This is why I shouldn't be allowed to have nice things

My Oscar.

Isn't he just the cutest? I love him to pieces, really. There's only the one thing wrong with him: his fur is long and he hates to let me brush it. So when it gets desperately snarled, I have to just cut chunks out. Previously, I have gone at him with scissors and cut everything away. I didn't want to repeat that mistake, so I bought a proper trimmer this time and decided to buzz him as best I could.

The results are less than encouraging....

( But I think I know where I went wrong! )

I never thought I defend a Fox "journalist"

There's still no confirmation that I've seen that this guy was actually fired, but chances are good he was. For reviewing the bootleg copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine that circulated recently.

The reason for such a harsh reaction would be, presumably, that the Fox folk don't want to get sued for damaging the marketability of the movie. Previously, Ang Lee's Hulk, the last major studio film to be leaked before its opening weekend, went on to do horrible business. The poor advance word-of-mouth was blamed. I say: WORST COMIC BOOK MOVIE EVER. So there is a reasonable case to be made that someone's already illegal action--piracy--is worse because there is some nebulous effect it might have on people before the movie comes out. As in, the stuff that will happen anyway if it's a bad movie after a week or two of being in the theater, happening earlier will cost the studio some untold number of tickets that otherwise ignorant, credulous people would have paid, sight unseen, for a movie they only hoped was good.

(I discount the idea that the pirates themselves, no matter how many downloads this got, wouldn't all go to the movie. First off, many of them would likely never have paid to see the movie. I make this claim with some certainty because anyone who is happy with a low-quality, unfinished bootleg doesn't care enough to pay $12 for a ticket. Secondly, any who would pay, will probably still do so as the movie studio has confirmed that this was an un-edited, un-reshot version. Anyone interested in the Wolverine movie will have to pay for the theatrical version. Or they won't--see point #1.)

But is it really the journalist's fault that he tried to access this? Under our reactionary copyright, et al. laws, yes. He's a criminal, he's luck he's not in jail or fined within an inch of his life. As someone reporting on a story, however, I don't see that he couldn't have downloaded it (or found a pirate friend who had--it's like shooting fish in a barrel) just to see what the story was about. After all, he's doing research. It's not like Fox Studios was letting more copies go for news outlets to write about. (Certainly not after this.) I just don't think this is an appropriate response. It's a predictable one, but a ludicrous one. (Moreso because, what the shit, is Fox going to sue itself over this?)