Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Movies Media

Columnist Fired For Reviewing Pirated Movie 466

Hugh Pickens writes "Roger Friedman, an entertainment columnist for, 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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by Again ( 1351325 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:38AM (#27475065)
    That was stupid of him. What did he expect would happen?
    • by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:41AM (#27475107) Homepage Journal

      He foolishly thought in-depth investigative reporting would be welcome at Fox.

      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:43AM (#27475125) Journal
        His review must not have been fair and balanced...
      • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:50AM (#27475197)

        A movie review is now "in-depth investigative reporting?"

        I guess when it suits your agenda...

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:17AM (#27475509)

          A movie review is now "in-depth investigative reporting?"

          Take a look at whats typically on Fox News and I think you'll agree that a movie review would be the most in-depth investigative reporting that the network has ever done.

          • 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.
      • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:00AM (#27475315) Journal

        Please explain how reviewing an unfinished movie leaked onto the internet and obtained by violating company policy is "in-depth investigative reporting".

      • by A. B3ttik ( 1344591 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:03AM (#27475333)
        "in-depth investigative reporting"? The movie wasn't even finished.

        It wasn't edited, had no special effects, and I'm willing to bet it didn't have any music or extra sounds. What I would fire him for would be for reviewing it with anything more than a "Looks like it could be promising..." approach.

        IMO, this was just an unsuccessful attempt by the reviewer to score a few points by being the "first" to review the film. Thankfully, it bit him in the butt since you really shouldn't review unfinished works.
      • Okay, no, it wasn't in-depth reporting.

          And it appears (look in a sister thread,) that FOX isn't going to fire him. At least not immediately.

          The *reason* that FOX isn't going to fire him is because their news division is *supposed* to be independent of their other divisions. Among other things, this is part of the conditions under which their affiliates get discounted access to the public airwaves.

          Yeah, yeah, that's a joke, right? Of course it is. BUT, for FOX news to fire this guy would be a pretty brazen display of non-independence, wouldn't it? The joke is only funny if you keep it going. And FOX can no longer count on a pet federal government giving them an easy ride of it.

      • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:18AM (#27475535) Homepage Journal

        It was a review.
        It violated company policy.
        It was illegal.
        It really was worthless since it was an unfinished version of the movie.

        My guess is that any company would have fired him. They should fire his editor for publishing it as well.
        Actually the editor should have stopped it and given him a strong warning about being stupid then he would still have his job and we never would have heard about it.
        Just what planet are you from where you think a review of a pirated movie is in-depth investigative reporting?

        • 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 []

          • Re:It was illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by canajin56 ( 660655 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:45AM (#27475929)
            So if I post reviews on by blog, I'm allowed to pirate anything I want? I just have to review it?
            • Re:It was illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:55AM (#27476095)

              We're talking copyright here. It's not "am I allowed to do it?". It's "am I rich enough to afford taking it to court AND risk getting a judge that doesn't understand a thing about technology".

        • by CmdrGravy ( 645153 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @11:01AM (#27476179) Homepage

          Hang on just a minute here, whilst this may well be against company policy its far from clear that the journalist has done anything actually illegal.

          If he'd been making copies of the movie and distributing them then he would be in breach of the copyright but there's no evidence he was doing that, no siree none at all.

          Writing about a movie does not violate copyright so his review was perfectly legal.

          So what has he done that's illegal ? I'd say nothing at all.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

            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 do

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GooberToo ( 74388 )

        How is this "insightful?" He committed a crime and by extension created huge liability for his employer. I can't think of any news outlets which is going to stand behind a reported for acting so irresponsibly in such a highly publicized manner.

        Imagine working for a company after your stole trade secrets from their competitor. After the company your currently working for starts making money using the stole trade secrets you publicize how wonderful it is to make money off of the stolen trade secrets. Do you h

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jollyreaper ( 513215 )

      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.

    • by mochan_s ( 536939 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:07AM (#27475389)

      That was stupid of him. What did he expect would happen?

