Its an excellent analogy in that illustrates that there are many ways to approach solving certain problems. Some ways are better than others and some ways are clearly wrong. It illustrates that Sony can achieve the desired objective without directly exposing themselves to a potential PR disaster.
OK, we need to split this into two parts, because you seem to have switched between two different arguments to which the analogy applies differently. Let me jog your memory of your initial argument I was actually responding to:
Sony made the right choice. It was their only choice really. They are a for profit company, remember. They cant endanger people's lives. They have to be more discreet.
Is it a good analogy for your moral judgement that Sony would be responsible for the consequences? No. Sony would not be putting them or anyone else in front of a speeding train, it is more like someone (NK) deliberately ramming a car into a group of people. If someone blackmails me "give me £1,000 or I kill the bunnies" am I responsible when they kill the bunnies? Of course not. The analogy is always invalid when considering this dimension because Sony are neither in front of nor driving the train. Sony releasing the film would not have endangered anyone's lives (or at least only the lives of people that were aware of the risk and chose to watch the film anyway)
Is it a good analogy for the corporate reasoning behind the decision making? I don't think so. Sony pulled the movie because cinemas weren't showing it, so it would flop. But assuming they had pulled it because of the threats? I still don't think so. You seem to make assumptions about the consequences of caving (limited only to the investment in this particular investment) when, in reality, it proves that the threat tactics work and more and more people will begin to use them. Sure, they jump from the path of the local train... but right into the path of the speeding express to oblivion. Indeed you assume there's no shareholder value in standing up to the bullies... I guess the value of Sony being able to carry out is business and make money without illegal interference doesn't count as shareholder value, eh? So yes, in this dimension, maybe the analogy is valid; I still disagree with your conclusions though.
Now that call is for Sony's managers and shareholders to make (indeed it looks like they've moved from their original position on this)
Showing the film in theatres is not the only avenue for justice. And it is certainly not the best one.
I guess that depends how you define justice. I don't particularly think punishment of the culprits or some kind of compensation for Sony would equate (either morally or financially) to the wrong that is done by having their legitimate business activities curtailed by illegal blackmail.
Can you even imagine the backlash if some nut walks in a theatre and shoots up a couple freckle faced teenagers? Headline on CNN: "Sony puts profits over public safety!!".
Then CNN would be idiots, because that headline would be a poor reflection of reality. I guess "Sony does legal and reasonable stuff and nut does nutty stuff" (or, even more accurately, "nutt does nutty stuff in cinema") doesn't garner many clicks... (aside: your logic here reminds of this)
(the wishes of the independent theatres were not solicited or considered I assure you).
Please don't pull facts out your arse.