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.'"

Comments

Promoting Piracy?

[Demonantis]

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.

Re:ha ha

[PIBM]

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The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.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

[The_Quinn]

It might not be illegal, but perhaps Fox simply does not want to be associated with activities that, under some circumstances, are illegal.

Imagine if Fox condoned the behavior, and then a wave of "OOooh Fox condones downloading of pirated movies" hits the blogosphere...