If it's not free, I hope everyone buys it instead of waiting for a torrent. We should support online releases.
It's great that they're making progress, but by supporting them in the way they are currently attempting to segregate the Internet now, we will lose future debates about the border-less Internet.
Compromise is appropriate in many places, but I do not think this is one of them. We should make sure they know why we're not supporting their current move, but I don't think we should capitulate the border-less Internet.
Come on. Your option is to wait. From the site: "we do hope to see the release of The Interview across the globe"
In fact, it's entirely possible that those deals were in place before filming even began, and some money may have changed hands at that time, helping to finance the film.
In short, there's almost certainly a partner of Sony in other countries that Sony has obligations to. Sony can't just alter those deals at will like it can alter its own plans in North America.
Your position is pretty easily summed up then.
As much as I can't wait to see the movie (because I'm a fan of absurdist comedy) I'm tired of this conversation. Release it or don't, everyone who wants to see it will. Release it globally or don't, but quit acting like it takes some act of heroism to release a movie outside the U.S.
That said, I see pirating in this context as civil disobedience. It's not a new concept, and is used all the time to convey that the status quo is unacceptable to society at large.
There is the "choice" to accept things as they are, whether or not you believe them to be good and proper. Or you can break the law on purpose, with purpose, with intent to disobey laws and rules that you see as counter to the greater good.
Remember, this is copyright law we're talking about. Pirating is not thievery, and I personally see pirating in places where content is unavailable to be in the same wheel house as pirating as a voice against the absurdity of insanely extended copyright laws.
For instance, see The Grey Album.
As for copyright in general - extended copyright laws are nuts. I personally think it's fair for someone to have copyright until they die (no passing it on to relatives etc.). Also, it's a unpopular opinion here, but I consider piracy theft. And I'm not saying that to be morally superior - I've pirated lots of stuff but I consider it theft and wrong.
Not necessarily.
To properly allow your product to be sold in multiple international markets, you need to have customer support in the local languages. You need to support the popular local payment systems. You need localized fraud detection (risks differ by area). You also need to comply with local laws (copyright law differs by country, and rights to show movies may need to be negotiated separately).
It's true that you can just put something on YouTube for free and forget about it, and in that case, locking it to one region is just being mean. But when launching a paid and supported product, it's just not that easy.
edit: you also need subtitles or dubbing in some areas
edit: but I realize you do make a fair point, just being on YouTube means that it removes some of the technical difficulties in launching in multiple countries. It still leaves a lot of others, though.
Did you somehow miss how software or SaaS is sold these days? Worldwide?
The real reason is probably something mentioned elsewhere here: distribution contracts already in place.
Why? Paying to movie producing companies means more DRM schemes, more filesharing restrictions and more copyright lobbying. To protect freedom of speech and weaken copyright regulations we need Hollywood to die from starvation.