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.
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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's all.
It's miles easier to understand than "The Dark Knight," and tremendously more emotional.
Is that marketspeak for "dumb action movie" ?
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.
It's gonzo journalism. Hunter S. Thompson did it all before with drugs and motorcycles.
So if I post reviews on by blog, I'm allowed to pirate anything I want? I just have to review it?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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 interesting as the column was, he did disobey company policy. That typically results in being reprimanded or fired. I'm not happy that he lost his job, but am not surprised at the outcome, if he was indeed fired.
Best "String" Ever!
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.
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".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
For a second, I thought Jar-Jar Binks was posting on /.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
"... 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
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.
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."
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.
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 view. You can even register your online content with the US Copyright Office in case you're paranoid about someone stripping your site to use for themselves and then claiming that they wrote it. If the copyright holder does not grant you explicit permission to copy a protected work then you are breaking the law.
Just because you think that the law is bullshit doesn't mean that you get to magically change the law or the meaning of the English language to suit your personal interest. Otherwise, yes, there is nothing illegal about posting a review of the material, although it's still a stupid idea not only because you red-flag yourself to your employer but also to the copyright holder (same parent company, in this case) and to law enforcement.
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.