Columnist out of work after reviewing pirated film

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.

An early review of the new X-Men film escorts a Fox entertainment columnist to the nearest exit.

(Credit: Marvel.com)

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.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Way to go, News.com. Terminate a reviewer whom you pay to ... write reviews. Regardless of the source of their information, they did review the film. They even gave the source of the review material.

Does this mean that we should fire every single journalist that has ever looked at an illegal / pirated copy of a product? Will we have to terminate the entire CNET staff because they have found MP3's of copyrighted content online?

Get over it. Sounds like the reviewer got the better end of the deal- they got the story and are now free to report it how they want to. Someone will pick them up for sure.

[ikramerica--2008]

A movie reviewer/critics is NOT a reporter. They are hired for specific purpose, and that is to watch movies in release and give reviews to readers. Critics are invited to pre-release screenings for this purpose. A critic who illegally obtains product to review will be excluded from future screenings, and damages the company he/she works for. A critic is not a private citizen posting a private commentary, but an employee of a company, representing a company, and posting their opinion on behalf of the company.

Friedman stepped over the line by reviewing the film. He could have ASKED to do a report on the ease of downloading pirated material, and likely would have been allowed. But he still would not have been allowed to review the film.

But on the plus side, now he isn't shackled by the constraints of his employer, and can do anything he wants to do! :)

[tcr071]

He downloaded a movie illegally. I know it is tough for some people to understand but some might call that STEALING. To add insult to injury he publicly reviewed said STOLEN product making sure everyone knew he had done so.

If I am a cashier at Best Buy caught stealing a $5 DVD I am going to be immediately terminated I don't see how you can't see the correlation.

[gggg sssss]

ROTFLMAO Servers him right

[Vegaman_Dan]

Consider it this way- Detroit goes to a lot of trouble hiding / masking their test vehicles when doing public drive tests. They put on extra plastic panels, tape lines, all sorts of things to hide the actual vehicle's profile and details because there are photographers who take pictures of these cars and get them published in magazines before those vehicles are officially released.

Does this mean that all those photographers, journalists, and publishers who publish these 'spy' photos should be punished or terminated accordingly? It's the same issue at hand here with a different subject matter.

I hear the 'illegal download' argument a lot. CNET's article here mentions the illegal download. Now that CNET's staff is discussing it, does that make them guilty as well? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

[Foyleg]

The Detroit "spy photos" is a bad analogy because there is nothing illegal about taking a photograph of a test vehicle in public. Now if a reporter/photographer broke into a testing facility and trespassed on company property to take the photograph, that is more analogous and that person should be terminated. Not understanding how this movie critic's actions can be defended, are we not clear by now that possessing a movie/song/game without receiving the rights from the rightful owner is illegal? Wasn't that resolved about eight years ago? Regardless of the legality, not sure how intelligent it was for that critic to publish such a review...

[tcr071]

Taking a photograph of a car is not the same as downloading a movie. A similar analogy would be STEALING said production car and posting a test drive review.

[AlanHub]

lol @ tc, VEGA GOT PAUNED

[stevenmusil]

@Vegaman_Dan: CNET did not employ Roger Friedman and therefore did not terminate his employment with News Corp. CNET is owned by CBS.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I apologize of there is was any misunderstanding- I did not claim or intend that the reviewer was employed by CNET. I know they were employed by News.corp and not CBS.

[ThreeMilesNorth]

Are these leaks publicity "stunts" anyway??? Someone educate me on this, pls.

[ckurowic]

Most of them are yes, that is obvious to me, most of these are "not" marketed VERY well if you know what I'm saying. Apple does this all the time with "leaked" images. It creates more hype. I find it outrageous that we pay the FBI to look into "leaked" movies. Your tax dollars at work!

[viper396]

@ckurowic, It's only convenient for you to assume that every leak or release of stolen material is actually a publicity stunt. That's just your excuse to include yourself in something that doesn't involve you. Thanks to the internet, cynics, pessimist, and conspiracy theorist are common and you all assume that every random thing you read is a lie or has some kind of conspiracy or cover up behind it.

God forbid that the facts as they are presented actually be the truth because then you'd have nothing to keep your imaginations going in your otherwise dull lives.

[darkridedp]

The amazing thing is he was too stupid to call the marketing department in his OWN parent company and get a screener.

[thelemurking]

Exactly! Surely after 10 years, he would know how to go about getting a screener from his own company. There's a right way and a wrong way to do... he chose the simple, easy and wrong way. I would imagine Fox's media department would have gladly sent him a screener if he had only asked. He might have even got one that was more complete than the leak.

You don't bite the hand that feeds... downloading pirated movies from the company that sends you a paycheck, then writing about it through one of their outlets was not the brightest idea!

[jjolsen]

Sounds like News Corp is in denial about the way things are headed. Sure, this Friedman character wasn't using his head; but this is more of a reflection of our culture than it is an example of one rogue movie pirate. These types of situations are very liable to continue, and accelerate, until there is a much better infrastructure in place for the legal dissemination of 'Hollywood' movies online.

[homercles82]

Because there's not a way to download movies online it is ok to steal entertainment for free.

Gotcha.

[tcr071]

This movie hasn't been released yet and is certainly not for sale. Read that again slowly.

Downloading a movie is no different, at all, than walking into Best Buy and stealing that same movie. You can use whatever justification you want for downloading the movie whether you think Hollywood charges too much, the actors get paid too much, or whatever. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day you have an EXCUSE as to why you have committed theft.

[Sausagebiscuit]

"Downloading a movie is no different, at all, than walking into Best Buy and stealing that same movie."

Said person did not deprive anyone of a physical copy of the movie by downloading it. Theft is not the same thing as copyright infringement.

[viper396]

@Sausagebiscuit. Just because there was no physical object involved does not exclude it from being called theft. You are trying to justify it with semantics. Illegally downloading a bootleg movie, especially one that hasn't been released yet, is theft. You area stealing and taking a paycheck away from the people who made it, distributes it, even the guy at the popcorn stand at the theatre loses.

An analogy to your argument would be if someone electronically transferred money from your bank to another. Wouldn't they be stealing your money even though there was no physical cash involved?

[tcr071]

I didn't realize there had to be physical items missing for theft to be involved. How stupid do these law enforcement agencies feel tracking down identity thieves??

[benjwah]

A bit of a shame. Roger Friedman was the only thing on foxnews.com I enjoyed without irony.

And Vegaman Dan, your inability to read and comprehend is hilarious.

[Maccess]

Kinda dumb. He ven gloated about ripping a copy off the Internet and subtly encouraged others to do so.

He could very well have requested a private screening from the film's marketing group as is standard industry practice so the critics would have a review out on time as part of the hype.

[oassaf]

Although it sucks that he lost his job...you kinda deserved that, really you bragged about the fact that you technically stole stuff from work, and not just a pen but a copy of a multi-million dollar movie, you should have had more sense then that, but nice touch on giving it good reviews cause that will make them forget you stole it.

[pjhenry1216]

If you want to use the word "technically," you should use it correctly. *Technically* he *didn't* steal anything. There's a reason the RIAA doesn't go after downloaders, but uploaders. There's absolutely nothing illegal about downloading a pirated movie. Its illegal to give, but legal to receive.

[tcr071]

pjhenry

You can't possibly believe that.

The only reason the RIAA goes after uploaders is because they are the source not because they are the only ones they have a legal right to pursue. If the RIAA once to fine your ass for downloading a single movie and they have concrete proof then you are going to pay the fine.

I don't know where people get the ridiculous misconceptions that downloading a movie isn't illegal in any, way, shape, or form. Know the law. When you download a movie you are in violation of it. Downloading = Stealing.

[ikramerica--2008]

receipt of stolen goods is a crime just as theft is a crime. now, nobody is prosecuting this guy, but people lose their jobs all the time for stealing or receiving stolen goods...

[oassaf]

Exactly, especially when you go out their and PUBLISH the fact that you did it...this guy is as bright as those kids who post their misadventures of vandalism and crime on facebook and youtube

[gerrrg]

I tell you what, he's probably been sitting at home writing his reviews from his laptop while sipping on coffee in a terry cloth robe, and his dog by his side, for the past 10 years.

Now he's got a choice to work for someone else at home, or go ahead and monetize his blog and get bought out by News Corp at some point in the future.

[solitare_pax]

Never forget: Freedom of the Press is limited to those who own the presses.

Or in this case, the ever-growing News Corp Empire.

[gertruded]

Yes, fascism at its best. News corp. is way over the line in everything they do. Anyone believe this "incomplete copy " stuff?

[ckurowic]

@gertruded: No I don't think any sane person would believe the movie was incomplete...you never find incomplete footage. What is that supposed to mean anyway? Raw acting footage? There would be no special effects for one. So eh, not sure who they are trying to fool. Sounds like they are just trying to cover their tracks so others aren't interested in downloading the movie...oh wait, the pirate bay probably already has 2 million downloads ;).

[tcr071]

So if you steal from the company you currently work at you expect to have a job the next day? When you post about what you stolen on the company blog page?

Get with reality.

[ddhboy]

The odd part in this is that the movie he pirated for Newscorp is published by the same company. I guess they had higher reviewers they wanted to see the movie first, but its not like Newscorp took a financial hit here.

[wired_x]

also odd is that no one seems to have vetted the story before it got published.

[lkrupp]

Same thing should happen to anyone who downloads copyrighted material illegally. Lose your job and go to jail. Doesn't matter if it's a mp3 or a full length movie. It's theft pure and simple no matter what the anti-RIAA and anti-MPAA trolls/thieves who slither around here say.

[Sausagebiscuit]

I see you are spouting your troll again. Theft is not the same thing as Copyright Infringement. Please go educate yourself before you post and make yourself look stupid time and time again.

[pjhenry1216]

There's no such thing as illegal downloading. Only illegal uploading. Its *technically* not theft. Its also figuratively not theft either. In fact, if you actually understood the English language, you'd arrive to that conclusion yourself. Nothing is being stolen. If it was illegal to download, the RIAA wouldn't have such a hard time getting verdicts in their favor. They'd just have to show the files were on their computer. However, they need to prove distribution. Why?

DOWNLOADING IS NOT ILLEGAL. ONLY DISTRIBUTION IS ILLEGAL.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying, pure and simple :)

[tcr071]

Once again pjhenry is here to show that he has extreme misconceptions about P2P laws and has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Thanks for the laugh. "Downloading intellectual property without paying isn't illegal." Hilarious.

Some people are so ignorant. What goes around comes around.

[sirtoast]

It's kinda funny, I read the review, and discounted it as a cheap shill to hype a movie as a response to possible lost revenue from people downloading it instead of hitting the theaters. It would be interesting, now that he's out of a job, what his real opinion of the movie was.

[shootdraxxus]

From what I understand here, the guy reviewed an incomplete movie. How could he have done his job correctly reviewing a movie that would be different than what the public would watch?

[Stormspace]

Whatever happened to that Federal law about possessing movies before they have been released? I seem to remember fines and jail time.

[pjhenry1216]

I don't think there is a federal law about that... there may be federal law about distribution, but not possession. Its never been illegal to possess something thats copyrighted and not licensed to you.

[Stormspace]

It's called the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act and was passed into law. Here is an article about it before it was made law.

http://news.cnet.com/New-law-cracks-down-on-P2P-pirates/2100-1028_3-5687495.html?tag=mncol

[sanenazok]

He was bored, downloaded a torrent, and got excited. I guess he also wanted to show how hip he was. Lesson learned, it turns out there are rules? At work? No way.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Wait! He works for News Corp., who made the movie, and couldn't get somebody within the same company he works for to get him a copy for review, or a screening? ***?

I don't even review or work in Hollywood in anyway, but Sony and Disney and Fox and Warner and one time only Paramount has invited me, by phone or e-mail, to be "there" on a specific date to screen new movies. Disney was really nice during my screening of Chicago. So I have no idea how somebody who does work for News couldn't get ahold of a screening for a News movie...

[Drazhna]

I wondered about the possible repercussions of reporting this. The reality of the movie work print leak was one thing, but to openly admit to watching and writing a complete article was another. One could take it as slant supporting piracy instead of the fact it was out.

<slither>

[whkeeler]

I just want his job!

[cnethenry]

It's troubling that the same indiviuals who would choose to illegally download a movie, are the same ones who most desperately want these movies to be made in the first place. Are so many bereft of common sense.

[pjhenry1216]

It's troubling to see so many people have such gross misunderstandings of the law to think that there's any such thing as an "illegal download." Please, understand... only distribution (uploading, selling, etc.) is illegal. *NOT* downloading.

The RIAA wouldn't have been complaining about having to find evidence of distribution to get their verdicts if all they had to do was prove they downloaded a movie...

Also, its funny that folks like you ignore the statistical anomaly that those who download pirated movies also spend more money on movies... go figure.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@pjhenry1218

You nailed it exactly. The act of downloading the content is not illegal. It's a common misconception and it appears that the people reading/posting to this thread may not be aware of.

[Sausagebiscuit]

@ two above...

also common misconception is that theft is the same thing as copyright infringement. The big difference is theft usually carries little or no jail time, while copyright infringement carries more time than murder from stories you see online.

[Stormspace]

I'm afraid in this instance both of you are wrong. Simply possessing a pre-release movie is a federal offense with fines and jail time attached to it. After it's released...