Slashdot Mirror
Columnist Fired For Reviewing Pirated Movie
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.'"
stupid idiot
That was stupid of him. What did he expect would happen?
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.
"When we advised Fox News of the facts," the statement said, "they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman."
Now that's harsh
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Apparently the leaked film, Wolverine was news. Looks like Fox and Murdoch just aren't into that these days.
I recall a time when the impartiality of the press was something to be admired, at least idealistically. I guess not so much anymore.
The article doesn't mention why they fired him. Might not even be related. If it is, maybe we should wait for an explanation ?
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
The column has been purged from Google's cache as well, but not before someone took a screenshot of it.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
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!
My work here is dung.
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
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 judging it as an adaptation.
So, Mr. Friedman was in fact fired for browsing and watching something online that turned out to be illegal?
I might be "just another internet user" (i.e. stupid), but I thought that you can ONLY get into trouble for downloading (meaning you save data on your harddisk which can be copied and re-distributed). I never knew that watching the wrong youtube movie can mean you lose your job.
I also see that Mr. Friedman had a job related to the movie industry - but still... I find this shocking.
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.
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.
guess that statement that the writing a review of a movie (even if pirated) is legal. (e.g. commentary)
there was a commentary made by an article about dvd/movie piracy before showing that commentary / review of a movie (even if the movie was not released to the general public or even the press - would not constitute as illegal viewing or distribution due some law about journalists and commentary.
oh well.
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.
So, Mr. Friedman was in fact fired for browsing and watching something online that turned out to be illegal?
I might be "just another internet user" (i.e. stupid), but I thought that you can ONLY get into trouble for downloading (meaning you save data on your harddisk which can be copied and re-distributed). I never knew that watching the wrong youtube movie can mean you lose your job.
You can be fired for breaking company policy.
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.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
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.
Posting on blogs, weather it be something bad about your company or just blogs in general, also are usually a violation.
Hmm, isn't slashdot technically a blog?
...
Hey, where'd everyone go?
That's all.
What an idiot. Wasn't too surprised he worked at Fox News though.
funny that Shawn Hannity admitted on his TV show a few months back that he was given by a friend a bootleg Hollywood movie, and he is still working at fox.
Not that I want him fired, but if you want the fair and balanced info... now you know.
Even right wing hard core conservatives don't think its that bad of a crime.
of course he immediately recognized his mistake after he said it and apologized.
can anyone find a clip?
he's an idiot, nothing else to see here.
Since when was this a spoiler? Anyone could have written this without having seen the movie, just gathering some facts widely available.
Just give a writer two assignments: write a good review, write a bad review, we'll publish the one that's the most truthful later (or the one we feel like publishing if fox is in charge)
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
The thing is somewhere along the way, even if there wasn't a copy on his hard disk, there was still a copy of in his RAM/cache/video memory which is covered by copyright law. I'm not quite sure how this works but if only part of the movie was on his computer at one time you might be able to argue that it was Fair Use.
Tanto nomini nullum par elogium.
hmmm.. so if I save it to my drive, I'm in the clear? win/win!
the issue is the double standard
fox and its cohorts they fund at the mpaa and riaa are always blustering about punishing piracy to the full extent of the law
now, one of their own employees does it, AND writes a column about it AND gushes how he'd rather see "I Love You Man" on his pc via piracy (the movie is still in theatres) than go out in the rain and pay a ticket to see it (someone else posted the text of the review below, see for yourself)
so this is alternately hilarious: a corporate shill gushing about the glories of piracy, and alternately galling: as another poster indicated, the guy might not even be fired. which means its perfectly ok for this stupid corporate bozo to get away with enjoying the fruits of piracy, its only us common folk who are sued into bankruptcy for the horrible, horrible crime
intellectual property is dead. commense the theatre of the absurd
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
'When we advised Fox News of the facts,' the statement said, 'they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.'"
Facts always get you fired at Fox - many stories of reporters and staff getting the axe because they had some facts that didn't agree with Fox's agenda.
That aside - watching a pirated movie online is just like having stolen property in your possession. If you are aware it is stolen then you are culpable. This dumb ass actually admitted to illegal activity, of course he should be fired.
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!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So he basically got fired for reporting on something, I mean, everyone knows that film was leaked, it's been in the news daily....
He didn't pirate the movie.
He didn't really encourage others to do so, or tell them where to find it (not like you need to be told anyway) - unless you consider a good review an encouragement
He seemed to take a dim view of piracy in the article IIRC - other than mentioning how easy it was to find the film.
He gave the film what amounts to a rave review.
I agree that he should have known, seeing as who he worked for, that this may have been a controversial move. He probably realized that, but didn't think he'd get fired.
