FBI called in over online 'Wolverine' leak

Post by **OscarGuy** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:54 am

It may be news, but a REVIEW of a film so leaked is not news. If he had merely discussed how he came about finding it or how sources were dummied in other countries, networked to avoid detection and so forth, it would have had journalistic merit. However, to just post a review of it is nothing but commercialism and really is lacking in journalistic merit b/c what he did didn't shine any light on a societal problem other than to review something that was...if he had made an actual "News" article on the entire thing and not a review, I would view it differently, but as it stands, he did it simply to review a stolen work, which is where I would personally draw the line between journalism and an illegal act masked as journalism.

And I don't get FoxNews any credit. They didn't pull it off the website until an uproar occurred and it took all weekend for them to actually do something about it. I'd say it smacks of "how do we extract ourselves from this without looking like pansies..."

Mission <s>Accomplished</s> Failed.

Post by **Sonic Youth** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:45 am

OscarGuy wrote:I think the difference is that he's not reporting on it, he's reviewing it. There is such a thing as a press embargo. Some outlets have permission to post reviews ahead of a release, but they are few and far between. Press credentials are usually revoked for repeat offenders. It would be like if someone stole a rough draft of a Harry Potter book and then reviewed it in advance. It's still an illegal activity that has no merit whatsoever. Most journos who perform illegal acts are trying to uncover a truth that not performing the illegal act might never reveal. In this case, there was now journalistic merit to the article, therefore, the only reason to review the film in advance is to say that he's been able to do so. Reviewing the film does not benefit the public in the least bit. So, I'd say the lack of journalistic necessity makes this type of crime more difficult to swallow.

It also encourages people to download pirated material. By a professional individual downloading something illegal and publicly acknowledging it and even making it seem cool, he has unwittingly spurred on a desire to download and if he isn't punished for it (i.e. being fired), then it sends a clear message to those who download illegally that it's a perfectly ethical and unambiguously ok thing to do. There are also probably other employer/employee guidelines that this type of ethical may infringe on, but that's between the employee and the employer.

Regarding your first paragraph, I agree that's the main reason why he was let go, but it wasn't the reason Fox publicly stated. Technically, Friedman isn't even a critic. He's an entertainment columnist, and as for the review portion of the column, I agree that Murdoch was well within his rights to fire him for that (unstated) reason.

As to your second point, the Wolverine leak is no Bush memo, but I disagree that there is no journalistic merit. The film was out there, and everybody and his mother knew about it and saw it. That's news. And if you can easily obtain it, that's news as well. At the very least, it's a fresh take on online piracy. And I don't even know if what Friedman did was illegal. I'm not exactly sure what it was he did to watch the film. Did he happen to find it posted on a website, or did he download it for himself? I do agree that some ethical line probably was breached, but I suspect Fox had no idea how to handle it since there probably was no specific rule in place and no prior case of this happening, and the firing was a panic move. I say they overreacted.

FWIW, let's not give Fox News too much credit. They fired Friedman after 20th Century Fox made a stink of it, and not before. Why was the story approved in the first place? Is there nobody who vets Friedman's articles, either before or after he posts them?

Edited By Sonic Youth on 1239119257

Post by **Big Magilla** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:29 am

I think even if it had been a Warner Bros. film the outrage would have been the same. Still, you have to admire the chutzpah of the guy who sent Murdoch a special delivery package of the purloined film on DVD.

Zahveed · Post by **Zahveed** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:16 am

I think OG nailed it. It's one thing to pull a Hunter S. Thompson and do as many illegal things as possible with your employer's money for the sake of a good story that is bound to make more money for who you're working for, but to do those illegal things at the expense of your employer with no benefit to anyone is different. It's a large gray area but it depends on how hard you bite the hand that feeds you.

Post by **OscarGuy** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:33 pm

I think the difference is that he's not reporting on it, he's reviewing it. There is such a thing as a press embargo. Some outlets have permission to post reviews ahead of a release, but they are few and far between. Press credentials are usually revoked for repeat offenders. It would be like if someone stole a rough draft of a Harry Potter book and then reviewed it in advance. It's still an illegal activity that has no merit whatsoever. Most journos who perform illegal acts are trying to uncover a truth that not performing the illegal act might never reveal. In this case, there was now journalistic merit to the article, therefore, the only reason to review the film in advance is to say that he's been able to do so. Reviewing the film does not benefit the public in the least bit. So, I'd say the lack of journalistic necessity makes this type of crime more difficult to swallow.

