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.
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.
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.
- US Code
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.