Now I am wondering if this is some kind of publicity stunt where they're trying to say two different things:
One, Wolverine is great, two, we don't tolerate piracy, it can cost you...
I guess if we see the guy get hired back, or find out that he wasn't really fired that may indicate that this was a manipulation of the media.
I think he was fired for this in the last paragraph of the review: "But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website. This begs several questions about security". No sir, it doesn't beg any questions. Do journalists take any English classes at all these days? Also, I think if he wouldn't have rambled on (here's a screenshot of the article) in one of the paragraphs about how easy it was to watch all sorts of movies online, and how he was planning on watching another pirated movie afterwards, he might not have been fired. Making a stupid decision is one thing, but acting stupidly while going through with said decision is... well... stupid.
As strongly as I oppose most copyright legislation, consider myself a proponent of p2p sharing protocols and networks, and despise bandwidth monitoring/limiting -- I don't think we really have a story here?
If you take a job that consists of reviewing movies and writing about the "entertainment industry", it should be no surprise they'd let you go if you started reviewing something before they said it was "ready" for viewing. If they wanted a writer to write a "pre-release review" of some of their work, they'd provide him/her an advance copy.
That being said, it sounds like Fox is currently debating whether or not they want to fire the guy over it anyway? Seems clear they're in the right if they do - but they may now be afraid of making a "martyr for the cause" out of him, that would encourage even more sharing around of leaked out, unfinished movies.
There really were unforeseen consequences mr. Friedman, i told u so...
Honestly, this movie as terrible. It was worse then X-Men 3. Unless this was the biggest cop out of all time the the theatrical release COMPLETELY different, then i feel bad for anyone that waste their money to see it. They couldn't even get the basic story elements they had set up in the X-Men movies right, let alone the actual Wolverine origin.
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.
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
- US Code
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Why ruin it with a plot?
Best Slashdot Co
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Roger Friedmann = Owned!
Well maybe we should allow journalists to break the law in order to investigatively report on it. News reels on identity theft and articles gang violence can't really give you the full story without a little journalistic freedom to operate outside the law. Saying someone can steal my personal information or jack my car at a red light is just thinking out loud. I want proof.
Hmm. Maybe I should have worded that a little better.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
It's gonzo journalism. Hunter S. Thompson did it all before with drugs and motorcycles.
a) the move was pirated and illegal
b) it wasn't complete
c) the policies of his employer
Now, I realise that journalists (particularly critics) think they're better, more insightful than "normal" people and that their views count and the normal rules don't (or shouldn't) apply to them. However, this goes so far beyond normal crashing egotism that getting fired is the least he deserves.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Call me cynical, perhaps even paranoid, but this smells like a scripted PR move to me. It even made my government radio (ABC Local) here in Australia, with comment from a third party about how pirated movie buzz is key to blockbuster movie marketing.
What does it say when a blog site like Aintitcoolnews has more journalistic integrity than a cable network like Fox News?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Honestly, he should have put the blame on someone else and used his "journalistic integrity" to protect his anonymous source's identity.
When does COMPANY POLICY refer to me when I am home on my own equipment and my own time. If anyone signs that contract, they are completely and utterly stupid.
I can eat kittens for fun at home off the clock and they cant fire me for doing it against company policy.
If you can PROVE that he watched the movie on company time and while using company hardware and network connection, you have a valid point.
If he watched it on his own time, his gear and internet and then went to work the next day and wrote the review based on what he did at home, you have no point and no recourse. I'm betting that is what he did, and that is why he is not fired.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Movies (and plays) are routinely shown to (performed for) preview audiences. Such showings are never reviewed. Such a review would be stupid; it wouldn't be based on the final product to be offered to the public. The same goes for preproduction versions of hardware, for the same reason. Real critics don't sneak into previews hoping to scoop their competitors; it would just brand them as lame fanboys. I won't try to speak to the needs of Fox News, but a real news organization would have no use for such a person.
Arrrr!
Show business, like politics, is a dirty game. It is not a coincidence that the local radio stations just happen to play NIN/JA combos two months before they come to town to play a show. These people have a failed business model and damn any one telling them that they make shit that no one wants to buy.
Fair and balanced my ass.
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.
Blaming the columnist is stupid. The editor who allowed the article to be published is responsible for ensuring that articles adhere to the company policies, and if there was a policy the article should have stopped at that level. The fact that it was published implies that either the editor is incompetent (hey, it's Fox) or that in actuality there was no company policy regarding this (other than a vague "don't break any laws doing your job" sort of policy).
