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.'"
Promoting Piracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:2, Interesting)
That was stupid of him. What did he expect would happen?
The leak is news. I suppose that he might also have been fired if he was reporting on the wide availability of sexual services downtown and picked up a hooker to prove it. But when it comes to journalistic ethics and integrity, for Faux News to jump on this while ignoring the contemptible bullshit spewing from their cable channel on a 24/7 basis... That'd be like CNBC firing the intern for walking home with paperclips in his pocket while continuing to laud that fraudulent little imp Jim Cramer.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes. When people are rejecting the usual distribution models for movies, even when it means they get an unfinished version, then it matters.
BACK TO BACK!!! (Score:0, Interesting)
I know that to make films like this, they have to make concessions with the story, but why even bother calling it Wolverine, they could just call it "guy with claws movie". The best part of the movie comes when Wolvie spends time with a rural couple after his escape from Weapon X (which was less then 5 minutes of the film)and the opening montage. after that, its just BS. They even screw up and leave out all of the Weapon X brainwashing. Liev Schreiber was easily the best part of the movie, and was far better as Sabertooth then i could have hoped, I think the movie might have been better if it focused more on him. Ryan Renyolds was also great as Wade Wilson, even though in this version of the film he is in it for about 5 minutes (I refuse to acknowledge "Deadpool" at the end of the movie, that wasn't Deadpool, it was "Guy with Baraka's sword arms").
The only harm i see in reviewing this film so soon is that people will actually know how bad it is. Is it fair to REVIEW the movie based on the workprint? No it is not. But it is fair to base an opinion of it, given that all of the story elements are in place and most likely won't change prior to the final release, my personal opinion of it is that its pretty awful.
and, not that i care, Stan Lee doesnt show up in the workprint.
Re:ha ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Humm actually, from the fair use point:
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.
So, it would be useable, provided it's done for such reasons :
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Since he's a reporter, using a small part of the movie, even if it's not yet published, it's a fair use of the material and is not protected under the copyright law..
At least that's what I understand out of this.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:1, Interesting)
I believe the jury is still out as to whether or not downloading for private use is illegal. Sharing certainly isn't, but that's not what he said he did.
Re:ha ha (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if Fox condoned the behavior, and then a wave of "OOooh Fox condones downloading of pirated movies" hits the blogosphere...
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:3, Interesting)
If he'd been making copies of the movie and distributing them
If he watched it he downloaded it, if he downloaded it he made a copy, people on both ends of the equation are committing criminal copyright infringement (per U.S. law) when you download something you have no business downloading. He clearly knew the movie was not yet out. He has no excuse and defending his actions on this grounds is ridiculous. If you want to defend his action you're going to have to fall back on the "that shouldn't be illegal" argument, because the "that isn't illegal" argument clearly does not apply.
Re:It was illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)
So if I post reviews on by blog, I'm allowed to pirate anything I want? I just have to review it?
Sigh...you're allowed to download anything you want. Copyright prevents distribution, which means you're not allowed to upload it or otherwise distribute it(that does include bittorrent).
If you download your movie in such way that you did not upload any parts of it, and you further do not distribute it, you're allowed to do it, yes. Furthermore, if you want to post a review of it, you are also allowed to do it, as long as you don't post a significant portion of the movie itself on your blog and you're prepared to go to court to assert that your review was fair use (but that applies to a movie you went out and bought the dvd of, as well. Fair use is an affirmative defense, and they can sue you for posting a line of dialog if they want to. They're probably not going to win, but they can still sue, and you still have to go to court to tell them why you thought posting that one line of dialog was fair use).
Basically, there's a reason fox is firing him and not suing him.
Re:ha ha (Score:3, Interesting)
Illegal or not, why would anyone want to read a review of a movie that isn't finished? Seems to be one of those things that as a professional movie reviewer you wouldn't do. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was unethical, but pretty questionable.
