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.'"
He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Funny)
He foolishly thought in-depth investigative reporting would be welcome at Fox.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
A movie review is now "in-depth investigative reporting?"
I guess when it suits your agenda...
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were an in-depth story about rejecting the "usual distribution models," I'd agree. As it stands, it was merely a review of a pirated movie.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
People regularly reject the law and go their own way, that doesn't mean that journalists are allowed to break the law to make sure that their reports are more "in depth". The guy deserves just what he got for being dumb enough to so publicly announce that he broke the law.
Re: (Score:3)
As once said on Fairly Oddparents:
Chester: Something newsworthy is happening with Timmy, and the First Amendment gives us the power to invade his privacy and discover it.
That is something that makes me sick with some journalist, an ilk that I mix with lawyers too often. Then can claim Freedom of Press to violate a number of laws, and if you don't like it, they accuse you of been a repressor (sp?). I get sick too many times with that.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy deserves just what he got for being dumb enough to so publicly announce that he broke the law.
Is it a clear violation of the law? It really doesn't seem like it should be against the law, as who is losing out here? He's going to see the actual version, I've heard the ending especially was unfinished. There is NOTHING sacred about the release date for a movie, no crime seems to have been committed by watching it, only in uploading it to the internet, which was not his crime.
Anyway, even if a law was broken, that shouldn't justify him being fired, the law should punish as appropriate, no need for his employer to get their two cents in. In this case, if it is against the law, make him pay Fox studios whatever he would have paid to see it in the theater (presumably nothing since he is a movie critic) and be done with the punishment.
He got fired out of spite and misplaced anger. And maybe some bullshit about setting an example. There's no logical reason to fire him other than to continue acting as if movie piracy is a crime against humanity.
Which is not to say Fox didn't have a right to fire him, it's their choice, and of course their legal right to (probably.) Naturally I have no illusions that "It should be this way" translates to "Legally, it is this way over at fox." I'm just talking about what would be fair and make sense in an ideal world, maybe one where "wolverine" was a documentary...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be "illegal" to get fired, just against company policy. I'm pretty sure downloading movies from anyplace except Hulu (so they can feed the aliens) is against company policy.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain how reviewing an unfinished movie leaked onto the internet and obtained by violating company policy is "in-depth investigative reporting".
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Funny)
It's clearly a form of radical journalism, providing an avant-garde commentary on movie piracy.
Genius, really.
Gonzo journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
It's gonzo journalism. Hunter S. Thompson did it all before with drugs and motorcycles.
Re:Gonzo journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see a revival of gonzo journalism. Though I'd take just about anything at this point other than more of "Can living with a cat kill you? Find out more after the break."
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
- US Code [copyright.gov]
Re:It was illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It was illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this the definition of copyright according to your reference book, "Making Shit Up?" The very first right granted by copyright is the "exclusive" right to "reproduce" the work. That is the very basis of the word "copyright," you know, the right to copy, and there is no clause that says anything to the effect of, "except when you download it from the Intarwebs." In fact, original content on a website can also be protected by copyright despite being made publicly available for anyone with a web browser to
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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, 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. There
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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:5, Funny)
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.
Re:He should have seen that coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that one scenario is exposing corruption at the highest levels of government, and the other is helping us decide whether to go see a Hugh Jackman movie.
I consider that a significant difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that one scenario is exposing corruption at the highest levels of government, and the other is helping us decide whether to go see a Hugh Jackman movie.
Yet most people care about a Hugh Jackman movie and couldn't give a crap about corruption... *sigh*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot Fox is a member of the RIAA. He was caught in a crime (directly or indirectly, but then who cares?) against his employer.
In other words, dumping oil in the sea, good, dumping oil on the $oil_company lawn, bad.
Err, not exactly news (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Err, not exactly news (Score:5, Insightful)
Bailed that out for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Now that's harsh
Re:FTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I always knew SkyNet would emerge from a dark, disturbing network. But Fox News?
We're all doomed.
Re:FTFA (Score:5, Funny)
I can only assume that by "terminated" they mean they sent an android back in time to kill his mother before he was ever conceived.
Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
'Wow, what a moron.'
Yeah, that goes without saying. We're talking about an entertainment columnist from Fox News. Seriously.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)
We're talking about an entertainment columnist from Fox News.
Hey, not every person with a B.A. degree can go on to become a barista.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please don't make me explain my joke.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It has a plot? (Score:3, Funny)
Why ruin it with a plot?
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
You must admit, there are no other reviews of this movie out there. That makes his views more
Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Sloppy journalism (Score:5, Funny)
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)
The column has been purged from Google's cache as well, but not before someone took a screenshot [chud.com] of it.
Re:Read the column here (Score:4, Informative)
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.
The Review -- SPOILER ALERT! (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re:The Review -- SPOILER ALERT! (Score:5, Insightful)
He is such a bad writer:
And then consider this Gricean nightmare:
He is a professional writer who depends on cliches and bloated prose. I could go on, but simply put, I've always wondered how he had a job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's miles easier to understand than "The Dark Knight," and tremendously more emotional.
Is that marketspeak for "dumb action movie" ?
Not fired? (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:Not fired? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:Not fired? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
That said, his review of the movie was positive. (Score:2)
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 www.aintitcoolnews.com 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
Funny that (Score:2)
Promoting Piracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
wilful confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
The censorship is the disturbing part (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The censorship is the disturbing part (Score:4, Insightful)
A vast chasm divides Wikileaks (which publishes hidden information to expose issues and problems in society) and movie piracy (which exists for the selfish purposes of greedy and impatient children). They are not the same thing, even remotely.
Fired for reporting that BitTorrent works. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score:3, Insightful)
That was silly. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Why is a movie more secret than a CIA agent? (Score:5, Insightful)
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???
Re:Why is a movie more secret than a CIA agent? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4819594/X-Men_Origins_Wolverine.DVDR.CUJO.iso [thepiratebay.org]
Re:The News (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall a time when the impartiality of the press was something to be admired, at least idealistically. I guess not so much anymore.
Oh please. This wasn't some investigative reporter who was fired for exposing political corruption or some such. This was an entertainment columnist who was fired for breaking a well known company policy. You'll forgive me if I'm not broken up with sympathy for him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No? The man had a vaguely interesting story and lost his job over it
And he acquired that "vaguely interesting story" by breaking company policy. A policy that he presumably knew about and had reason to obey. So again, cry me a river....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, his column was a *review*. Reviewing a leaked, unfinished movie and then reviewing it is a terrible practice, even if there are caveats involved.
For one thing, it is extremely unfair to the people who made the film, as they did not have a chance to actually finish it, and more importantly, it's inaccurate, even if he thought it was the best movie since Casablanca.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MODS!! How are Shakrai's posts in this thread considered flamebait, when all they did was restate a fact based on common sense? You don't break company policy and then nonchalantly describe it in a column that you're getting paid to write.
Flamebait mod != "I don't agree with this person" Next time, just click the reply button.
Anyway, I hate to see anyone get fired (there are some conflicting reports about that...) but he pretty much admitted to pirating a movie that his parent company owns the rights to. As
Re:The News (Score:5, Funny)
wtflox, please don't tell me Firefox is owned by Rupert Murdoch too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THAT article might not, but there's plenty of articles which do.
Shame we don't have a mnemonic/acronym for Read the OTHER frakkin Article. :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse than that, this guy pirated the movie as part of his official duties. If this guy's column stayed up and a representative from Donner's [imdb.com] asked Fox, "Did you pay Mr. Friedman to illegally download, view, and review 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine'"? Technically they would have to admit to it. Another organization may have simply refused to print that specific review and adjust his pay accordingly, but Fox is special - As jwildstr points out, they make movies. If a rival company's reviewer had downloaded and reviewed Kung Fu Panda or Cloverfield before they hit the theaters, you can bet the Fox would be up at arms.
Re: (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.
More citizens should understand democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that an un-released movie is available on the internet immediately is something that everyone should know, not just Slashdot readers. Unless there is government corruption, voters help determine the laws that are passed. Voters can't help guide the country if they don't know what is happening.