It also encourages people to download pirated material. By a professional individual downloading something illegal and publicly acknowledging it and even making it seem cool, he has unwittingly spurred on a desire to download and if he isn't punished for it (i.e. being fired), then it sends a clear message to those who download illegally that it's a perfectly ethical and unambiguously ok thing to do. There are also probably other employer/employee guidelines that this type of ethical may infringe on, but that's between the employee and the employer.

Post by **Sonic Youth** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:20 pm

Greg wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:I'll ask again: what makes this illegal activity different from other illegal activities journalists have engaged in to get a story that they don't get fired from? Where did he cross the line that journalists worldwide apparently don't cross?

Friedman engaged in this illegal activity against his own employer. Both 20th Century Fox and Fox News are part of Rupert Murdoch's empire.

That is true, and I confess I didn't consider it. I suppose Murdoch wouldn't have minded so much had the film belonged to another production company.

But I guess I'm asking a more general quetion. Reporters reveal leaked documents all the time. What makes this different? The copywright? But why?

Edited By Sonic Youth on 1239067447

Post by **Greg** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:05 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:I'll ask again: what makes this illegal activity different from other illegal activities journalists have engaged in to get a story that they don't get fired from? Where did he cross the line that journalists worldwide apparently don't cross?

Friedman engaged in this illegal activity against his own employer. Both 20th Century Fox and Fox News are part of Rupert Murdoch's empire.

Edited By Greg on 1239062763

Post by **Sonic Youth** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:40 pm

I'll ask again: what makes this illegal activity different from other illegal activities journalists have engaged in to get a story that they don't get fired from? Where did he cross the line that journalists worldwide apparently don't cross?

Zahveed · Post by **Zahveed** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:58 pm

Post by **Sonic Youth** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:47 pm

As much as we may hate to admit it, Friedman is still a journalist. The movie was released to the online public. Illegally, yes, but we were all talking about it and some of us were watching it. Journalists often engage in illegal behaviour in order to bring the news. It's called reporting. I'm not quite sure what makes this any different.

Post by **Big Magilla** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:59 pm

From Ain't It Cool News:

Fox has issued the following press release in response to Roger Friedman's idiotic review of the leaked WOLVERINE workprint.

We've just been made aware that Roger Friedman, a freelance columnist who writes Fox 411 on Foxnews.com - an entirely separate company from 20th Century Fox - watched on the internet and reviewed a stolen and unfinished version of X-Men Orgins: Wolverine. This behavior is reprehensible and we condemn this act categorically - whether the review is good or bad.

Friedman's review has been removed from Foxnews.com - which is heartening, but I agree with Moriarty that this is not enough. Friedman has admitted to breaking the law. If 20th Century Fox - and the FBI - are serious about nailing the perpetrator(s) of this leak, then Friedman must be fired immediately for downloading and reviewing stolen material. There's no wiggle room here. Allowing Friedman to keep his job sends a message that certain Fox employees - i.e. those who generate decent web traffic - are above the law in this matter. This is unacceptable. And I trust that Fox - which has thus far behaved intelligently in response to this leak - will do the right thing.

Post by **rolotomasi99** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:54 pm

Zahveed wrote:My friend's brother's mailman is a jerk. He purposely holds his bills so that they're not turned in on time. I haven't trusted those associations since.

he may be a jerk, but is he a criminal? has he watched WOLVERINE illegally and then told you all about the movie like jack and sabin's brother and friends?

Zahveed · Post by **Zahveed** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:33 am

My friend's brother's mailman is a jerk. He purposely holds his bills so that they're not turned in on time. I haven't trusted those associations since.

Post by **rolotomasi99** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:45 am

jack wrote:My brother downloaded it, and said most of the special effects work had yet to be completed. He could see all the wire-work and the main bad guy at the end was just a stunt man with dots all over his body.

it is actually pretty interesting to watch from a filmmaking viewpoint. to see the raw footage with very little post work down (even some dialgoue needed to be rerecorded) was kinda cool. the movie itself was pretty lame.

not that i watched it. i heard from my friend/brother/mailman that is what it was like. :;):

Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1238773608

Post by **Big Magilla** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:34 pm

According to Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere someone at Fox told him "Rupert Murdoch received a package at his New York office that contained a DVD copy of the leaked Wolverine."

The Fox guy allegedly said that "most people involved are considering the delivery a big 'eff you' to Murdoch and Fox."

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The internet's oldest Oscar discussion forum.

FBI called in over online 'Wolverine' leak