RSSOnline columnist in trouble for reviewing pirated movie
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published April 6, 2009, 12:37 PM
There's continuing debate in entertainment circles today over the seemingly simple matter of whether Roger Friedman, a movie reviewer for FoxNews.com, was fired for having written and published a review of an unreleased film he admitted to having pirated online.
In his review of the upcoming Wolverine prequel to the X-Men series -- which the site has since deleted -- Friedman bragged about what he considered a time-saving measure, writing, "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?...It's so much easier than going out in the rain!" 20th Century Fox is both the producer of the film and the sister company of Friedman's publisher -- both are co-owned by News Corp.
In response, multiple entertainment journalists have received statements from Fox News, identical except for the sentence that closes the paragraph. Some sites received a statement saying the offending review was removed and that Friedman was terminated, while others received the same statement except with the termination portion omitted. (Some sites received both statements.) This as The Huffington Post reports that a decision on Friedman's actual fate is being determined today.
Elsewhere on the Internet, fewer questions seem to be circulating about the ethics of reviewing "leaked" copies of late Windows 7 builds, in some cases by folks bragging about having located them through BitTorrent.
downed it..watched it..deleted it... pretty much all hype..
Score: 0
|...sez the guy who watched the version that hadn't even been through initial editing stages yet...
*laughing*
Score: 0
|Okay, um, what was this person thinking?
Score: 0
|well, all the hoopla only provides more publicity for the movie.
perhaps he was fired, not because he downloaded it for his personal use
but because he became a liability instead of an asset for his former multi billion dollar employer. the question is if whether fox is going to be sued anyways.
but then again, isn't the moral duty of journalist and the news to ascertain information and report it, regardless if it was obtained covertly or illegal? doesn't fox "demand" the be first to report anything and everything?
seemingly, he may have a constitutional rights. if not, then might as well relocate to shanghi where he can review all the pirated movies to his hearts content.
Score: 0
|I pondered this myself when I spotted screenshots of the film on the BBC website.
Seeing as these shots certainly aren't promotional surley that is illegal?
Score: 0
|"surley that is illegal?"
I believe it falls under Fair Use.
....Oh, and stop calling me Shirley. ;-)
Score: 0
|Ah, but how did these screenshots come to be in their possesion? It can't be fair use to pirate the film and screenshot it.
Score: 0
|Did the BBS pirate it, or did they get the shots from somewhere else?
One would hope, even if they did pirate it, that they aren't as criminally stupid as the columnist above and admitting such to the world.
Score: 0
|guy really should of known better =P
Score: 0
|"Elsewhere on the Internet, fewer questions seem to be circulating about the ethics of reviewing "leaked" copies of late Windows 7 builds, in some cases by folks bragging about having located them through BitTorrent."
Meh... Usenets definitely the way to go on that one. Guaranteed download speeds, private, secure, encrypted, and no queue or re-seeding. ;-)
Score: 0
|"20th Century Fox is both the producer of the film and the parent company of Friedman's publisher"
If he didn't think this would negatively impact his career, then he was a moron, and his review probably not worth reading anyhow.
Score: 0
|...considering the leak was missing scenes, CGI, and had obviously not even hit the editing room yet?
Yeah...
The one he saw will barely resemble what hits the theaters.
Score: 0
|