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.'"
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
That's all.
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.
- US Code
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Why ruin it with a plot?
Best Slashdot Co
wtflox, please don't tell me Firefox is owned by Rupert Murdoch too?
which is totally what she said
It's gonzo journalism. Hunter S. Thompson did it all before with drugs and motorcycles.
Um, what's your point? The reviewer did something illegal. Whether or not you think the movie's worth your money and regardless of what you think of the MPAA, it's not exactly legal to go download it. Admitting you did so is dumb. Admitting you did so when you work for a company that makes movies is idiotic.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Imagine if Fox condoned the behavior, and then a wave of "OOooh Fox condones downloading of pirated movies" hits the blogosphere...
Mine is Good
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.
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 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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
"... 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
Because emailled files get onto your computer magically without you downloading them, right?
I am trolling
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.
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.
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 substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
- He watched the whole frakkin' movie off the internet.
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
- Potentially, he gave a number of people the knowledge they needed to view the movie illegally. Also, by doing so any by reviewing it, he may also have legitimized illegal downloading.
Dude was dumb. Also, if you read the responses to the FA, a number of commenters were happy to see the guy go. He should have known better.
Also of note, though: this will gain him notoriety. He'll have another job by the end of the day. A lot of folks (including me) have never heard of this dude, but we've heard of him now. He's going to get a lot of interviews and we'll see him on TV expressing his views about how he was unfairly fired. Some other news place will then give him a job just to gain a recognizable name. ("There's no such thing as bad publicity")
He was dumb to do it, but he knew what he was doing.
-JJS
He must be using firefox...
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...
By now, I am willing to claim that computer networks have changed our lives much more profoundly than the landing on the moon. Perhaps not more than Project Apollo, which has greatly contributed to the development of information technologies, but that is not what you wrote there.
Ezekiel 23:20
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 downloading a stolen movie and then announcing it to the world through his employer (which makes movies).
You're really over-dramatizing this. It was a dumb move. He got fired. He's not facing charges. It's not time for pitchforks and torches yet.
Actually, on second thought, this is Fox News. Yes, it's been pitchfork and torch time for a while now - We're way overdue.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 of the company, that is a purely political decision, and neither a merit-based nor a legally-based one.
The argument that "one is legal, one is not," does not apply here. Allow me to create a few analogies on point. It is not illegal to write about your experiences hanging out with members of a drug cartel where you witness lots of illegal activity. It is not illegal to write about the trading of stolen property. It is not illegal to write about what it feels like to fire a gun at someone. It is not illegal to write about either the observation of or commission of a crime; it is the commission of the crime that is illegal. While the writer might or might not have obtained the experience of viewing this movie legally, and while possession of the movie might or might not constitute possession of stolen goods, writing about it is not illegal.
So there isn't that much difference between writing about a potentially illicitly obtained movie, and writing about a movie that you were invited to by the company producing the company, as far as the writing goes.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
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 think this is it but I haven't downloaded it so YMMV:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4819594/X-Men_Origins_Wolverine.DVDR.CUJO.iso