      The fact is that there are people who download and watch movies. Do we want our movies reviewed by such people? Do you want your children to read review by such people, or have your children go to school with these people? To be taught by these people. Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is these people are real, and they are among us.

  • by Shados ( 741919 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:39AM (#27475075)

    In any business, if you do something that makes worse a big problem the business you're dealing with has, you get fired.

    If a trader even hints over insider information, they get fired. If a cook even hints about cockroaches, down the restaurant goes, and if a reporter or whatever from an institution that relies on copyright heavily hints of piracy, well, good bye he goes.

    I'd be surprised if the opposite happened.

  • FTFA (Score:5, Funny)

    by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:40AM (#27475083)
    "When we advised Fox News of the facts," the statement said, "they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman."

    Now that's harsh
  • Lol (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy&gmail,com> on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:40AM (#27475097) Journal

    Wow, what a moron.

    First off, how can you review an unfinished movie? Who is your audience there? "I'm sure the special effects will be awesome, but they're crap right now."

    Second, given the fact that everyone has their panties in a twist over this, how stupid would you have to be to use your position as a journalist to basically say, "Hey, I broke the law as a part of my job, and not because I wanted to expose government corruption or something, but because I really really wanted to see the new Wolverine movie." That's a major liability exposure for News Corp, assuming it wants to sue itself, and holy shit, ways to piss off your notoriously evil crazy news overlord boss.

    Given the state of the news media right now, that guy'll never work in the field again.

    • Re:Lol (Score:4, Funny)

      by monoqlith ( 610041 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:44AM (#27475137)

      'Wow, what a moron.'

      Yeah, that goes without saying. We're talking about an entertainment columnist from Fox News. Seriously.

    • Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VShael ( 62735 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:50AM (#27475199) Journal

      how can you review an unfinished movie? Who is your audience there? "I'm sure the special effects will be awesome, but they're crap right now."

      Well, I hear (*cough* *cough*) that there are only a few effects shots which are unfinished. Less than 5 minutes worth. And even with unfinished effects, you could review the movie in the terms of plot, acting, etc...

      I'll grant you, you couldn't review a Michael Bay movie that way, but Wolverine is apparently a character story too.

    • Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CyberLord Seven ( 525173 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:59AM (#27475301)

      First off, how can you review an unfinished movie? Who is your audience there?

      Film students.

      I don't buy pirated movies unless I liked the movie so much I want to watch it again between the time the movie has left the theaters and DVD release. After that I buy the DVD. I know it's still illegal, but that's what I do. I also bought this movie when I was walking down the street and a guy asked me if I wanted it. I had read the articles about the movie being released AND I knew it was incomplete. That is why I bought it and watched it. As someone who has made my own movies (only relatives and friends have ever seen my efforts) I have a curiousity about the entire film making process. I am the audience for this man's review. There are probably many others like me.

      This is also of interest

      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!

      You and I may not like the fact that he was able to find all of this on the internet, but the truth is it is all out there. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Plus, it is awful damn embarrassing that "It took really less than seconds to start playing it all". It takes TIME to get a DVD I paid money for to start playing the movie. The studios need to get their act together here.

    • Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)

      by FatdogHaiku ( 978357 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:28AM (#27475657)

      Given the state of the news media right now, that guy'll never work in the field again.

      Maybe The Pirate Bay can start a reviews section and he could get a job there!

  • by codeButcher ( 223668 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:42AM (#27475121)

    they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.

    Now did they terminate HIM or only his EMPLOYMENT?

    If the former, I begin to get an inkling of America's problem with the copyright mafia.

  • 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 [] of it.

  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:44AM (#27475133) Journal
    In case you want to discuss the review, here it is [] (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 []

    • by Samschnooks ( 1415697 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:50AM (#27475205)
      Friedman tells Variety that he hasnÃ(TM)t been terminated and from the sounds of things, itÃ(TM)s business as usual for him over at Fox

      I'd like to know when Slashdot is going to fix their scripts so that when folks post quotes, it doesn't post like someone with one of those cheap fake Italian accents. Or make it better...