Studios are notorious for their ingenuity in creating buzz. What a better way to create buzz than to let an unfinished version "leak" and then raise hell in the news about it. How much free publicity has this stunt generated, whether it was done purposefully or not? It would be interesting (and not that difficult) to calculate the dollar value on this. They will fire the guy if they need to, for cover, otherwise, he has either done a good job, or showed the way forward. That being said, the studios are never going to admit that leaking the thing free increased sales, no, they will claim with a straight face that the damage to the industry is in the millions and aggressively lobby for laws that will wield more control into their hands.
Roger: Fired, man.
Ok, I will be the first! Gosh what a $negative_adjective editor $editor is. How could we possible expect to survive with such a $negative_adjective at the helm of $this_site? How in the world can we expect to go on living? I can't take the nonsense anymore. $0 = $suicide.
Seriously, who is this taco guy and why does he think he can post a story like this? Bunch of lame-asses
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
He foolishly thought in-depth investigative reporting would be welcome at Fox.
I bet he would have kept his job if he would have just inserted some clips of exploding vans into his column. Just for lulz.
Sorry, Fox. What he did was not "reprehensible." It was stupid, but it's not like he killed babies or anything. A year from now, everyone will have forgotten about your Wolverine movie, and nobody will care if somebody had downloaded it from the net before it was in theaters.
:q!
And no movies were ever pirated again.
Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
Thx a lot Mr. Murdoch for helping me not to forget why to I will not buy your products.
He obviously didn't use the word 'socialism' in enough times in his review to suit Fox.
QFT - PFH Quoted for truth ... punished for heresy.
fried, man.
Rupert Murdoch's big multi-national evil media empire, owns both Fox News and 20th Century Fox, the studio that's bankrolling and distributing the Wolverine movie.
Except there really isn't a major news outlet that isn't linked to a major movie studio. ABC News is with Disney, NBC News and MSNBC are with Universal, HLN and CNN are with Warner Bros., and CBS News has historic ties to Viacom.
"... why would anyone want to read a review of a movie that isn't finished?"
..." Sure, people could watch the unfinished print online. But those who like movies usually don't want to spoil the fun by watching something that is not finished.
..." This is something those who watch movies should know.
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. 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 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
movie piracy (which exists for the selfish purposes of greedy and impatient children)
Perhaps in this case, but not always. I'll admit that it's a vastly different case from an X-Men movie, but Walt Disney's Song of the South is out of print and not expected to go back into print any time before the end of its copyright. Are you trying to call everybody who wants to see Song of the South "greedy and impatient children"?
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???
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
meh, it's all a bunch of 1's and 0's anyway, next NBC Universal is going to say they invented the 1 and the 0
I saw Bolt in 3D and for someone who wears glasses, the 3D process isn't that great. The glasses over glasses part seems to mess with the depth effect. That the movie was kind of dumb (my kid loved it, tho) didn't help.
PLEASE quit conflating theft with infringement.
It's not "stolen" property, it's an "infringement" and most legal systems make the explicit distinction for a reason. They're NOT the same act in any way, shape, or form- no matter how the media industry players want to frame it.
It may be illegal to upload it, depending on your jurisdiction, but I'm reasonably certain no one has ever been prosecuted for downloading.
There's a bit too much attention on Wolverine and Piracy, what with FBI raiding data center and simultaneously a journalist (pirating)downloading and reviewing the same movie. Smells like collusion to promote a movie on multiple levels. I have serious doubts any journalist working for big media (Fox) is not incredibly educated on copyright expectations. He did not enter this situation accidentally and without purpose. The whole independent-of-Fox-news-so-we-cant-really-fire-him makes it stink even more.
Let's just see if he gets indicted by the same aforementioned law enforcement.
Well, it's a start. Now how many more people over there can we send unreleased movies to? >:-]
Injects some new meaning into "film at 11"...
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.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
why pirate half-baked content?
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Are you shitting me? He was supposed to be drawn and quartered...
Because emailled files get onto your computer magically without you downloading them, right?
If you run your own personal e-mail services, then that is exactly what happens. (I know too many people who do this.)
Insert self-referential sig here.
They don't have to prove anything. Under at-will employment, you can be fired for any (non-discriminatory) reason, or no reason at all. Fox News would certainly be within their rights to fire him for this, whether it's explicitly mentioned in his contract or not.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
A lot of people here are writing things like "He did something illegal, so no shit he got fired" or "He downloaded and watched the whole movie..." For me the important point is the freedom of press! A chinese writer reporting about the problems in tibet is also acting against the law - chinese law of course. But isnt a good journalist supposed to report about "delicate" events? Dont get me wrong, I am not going to equate a hollywood movie with the problems in tibet, but a journalist should report about things the authorities dont want to hear. And I for one will prefere medias who appreciate such behavior.