In a country that is democratic, reporters must be allowed to report anything that is true.
You can read the fired reporter's article courtesy of a link posted below [chud.com]. If the reporter did anything wrong, it was not being sufficiently negative about the fact that he could see an un-released movie online. But he was negative: "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." And, "But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded it onto this website. This begs several questions about security. Time to round up the usual suspects."
The book, The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics [amazon.com] discussses the fact that only a very small percentage of citizens understand democratic principles. (Get the book from the library. Don't pay Amazon $66.95 for a paperback.)
What will be the effect of his posting a story about an un-finished print of the movie, and Slashdot covering it? In this case, it will definitely sell more movie tickets. He gave the unfinished movie a very positive review: "This may be the big blockbuster film of 2009,
The story was posted exactly where it should be, in the entertainment section. Quoting: "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 [online],
Many people who watch movies don't read books or read serious articles in newspapers, or think about serious issues facing the country, or even have an internet connection. The only way they will get this news is by having the news in an entertainment section of some publication. For example, a hairdresser might mention the movie and the piracy while her customer's hair is drying.
Because I'm interested in serious issues, I already knew about the piracy problem. But I'm not the necessary target audience. I don't watch movies because there are too many typical Hollywood lies in every movie, such as: "An attractive woman should be able to break any moral rule." I've found that movies made in "Bollywood", in India, are even worse: "A woman should be able to avoid responsibility for anything by doing a little crying. If she cries, then men have to find a way to solve the problem." Obviously, being a man, I'm not going to subscribe to a lie that says that women are superior to men. I don't like any lie, and usually in a movie there are several lies every few minutes.
Also, here are two stories. You can decide which is more believable:
1) It's a big budget movie, and there have been piracy problems in the past, but the movie studio didn't have enough security. Even though thousands of people are losing their jobs every day, someone risked losing a good movie-making job to post a stolen un-finished copy of the film so anyone can see it without paying. That person risked his job without any way of making money from the theft.
Or:
2) Someone at the movie studio decided that having an un-finished, rough copy of the movie available on the internet would be a good marketing scheme.
Many people understand
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
--
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 hav
Re:ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
That's likely correct, if you limit the scope of your inquiry to his review.
Now consider the wholesale copying of un unpublished work of fiction one month prior to release from "the internet" onto his computer. It's not even remotely a fair use of the material and is virtually guaranteed to be an act of infringement under the copyright statute.
Finally, consider the he's not being sued for copyright infringement, but is either 1a. an at-will employee terminable at his employer's will 1b. a contract employee who may be terminable under any half-way decent "for cause" clause in the contract or 1c. an employee who is subject to discipline by his employer.
It's amazing that the comments here are focusing on the copyright question, which is simple and boring - he infringed. It's scary that the comments here are ignoring the employment question, which is simple and boring, but trumps the copyright question. Fair use is not a defense to being fired or disciplined.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 su
Re:ha ha (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Because when you come to think about it, the Internet is exactly what a lot of people have tried to accomplish throughout the millennia. Nations and empires were forged and razed, people killed and died by the millions to ultimately reach this simple goal: connect everyone.
These people, intentionally or not, want to destroy this. I think we need to raise people's awareness to this issue. The Internet is not just a network. It is the network. It allows for every single person on this planet and eventually beyond to be connected to everyone else simultaneously! I think it is of the upmost importance we fight to stop this censoring and mutilation of the Internet and preserve the recent ability our species has to global and total communication. I mean, toxic dumping is also illegal and much more dangerous collectively than downloading copyrighted material... where's the fuss about that? We need to stop taking bullshit...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hum, I might be missing something but where exactly says that he downloaded it?
In his review, he says "I found a work in progress print of it, 95 percent completed, on the internet last night.". That makes it sound to me like he downloaded it...
This isn't about the life or death of the Internet. This isn't about some rogue reporter breaking in to a pharmaceutical lab to expose doctored test reports. This isn't about the pinnacle of achievement of the human race being threatened because somebody violated company policy and got fired. This is about a foolish movie reviewer downloadi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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 o