      Friedman tells Variety that hesa hasnÃ(TM)t been terminated anda from ah the sounds of things, itÃ(TM)s business as ah usual for hima over at Foxa

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by krou ( 1027572 )
        For a second, I thought Jar-Jar Binks was posting on /.
      • by Pinky3 ( 22411 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @12:00PM (#27477023) Homepage

        Friedman tells Variety that he hasnÃ(TM)t been terminated and from the sounds of things, itÃ(TM)s business as usual for him over at Fox

        I'd like to know when Slashdot is going to fix their scripts so that when folks post quotes, it doesn't post like someone with one of those cheap fake Italian accents.

        I'd like to know when posters are going to start previewing their posts and removing all the crap that Slashdot puts into pasted quotes. Oh, that's right, this is Slashdot. Never mind.

  • And I have it on good authority (*cough* *cough*) that it's the sort of movie I'd like as well.
    I fully expect to shell out my hard earned dough for a movie that was^H^H^H is about as good as the original xmen, or spiderman movie.

    Sites like are refusing to run reviews, which hasn't prevented a lot of people from slamming the movie. They tend to criticise it for being a poor adaptation of the comics, complaining about how the character of Deadpool was used for example, rather than judgi

  • He was employed by a media company, the industry that is affected most by piracy. It would be equivalent to being fired from an autorepair shop for winding the odometer back.
  • Promoting Piracy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Demonantis ( 1340557 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:48AM (#27475179)
    If you read what the guy said, it sound more like "Wow and I can get all this media simply off the internet". He was trying to highlight that the media industry really missed the boat on ease of use. Having to buy and store DVDs is such a pain compared to the internet.
  • wilful confusion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aurisor ( 932566 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @09:55AM (#27475255) Homepage

    Again we see the conflating of 'receiving pirated works' (which is 100% legal) and 'illegal distribution' (which is a civil matter).

    Granted, spoiling a multi-million dollar movie made by your employer's owners is a pretty serious faux pas, but I think it's only fair that we remember what rights we have untill the MPAA has the decency to buy a couple senators and cram a couple self-serving laws down our throats.

  • Love it (Score:3, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:05AM (#27475371)
    The media reaction is priceless. Some of the talking heads are acting like this guy raped a child and killed a nun by firing starving kittens at her with an air cannon. Damn but I love it when the media goes nuclear bipolar and feeds on itself! :-)
  • Is the first rule of pirated movies "do not talk about pirated movies?" Why shouldn't a journalist be allowed to discuss his opinions on something that's been leaked? Why should he get fired for that, regardless of the businesses involved?

    Disappointed to see all the banal Fox News bashing in the comments of an article that's largely about censorship, especially since commenters here usually rise to the defense of sites like Wikileaks.
  • by memorycardfull ( 1187485 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:12AM (#27475439)
    That's all.
  • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @10:24AM (#27475609)
    So this idiot reviewed an unfinished work produced by the same corporation he worked for that he was not authorized to see, being sure to include an explanation of how easy it was to download from the 'net, and he is suprised that the corporation was upset with him? He is inciting people to commit unauthorized downloading. Granted, that is nowhere near as severe as hijacking ships off the coast of Somalia, but it is still a no-no. Even if Twentieth Century Fox's attitudes are so last century!
  • That was silly. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Minwee ( 522556 ) <> on Monday April 06, 2009 @11:10AM (#27476299) Homepage

    If he had been smart he would have done what many other reviewers do -- Written a bland review with just enough facts to convince people that he really did see the film, and then sat on it until 96 minutes after the start of opening night.

    Then he still could be among the first to review it without having to leave his living room. It's the same technique that people use to get first posts on stories.

  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @12:23PM (#27477335) Homepage Journal

    How is it that a movie is more secret than the identity of an undercover CIA agent?