I actually preferred the unfinished movie better than I think I will like the finished one. With no musical cues, you have to pay attention to the story. Without the orgy of special effects, the acting becomes more important. I thought it was well written and the acting was generally good. Watching this unfinished movie made me realize what a waste of money millions of dollars of special effects really is, even in a high-budget action movie like this. It's an enjoyable movie without all that fluff.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Is the first rule of pirated movies "do not talk about pirated movies?"
yes.
movie ticket. As a result, I don't go to the movies much any more--I don't like what they're doing with my money.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
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
This is a prime example why big media conglomerates are bad. News organizations should never be mixed with entertainment companies. Don't blame Murdoch, blame regulations, which should have never allowed the existence of such megacorporations.
Today the importance of separating news from entertainment is on the scale of separating religion and politics in the past.
Fox news calling a non-liberal's behavior reprehensible - it must be really bad.
That is all.
Sites like aintitcoolnews publish reviews of uncompleted and leaked material all the time, like unfinished movie and television scripts.
A barely completed, special effects lacking script OK, but a movie that's been produced, edited, and is almost finished is being seen as a journalistic CRIME by nearly everyone in the industry.
Oh the irony.
Fox News makes a pretty penny off all kinds of disgusting nonsense propaganda used to drive fear and fuel passion.... and they tell us its "NEWS"
But Murdock puts his fist down to fire a guy that reviewed a pirated copy of Wolverine?
The guy got fired for covering a news story. hahaha
FoxNews and TV news in general can have 2 morons with daily talking points shouting the same nonsense constantly without any discussion, detail or anything of real value. Its political porn... News Porn... Its all bullshit. Porn is more real and rewarding.
And this is who Murdock decides to fire? How about the entire bullshit network you call a "NEWS NETWORK" or the shitty news papers you own? FIRE THEM ALL for worthless daily nonsense they provide.
Not "Down with women". Down with women being self-destructive.
Whoah. ...
How do YOU know it's crappy?
Yet another classic case of anti-semitism.
Several things...........personal opinion(s) only ! 1. important to note: this person was a journalist 2. might have worded or rather presented the information from a different point of view example: " confidential source " downloaded the movie - AKA " investigative reporting " 3. no argument here that " Pirating " is not legal or is morally wrong, however, its very common for journalist to use various " iffy " tactics, that border on or are illegal in order to obtain a story. example: to catch a predator ( posting fake nudes, pretending to be a 12 year old boy, offering money for sexual favours, etc.....), or paying for sex and/or drugs in order to hopefully trick someone into providing an inside story. To be clear, I'm not comparing child-porn with movie downloads, just JOURNALIST methods. and " Confidentiality of Sources " 4. the MPAA / RIAA have been rather out in the open in the past with suing people, TV ads, in general doing just about anything to STOP file-sharing, etc.............however, after all they have done, thus far, ( illegal ) file-sharing has not stopped, if anything, its created several NEW technologies, in order to evade detection.........has not slowed down. The article / review actually, points out the on-going flaws with the MPAA / RIAA methods. 5. reviewing the actual movie, well............the journalist obtained the movie ( one way or another ), might as well.........It did not hurt anything, anyone, other than the people attempting to curb piracy ( more or less a slap in the face.....) The negative out-come of this situation, is nothing more than the MPAA / RIAA embarrassment or rather the article ( main stream media ), makes it a little more difficult for such anti-p2p, to obtain the funding they need to further " hit hard " at the piracy community, which obviously is not working. example: if I were paying some anti-p2p business to protect my media and I see an article reviewing one of my products, that has not even left the editing room.......well I would reconsider continued service contracts.........so really the article struck a nerve in regards to anti-p2p " snake-oil " service offerings.
I 'd like to see movie distribute with GNU License. :D
True, but if you try to point that out over at aicn, you'll get your ass banned, and all the posts you have ever made there, will be deleted.
Nazi control freaks don't like being called hypocrites, especially when you start linking to the evidence in their talkbacks.
<BOFH-Mode>Yes, because streaming is selfish. Instead, save it on a shared folder for all employees to see.</BOFH-Mode>
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Regardless of how anyone tries to justify it, fair use, he basically worked for News Corp., or he gave it a good review, etc; what he watched and reviewed was an illegally distributed corporate trade item, a federal crime. Watching pirated films is almost like receiving stolen property but worse. Friedman tried to build the bandwagon that others would have jumped on. Okay, so he gave it a good review (at least that is what those that read it have stated), but that does not make it right and it only encourages others to watch movie illegally instead of paying to go see it. That is part of why studios make movies, to make money.
"I agree with you on this."
If you agree, then no one should be able to make policies that prevent reporters from doing their jobs.