Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Columnist Fired For Reviewing Pirated Movie 466

Hugh Pickens writes "Roger Friedman, an entertainment columnist for FoxNews.com, discovered over the weekend just what Rupert Murdoch means by 'zero tolerance' when it comes to movie piracy. On Friday, the film studio 20th Century Fox — owned by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate ruled by Mr. Murdoch — became angry after reading Friedman's latest column, a review of 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine,' a big-budget movie that was leaked in unfinished form on the Web last week. Friedman posted a mini-review, adding, 'It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer.' The film studio, which enlisted the FBI to hunt the pirate, put out a statement calling Friedman's column 'reprehensible' while News Corporation weighed in with its own statement, saying it had asked Fox News to remove the column from its Web site. 'When we advised Fox News of the facts,' the statement said, 'they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Columnist Fired For Reviewing Pirated Movie

Comments Filter:
  • Read the column here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aapje ( 237149 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:44AM (#27475131) Journal

    The column has been purged from Google's cache as well, but not before someone took a screenshot [chud.com] of it.

  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:44AM (#27475133) Journal
    In case you want to discuss the review, here it is [rottentomatoes.com] (don't read if you hate spoilers):

    Yes, I've seen "X Men Origins: Wolverine." It wasn't at a screening, either. I found a work in progress print of it, 95 percent completed, on the internet last night. Let's hope by now it's gone.

    But the cat is out of the bag, as they say, and the genie is out of the bottle. There's no turning back. But no, I will not tell you the big twist/surprise toward the end. Not now, a whole month away from release. That wouldn't be nice.

    Right now, my "cousins" at 20th Century Fox are probably having apoplexy. I doubt anyone else has seen this film. But everyone can relax. I am, in fact, amazed about how great "Wolverine" turned out. It exceeds expectations at every turn. I was completely riveted to my desk chair in front of my computer.

    I don't know what the really big headline is here: the fact that "Wolverine" is so good, or that I also found the current top 10 movies in theaters, as well as a turgid domestic drama called "Fireflies in the Garden" with Ryan Reynolds and Julia Roberts -- the latter in a minor role while her husband, Danny Moder, is credited as director of photography.

    I did find the whole top 10, plus TV shows, commercials, videos, everything, all streaming away. It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer. I could have downloaded all of it but really, who has the time or the room? Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It's so much easier than going out in the rain!

    But back to "Wolverine": this is the prequel to the first "X Men" movie. Directed by Gavin Hood, the film is as cutting edge as it is old fashioned. This may be the big blockbuster film of 2009, and one we really need right now. It's miles easier to understand than "The Dark Knight," and tremendously more emotional. Hood simply did an excellent job bringing Wolverine's early life to the screen.

    Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, of course, and he is more a movie star in this movie than ever before. It doesn't hurt that he's spent every waking minute in the gym. Hood doesn't hide that. Jackman fans will get their fill of their hero. He's joined by a phenomenal cast, too â" Liev Schreiber as his evil but equally clawed brother, Victor, aka Sabretooth; Ryan Reynolds (he gets a lot of work, that's for sure) as Deadpool; Dominic Monagan as Beak; Kevin Durand as the Blob; and the sensational sort of Han Solo-ish Taylor Kitsch as Gambit. There's also sultry Lynn Collins as Wolverine's love interest, and Danny Huston as the villainous Colonel Stryker.

    I do think the film works so beautifully because the screenplay is so streamlined. David Benioff (whose real name, I read, is David Friedman -- he's married to Amanda Peet) carefully delineated these characters and did a smashing job. I had less trouble following this story than the one in "Fireflies in the Garden." He's made "Wolverine" just the right kind of summer entertainment -- a thrill ride with lots of emotional investment and a hero simply bigger than life. That's all you can ask for.

    Now, I did see "Wolverine" on a large, wide computer screen, and not in a movie theater, but it could not have played better. Still, this was a workprint and there were about a dozen things not finished. A couple of times it was possible to see the harnesses on the actors. It didn't take away from the film at all. But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website. This begs several questions about security. Time to round up the usual suspects!

  • Not fired? (Score:5, Informative)

    by d-r0ck ( 1365765 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:44AM (#27475139)

    Saturday night they issued a statement claiming that Friedman had been fired. Everyone nodded their heads and went back about their business. Now though, the situation is suddenly much less clear.

    Friedman tells Variety that he hasnâ(TM)t been terminated and from the sounds of things, itâ(TM)s business as usual for him over at Fox News. In fact Fox now seems to be backing away from their initial statement entirely. Today they issued this statement in place of their affirmation of Friedmanâ(TM)s firing: âoeThis is an internal matter that we're not prepared to discuss at this time.â

    http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Fox-Backpedaling-Roger-Friedman-Not-Fired-12638.html [cinemablend.com]

  • Viewing porn, without saving it on your drive, would be in violation of MANY companies rules of conduct. Posting on blogs, weather it be something bad about your company or just blogs in general, also are usually a violation.
  • by Aapje ( 237149 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:14AM (#27475475) Journal

    Wow, I am surprised they fired him for it. Contrary to all the flak the movie has been getting by many who have seen it, he was all gung ho about the movie.