Re:Lol (Score:3, Interesting)
You must admit, there are no other reviews of this movie out there. That makes his views more interesting. It give me a perspective other than my own on a work-print that few people have yet seen. No other critic is going to expose himself now, so this guy is it. As to reviews after the movie is released, they have no value to me. I was looking for a perspective on this workprint to contrast with my own.
Just out of curiosity, are you a film student or someone interested in making films? If not, who are you to judge whether my argument was valid?
There are many things I have an interest in that you might not perceive as valid, yet have value to me.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the fair-use provisions of copyright law make specific exceptions for copying for the sake of news reporting.
They certainly do, but Fair Use is a defense, not a free pass. Depending on the severity (with the MPAA and RIAA grafted directly onto the tree of government, that could be deemed to be anything) you might have to prove not only that you didn't copy more than you needed but also that the resulting work was valuable to society.
A substantial aspect of Fair Use is the use's effect on the value of the work. In the article he repeatedly stated that you can get these various movies for free on the internet. Therefore his article could be shown in court to have a serious negative effect upon the work's value. Time will tell...
Re:ha ha (Score:2, Interesting)
How the is this Insightful. There was no stolen property. Nothing has been stolen. As for his review having financial impacts: I am willing to accept that reviewing an unfinished product, especially in a negative manner, is not fair since it is, *unfinished*. But let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with publishing a rewview that might have a direct financial impact ... that is part and parcel of reviewing. But again, yes I do get that a negative review of an unfinished product isn't quite fair, especially when the owner hasn't put it out there to be reviewed in that format. As compared to software betas :O
This is ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
because those movie critics usually get to see a sneak preview of a movie before it is released to the movie theaters. Sometimes they release the almost finished movie in DVD format to the movie critics and then one of them rips the DVD and then releases it as a pirated version in DIVX format or whatever. Then they try to hunt down which movie critic leaked the movie to the Internet because each copy has hidden codes in the frames to tell which DVD the movie was ripped from.
This guy must not have been on their list for a sneak preview and decided to view the pirated version, which was stupid. He should have written a column about the movie piracy and that his company is against piracy so he could not download the movie and review it.
Re:Why is a movie more secret than a CIA agent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Money is god in this nation and when we say in god we trust we mean cash. Potential earnings are more important than lives, especially others' lives. If you come to peace with this fact, you'll see that things fall into place: healthcare is an extortionist's business, advertising and pr are the main concern of corporations and not the quality of their product. The government has legalized corruption and called it lobbying. Laws that are toxic for both earth and humanity are available to the highest bidder, and then come into power to define our lives. There are millions of people in prison, most of them for victimless crimes.
Money is god in this nation, has been for a long time. The government does not serve the people, it serves the people to the moneyed elite.
Call it fascism if you like.
Re:ha ha (Score:3, Interesting)
honestly, I can't get my head around what the difference here is between reviewing a pirated movie and a pre-release screening that the reporter had been invited to.
One is legal, one is not. One is with permission, one is without permission. The distinction is pretty obvious, so you must be deliberately overlooking it to make your point.
I wasn't being clear enough, so let me elaborate: if you have an experience -- no matter if that experience was legally or illegally enjoyed -- writing about it is no different. This reporter wrote a review about his experience viewing a movie. Whether he obtained that experience legally or otherwise is irrelevant as to whether he should or should not be able to voice that opinion. While I believe that his employer has the right to decide whether said writing is fit for publication under the imprimatur of the company, that is a purely political decision, and neither a merit-based nor a legally-based one.
The argument that "one is legal, one is not," does not apply here. Allow me to create a few analogies on point. It is not illegal to write about your experiences hanging out with members of a drug cartel where you witness lots of illegal activity. It is not illegal to write about the trading of stolen property. It is not illegal to write about what it feels like to fire a gun at someone. It is not illegal to write about either the observation of or commission of a crime; it is the commission of the crime that is illegal. While the writer might or might not have obtained the experience of viewing this movie legally, and while possession of the movie might or might not constitute possession of stolen goods, writing about it is not illegal.
So there isn't that much difference between writing about a potentially illicitly obtained movie, and writing about a movie that you were invited to by the company producing the company, as far as the writing goes.