    When it was leaked that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative for the CIA, a person dealing with NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES, there was no rush to fire the journalists involved, remove names from websites, and purge Google's cache. There was no immediate FBI investigation, and when there finally was, there was a single fall-guy who was given a slap on the wrist, while the real criminals were given medals and honored as heroes.

    But, a crappy movie about a comic-book character leaks onto the internet, and people are getting their heads chopped off over that. Suddenly, even having your name in print next to a review of the crappy movie is enough to get you fired. Web sites are fearing even mentioning it for DMCA takedown notices, and there's an army of thought-police making us afraid of the leak itself.

    Excuse me. My head is spinning from the frakked-up priorities of this nation.

    What's the definition of FASCISM???

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aaandre ( 526056 )

      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,

  • Quite Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06, 2009 @12:25PM (#27477357)

    I'm quite surprised at what I am reading here. A lot of "he is stupid, the editor shouldn't have printed that . . ." "Of coarse he got fired."

    There are a few things I think should be examined.
    1. Music and Movie downloading is so frequent that a reporter *should* be talking about it, and as Hunter S. Thompson studied the Hell's Angels, so too should reporters engage in file sharing. How else do we examine it with a clear eye. Downloading illegal content has entered American and international culture.

    You know someone who has downloaded content. You probably have downloaded content. It's your neighbor, your son or daughter, your wife, the man down the street . . .Do we damn them all? Stone them to death? Hunt down each one and put them in a concentration camp? Charge them thousands of dollars they do not have? Break their bones? Steal their computers to stop them? Put devices on them that make them too stupid to know how to perform the act of illegal downloading?
    2. Downloading "illegal content" is breaking a law that was not designed with the digital world in mind. New laws need to be written that do properly address internet copyright and file sharing. There is a moral side to the issue that is not being examined. Is it morally wrong to download music and movies?
    3. Freedom of speech and expression. He may be a horrible writer and a horrible reporter, but freedom of the press is essential to our individual freedom. He should not be fired or prosecuted for what he did. The editor is the one who allowed the content to be posted. It is he or she that should be slapped on the wrist. The only freedom of expression that is forbidden by the Constitution are hate speech, harm speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater), and blatant obscenity that can be found to have no moral worth.
    4. As not all laws are moral and just many choose to use Social Disobedience against them. Downloading content can be considered to be this, regardless of if the one downloading is aware they are using Social Disobedience. Downloading content has entered our culture and will not be stopped. It cannot be stopped. The world *must* adapt to how technology interacts with our social, moral, and legal lives.
    5. There is a longstanding myth that began with computer hackers such as Kevin Mitnick about how much the company lost, due to the system being hacked. It has been speculated that these amounts were hugely inflated by the companies. The same logic applies to movie studios about how much money is allegedly lost. Some go see the movie, love it, download it, then buy the DVD. It seems to me that this is not a reduction of profits but instead a tool that content developers could exploit for more profit. Obviously you are making the fanboys, use them. It is hard, if not impossible, to say what the losses actually are.
    6. I am neither condoning or condemning those who download content off the internet. This is a moral issue that each individual must choose for themselves.

  • This is ironic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Orion Blastar ( 457579 ) <> on Monday April 06, 2009 @01:46PM (#27478549) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • I Read The Review (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday April 06, 2009 @01:58PM (#27478673)
    I read Roger's review, and it couldn't have been more positive towards the movie. And it's not like he can't call a bad movie bad (e.g. Valkyrie).

    Reports say that Wolverine was downloaded at least 75,000 times, meaning that most of those copies are likely still out there - or deleted by people who would have hated to find out that they'd just been tricked into spending $10 to see a movie that they personally wouldn't have enjoyed a month from now.

    To pretend that the press should ignore what a whole large group of other people are out there already talking about is to handcuff them to the point that they can't do their job.

    Roger Friedman's job was to be in the forefront of the entertainment world news. In this regard he was doing his job. Murdoch can claim the high moral ground here if he wishes, but his people were out there doing what they were being paid to do.
  • 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: []

"Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray