That's really all I can say. It's like people posting videos of themselves speeding on YouTube. Check and mate sucker.
A FoxNews.com journalist got himself into serious hot water over the weekend after he published a review of an illegally downloaded copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine ahead of its 1 May release. As we reported last week, an incomplete version of the superhero movie was leaked early onto various BitTorrent websites, and since …
If there was any wrong doing here (dubious, IMO), then why the heck did FOX run the guy's review in the first place? Wasn't there an editor who said "No, we can't run this piece. You obtained the movie illegally?" Or did an editor approve it, and FOX is only now hanging the reviewer out to dry now that some people have freaked out?
Personally, I'm hoping the guy told whoever that he viewed the movie by Googling it and simply clicking on one of the results, which is certainly possible to do.
"following his decision to illegally download Wolverine"
Get it right! There's nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted content per se, it's uploading which is technically a civil offence.
Is there a job equivalent of the Darwin award though, 'cause this guy should win it hands down. Given the fact that Fox are his employers he must have had an inkling what would happen?
Paris, because she's a fox!
Hmmm... uncorroborated this, denied the other...
Did Fox deliberately leaked the film as a marketing stunt? And are they now continuining to keep the story in the news by creating a fuss?
Of course, if they did, they could never admit it as it would be condoning "illegal" filesharing, but it would be a delicious scandal...
""Roger Friedman's views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy."
Aren't Fox owned by Murdoch which owns Sky who allow their users to download films illegally?
I personally don't have a huge problem with film piracy, I can see news corp having some problems squaring this circle.
"Reports over the weekend claim that News Corp, which owns Fox News and 20th Century Fox, had fired Friedman following his decision to illegally download Wolverine."
Surely it's the duty of the courts to decide if it is illegal or not. As far as I'm aware only the distribution and promotion of piracy is illegal but merely receiving a hot copy is not. Of course Friedman could be found guilty of promoting the practice by writing an article about it, but for the downloading itself, I think not.
"Its distributor, 20th Century Fox, coughed to the embarrassing leak the following day, when the studio said it would easily be able to track down the culprit."
I don't condone breaking existing laws, but the cold hard reality is that the studios no longer have a monopoly on the distribution channels. The laws need to change.
I forgot that movie was coming out!
The probably should have leaked it themselves for the promotional value.
I can't imagine anyone who was going to see this in the theater not going because they can download it and watch it on their computer screen. Even if they have their PC's hooked up to some serious home theater equipment its not the same as going out to see a movie.
As for the reporter getting fired, I really have strong issues with our news being owed by big corporations. We need independent journalists not corporate lackeys.
> Get it right! There's nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted content per se, it's uploading which is technically a civil offence.
Plus there's the "small" matter of fair use which explicitly gives people the right to copy the material provided it's for review purposes. I'm sure such reasoning wouldn't work for the regular Joe Soap in a court of law, but since this guy is/was paid to review films, there is nothing illegal in what he did, and, knowing this, I doubt any prosecutor would even attempt to bring a case against him.
I hope he sues for unfair dismissal.
Irrespecitve of the morality, etc. of downloading a movie, the release in question was a workprint that had not had the special effects added or the stunt wires hidden. I guess there was sufficient dialogue to review (ha! dialogue? This is a Marvel movie!) but I would imagine this would certainly colour any view of the overall film, to the point where the review would be largely useless.
Imagine Superman walking along the street and just staring intently at villains.......
This icon really needs a little blood spatter on it.....
To those who say there's nothing wrong with downloading, legally at least, remember that if you're downloading via bitorrent and not leeching then your uploading as well and hence distributing. Whether this film was actually distributed via bitorrent I don't know, but I would imagine it was.
No, not at all.
The people at the top will never be satisfied with however many millions they make. They'll always want more. They're greedy, conniving and spiteful to the degree that they'll sack a bloke purely to create more buzz for a film that, in all fairness, will probably do better than OK anyway.
Paris, 'cos compared to this lot she's actually GOT morals!!
I can imagine if he said the film was like all the other X-Men films i.e. Shite!
that's why he was given the bullet.
If he had raved about it then he would probabily still be in a job.
It isn't the first time a studio/famous person has leaked a film onto the internet. Slumdog Millionaire done all right. I guess the difference is Slumdog was a good film. And it certainly didn't effect the money made on that film
By the way I haven't seen the film and with a little bit of luck I will be able to avoid it, despite their shameless promotion.
And of of course Paris: She knows how to use the Internet for shameless promotion. And her film was pretty good.
You might be right that there is nothing illegal about downloading copyright content per se, but I think you might have a hard time convincing a US court that this is the case when you do it without the permission of the rights owner. However, you might say there is a case for a fair use defence, though the illegal nature of the source and the fact that the film had not been released could possibly count against you.
Is the movie any good? Was his review a favourable one?
My guess is that the answer to both those questions is a resounding "No" and that this is all a big publicity stunt.
I secretly suspect that this is another special effects movie and that the plot (if there is one) is going to be pretty bad. Of course, the plot isn't going to change just because some special effects are not yet in place.... so the review could be very accurate. Maybe a little too accurate!
Seen it, its ok.
Typical of what you'd expect really, OTT acting, goes a bit off kilter towards the end, bit badly paced.
If you liked X Men then you'll like this, disengage brain, and try not to get all Fanboi on it.
As for the fact its a Workprint, its all good for 90% of the film, few computer models of planes, odd wire still in here and there.
Towards the end its not cleaned up, but still perfectly watchable
"Roger Friedman's views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy.
Yeah, right... Maybe when it comes to piracy of stuff you own, but not so much when it comes to piracy in general:
Given the following I only purchase a film (which i will do if the film is decent and I would want to see it again) if i have been able to view the film beforehand - before bittorrent I based my purchases on the reviews or trailers and in many cases i was dissapointed...
Movie advertising posters carry a minimum of actual information regarding the films content and trailers contain 1-3 of probably the best/only entertaining minutes the file contains.
Its also highly unlikely that you would get a refund on a purchased film if you took it back with the explanation that the plot was poor, the actors wooden and the dialog terrible.
Many reviewers cannot be relied on to give a decent review of a film and whose to say their opinions regarding a particular film would match my own...
If no one bought crap films the studios would soon wake up and stop churning out shite...
There remains the problem that, as an unreleased film, this may fall in to the catagory of theft and not copyright. Whilst it may not have any value as such, it can be argued that he was a party to the theft of a film not ment for public viewing. This is not an "on the market" film, but some rushes.
Does Fox News let their writers simply publish their articles on the website all by themselves? Don't they have editors deciding what pieces should run and which shouldn't? If they don't they should be blaming themselves, not the writer. And if they do, they should blame the editor for deciding to run the piece.
I dont why I f*cking bother cos no-ones gonna come back to read this but......
"Get it right! There's nothing illegal about downloading copyrighted content per se, it's uploading which is technically a civil offence."
The level of ignorance is just astounding. there i was thinking all the pirates just dont give a crap , when it turns out they're just too stupid to realise they are commiting a crime.
the mind boggles
Paris, cos its a close call in the IQ stakes
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019