sentence.

But back to the point. There’s no double standard here.

Sony believes IP rights should be very strongly protected. As a result when they think someone is deliberately violating their IP rights they will respond vigorously.

But this incident is an accidental violation of IP rights, there is no reason to believe that Sony intended to use the song without licensing, nor is there reason to believe that Sony considers people who accidentally violate copyright law to be pirates.

If you want to criticize Sony then criticize them for things they deserve to be criticized for. By trying to draw unrelated incidents into the debate you’re only obfuscating your own cause.

1 Like

Perhaps, I’m still uncomfortable with the idea “party X is advocating for something I think is unfair, therefore I’m going to advocate for something unfair to X”. It confuses your argument when you’re suddenly arguing for heavy copyright penalties for specific incidents, and if both sides feel they’re righteous then things devolve fairly quickly.

My philosophy is show you’re the party who’s always fair, show that you’re willing to be consistent in your principals. If the other side works by the same philosophy things should resolve quickly. If not you weren’t going to convince them anyways, but to the middle now sees you have a consistent philosophy you’re willing to stick to, this gives you a better chance of winning in the end.

1 Like

What absolute bollocks.
Work for Sony do you?


Actually, music gets inserted into films accidentally all the time. Totally true. You can trust me.

Oh, unnecessary, obfuscatory hostility. :smiley:

Out of respect for the concept of… you know, I was going to be caustic but what’s the point? Drink another coffee, grit your teeth some more and cross your eyes at the world for all I care.

My contention is that your inflexible attitude toward sane behaviour from corporations is enabling their intrusive behaviour.
When we give them a pass for their unsettling contribution to the current landscape of hostile intellectual property law, we assist in their negative agenda.

You need only look at sony’s actions over the last few weeks to see their propensity for over-reach and hysterics. My contention is that behaviour and the culture of lobbying and manipulation by corporations such as sony is unhealthy and ultimately destructive.

However, you seem to still feel the need to unnecessarily and obfuscatorily describe that behaviour as if you are making an assertion. Perhaps you needed to get that out there for your own brevity? Perhaps you feel that you cannot be sure the concept has been introduced if you didn’t do it yourself?

Whatever. It’s a bit weird of you and emblematic, I’m sure, of something important in your motivation. I just can’t quite put my finger on what that signifies. Perhaps it’s nothing but if I mention it now, I can return to it once you have further unveiled your motivations.

You firmly state that this is an accident, which I shouldn’t need to point out is not something you could possibly know. You may believe that criticism to be a double edged sword but look again. I only seek to sarcastically apply the tone of their own over-reaching and hysterical rhetoric against them.

The whole concept of pirating is my target. I don’t really intend to label sony as pirates. It’s a subtle difference but really the whole point of my comment centres on that idea.

My being critical of sony and your request that I only criticise them for things they deserve to be criticised for? Again, perhaps predicated on a misunderstanding of my intent, so maybe we can just leave that be.

I do wonder if you can find it within yourself to be critical of anything sony does, over and above some examples outside of the topic of piracy but then we’d need another thread for that. Again, more unnecessary obfuscation with your use of the term ‘unrelated incidents’.

I did try and unpack that but I’m afraid I’m at a loss. The central point of my contention is not something you can incidentally classify like that unless you’ve misunderstood my intent.

Whereas your entire statement is unnecessary obfuscation, it should be apparent that your motivations have only become more questionable, given your attitude and rhetoric.

Perhaps we can have a conversation about the irony of sony’s double standards, which this topic seems to be prompting us to address. I’ll gladly follow you to another topic you create if you’d prefer to discuss some other aspect of their behaviour.


Oh snap! I guess his point isn’t valid. I probably shouldn’t read it at all.