Columnist fired after reviewing pirated 'Wolverine'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rupert Murdoch apparently wants his employees to know that he does not take piracy lightly--especially when it's one of his movies that is being illegally downloaded.

So when Roger Friedman, an entertainment columnist with FoxNews.com, a division of Murdoch's News Corp. media giant, posted a short review of the forthcoming "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," he soon found himself out of work.

Friedman, who had had contributed to FoxNews.com for 10 years, wrote Thursday in his Fox 411 column that downloading the unreleased superhero movie from the Internet was "so much easier than going out in the rain" and that it "exceeds expectations at every turn," according to a report in Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. 20th Century Fox described the Friedman copy of the movie as a "stolen, incomplete and early version," and Friedman's review was removed from the site on Friday.

News Corp. said in a statement Sunday that the review promoted piracy by reviewing a pirated movie:

Roger Friedman's views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have a zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy. When we advised Fox News of the facts, they took immediate action, removed the post, and promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.

Fox News apparently later decided to soften that message, issuing the following statement Monday regarding Friedman's position with the company:

Fox News representatives and Roger Friedman met today and mutually agreed to part ways immediately. Fox News appreciates Mr. Friedman's ten years of contributions to building foxnews.com and wishes him success in his future endeavors. Mr. Friedman is grateful to his colleagues for their friendship and support over the past decade.

The film, which reportedly cost $100 million to make, is not scheduled for theatrical release until May 1. But it was leaked to the Web a week ago. A representative for the FBI's Los Angeles field office told CNET News that the bureau has opened an investigation to find out who released the incomplete movie onto the Web.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10213766-...OCmoreStories.0

[almaty 19]

News Corp. said in a statement Sunday that the review promoted piracy by reviewing a pirated movie:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true though.

I think it has more to do with Fox actually owning the distribution rights to that specific movie, and because the version that was released to the net was actually the original workprint version that was submitted to the producers and then sent back for lengthy reshoots that added 20 minutes to the run time.

[almaty 19]

so, it is not the one the FBI is investigating?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so, it is not the one the FBI is investigating?

No it is.

The version that was released was not the final edit - it was the workprint that was previewed to the studio execs. That means it would have almost certainly been leaked by someone inside the production company.

[almaty 19]

i see..well now, they seem to want to spin it now

[fozzie 41]

I heard that the special effects were not even done and there were green screens and wires! Why would you want to watch it like that, I imagine it would be terrible.

Edited April 7, 2009 by fozzie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i see..well now, they seem to want to spin it now

Makes me think that the guy was fired not because he promoted piracy but that he gave an "inaccurate" opinion of the movie based on an unfinished product.

Advance reviews of upcoming movies are usually based on official press screenings in advance of the release date. Occasionally (if the movie did bad enough with test audiences) they don't do any advance screenings at all - the idea being that if the movie is likely to tank, negative reviews will exacerbate their financial losses.

Basically its about the Fox Corporation wanting to control the information that is disseminated about one of their products, and with this guy working for a Fox Subsidiary - his review could be construed as damaging to their interests.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Good, I'm glad he was fired.

You can't break the law, then whine about it when you suffer the consequence of your act.

He knew it was illegal, yet he still did it.

I don't agree with you Pvt. Pike, the reviewer gave a glowing review, but that doesn't change what he did to get that review.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Good, I'm glad he was fired.

You can't break the law, then whine about it when you suffer the consequence of your act.

He knew it was illegal, yet he still did it.

I don't agree with you Pvt. Pike, the reviewer gave a glowing review, but that doesn't change what he did to get that review.

What did he do to get the review though?

The article doesn't provide any indication that the man broke the law...

The person who leaked the movie broke the law, the torrent site that offered the movie for download broke the law (though there's still a grey area about that - see the Pirate Bay trial). That said downloading the movie isn't strictly against the law - if indeed Friedman did download the movie himself. Its entirely possible someone sent him a copy of it on DVD, or he watched it at someone's house.

Needless to say - there's nothing illegal about watching a pirated movie.

This has nothing to do with legality - if it did Mr Friedman would be facing criminal charges.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'd imagine this has to do with public image. It reflects poorly on any media outlet to condone reviews of pirated works, regardless of how it came to be or get into a journalist's hands. Even so, I'd disagree with firing him. Maybe some sort of reprimand, but firing someone for it is a little much.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Good, I'm glad he was fired.

You can't break the law, then whine about it when you suffer the consequence of your act.

He knew it was illegal, yet he still did it.

I don't agree with you Pvt. Pike, the reviewer gave a glowing review, but that doesn't change what he did to get that review.

What did he do to get the review though?

The article doesn't provide any indication that the man broke the law...

Friedman, who had had contributed to FoxNews.com for 10 years, wrote Thursday in his Fox 411 column that downloading the unreleased superhero movie from the Internet was "so much easier than going out in the rain"

The person who leaked the movie broke the law, the torrent site that offered the movie for download broke the law (though there's still a grey area about that - see the Pirate Bay trial). That said downloading the movie isn't strictly against the law - if indeed Friedman did download the movie himself. Its entirely possible someone sent him a copy of it on DVD, or he watched it at someone's house.

It is against the law to download the movie from an illegal source; without the consent of the copyright holder. Falls under the copyright laws/DCMA.

Needless to say - there's nothing illegal about watching a pirated movie.

Nope, nothing illegal on simply watching it, but is it ethical? Which is what the main thrust of the case against him is. He is a movie reviewer. He should know better.

This has nothing to do with legality - if it did Mr Friedman would be facing criminal charges.

He well may be facing charges if the feds want to go after him, or the movie company. Just because he was fired doesn't make him in the clear.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

OK - I missed that.

I really doubt the guy will face criminal charges though.

[46]

If your employees are committing crimes and publishing that they do so, you need to fire them for their gross stupidity.

[pedroh 21]

I heard that the special effects were not even done and there were green screens and wires! Why would you want to watch it like that, I imagine it would be terrible.

true.. i saw a store that was playing the leaked version.. it had wires, notes, some 3d models were not in their final render, so looked like bad polygons in the screen