    I think that the problem was that the review said that you didn't miss anything by downloading the workprint. He probably would have been ok if he kept the gushing comments about the movie, but had said that you miss a lot by seeing the pirated movie.

  • It was illegal? (Score:5, Informative)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:34AM (#27475737)

    the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies ..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,..., is not an infringement of copyright. ... The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    - US Code [copyright.gov]

  • Re:ha ha (Score:3, Informative)

    by JeffSpudrinski ( 1310127 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @12:25PM (#27477359)

    PIBM,

    Not wanting to pick any sort of fight here, but your own argument proves you wrong.

    "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

    - He works (worked) for a commercial news company...not a nonprofit. His column brings is ad revenue for FOX, and by extension, he used the work to make money.

    "(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"

    - It's an unreleased movie from one of the large movie studios.

    "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"

    - He watched the whole frakkin' movie off the internet.

    "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

    - Potentially, he gave a number of people the knowledge they needed to view the movie illegally. Also, by doing so any by reviewing it, he may also have legitimized illegal downloading.

    Dude was dumb. Also, if you read the responses to the FA, a number of commenters were happy to see the guy go. He should have known better.

    Also of note, though: this will gain him notoriety. He'll have another job by the end of the day. A lot of folks (including me) have never heard of this dude, but we've heard of him now. He's going to get a lot of interviews and we'll see him on TV expressing his views about how he was unfairly fired. Some other news place will then give him a job just to gain a recognizable name. ("There's no such thing as bad publicity")

    He was dumb to do it, but he knew what he was doing.

    -JJS

  • by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @12:42PM (#27477601) Homepage

    It might be that you are confused about what Valerie Plame's status really was.

    She had nothing to do with NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES and hadn't for some time. It was well known in Washington DC social circles that she was with the CIA and was, at one time, under cover.

    Most of the left-wing idiot blogs still run garbage about how her life and other agents lives were put in danger because of retalitory action by the Bush administration. Everyone else noticed that even after all the hearings and nonsense that nobody was ever even indicted.

    But your political bias is always refreshingly humourous on Slashdot.

  • by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @12:47PM (#27477691)
    And one could level pretty much the same charges at the broadcast news stations (abc, nbc, cbs), but even with these stations and also Fox News, the charge is not wholly true. The real problem is that basic evening news + commentary, generally with little or no research (it's an evening daily news program, what did you expect Frontline every night?), is most of what the news business does because (a) it's cheaper than high-brow investigative documentary programs like Frontline on PBS and (b) it attracts more aggregate viewers than the high-brow programs which means more profitable advertising segments. The documentary style has been relegated mostly to special reports, even on the non-Murdoch owned networks. So blame Fox News for the decline in news if you want, but really they are not wholly or even mostly responsible. Investigative journalism in the for-profit news business has been in decline for some time now, even before Fox News became popular a little more than eight (8) years ago. In fact one paper in particular, the New York Times, bears special mention in the decline of journalistic standards. Take a look at their excellent WWII reporting and into the 1950s for example and then compare that to what passes for journalism at the New York Times today. Indeed, the venerable Gray Lady is now a pale shadow of her former self.
  • Re:ha ha (Score:4, Informative)

    by PIBM ( 588930 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @12:48PM (#27477711) Homepage

    Not picking a fight either, just looking more in depth to your reply ;)

    (1) News reporting is expressely written as being allowed, as it's not the copy which is used to make money, but the report in itself.

    (2) As specified in the first post, the fact that the work is unpublished does not substract it from fair use.

    (3) From TFA, I had skimmed through it and I remember reading that he could have copied it all but didn't because he didn't have the time or space

    (4) The effects can be very varying. For those who didn't knew that they could get it from the web (there are still people who don't know ?), since he didn't gave any information on how he obtained it, I don't think they could leverage it to obtain a copy easily. But since the review it itself was good, it can help a lot of people to chose to go see the movie, rather than wait to rent it at a 1$ per day automated dvd rental system.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't give a damn that he lost his job about it, and that's totally fine by me (it's understandable considering the way the company it itself sees copyright), but I was just pointing to the other people that the reason they gave as having done something illegal, might not be so illegal after all -- at least for him, not for those who let him leech this copy off...

  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @01:16PM (#27478101) Homepage Journal
    I don't like any lie, and usually in a movie there are several lies every few minutes.

    --

    Actually, *every* movie is a lie, 24 times per second. Even movies which are documentaries are edited to favor the bias of the director or producer. In movies, people are more attractive than in real life, and are often capable of feats physically impossible in the real world.

    My favorite is when you show the progress over time with a montage, and somehow, the character is capable of amazing things that should have taken months or years of training, and now has done it within the passage of a week or so. (see Team America: World Police)
  • Re:ha ha (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @02:49PM (#27479417) Homepage

    Because emailled files get onto your computer magically without you downloading them, right?

    Depends on your browswer. I remember quite distinctly using browswers that downloaded email content automatically and if you were smart you scanned the file manually if you wanted to open it, if it was not from a known friendly source.

  • Torrent (Score:3, Informative)

    by chord.wav ( 599850 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @05:23PM (#27481435) Journal
    I think this is it but I haven't downloaded it so YMMV:
    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4819594/X-Men_Origins_Wolverine.DVDR.CUJO.iso [thepiratebay.org]

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...