I never thought I defend a Fox "journalist"

[trinityvixen]

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?)

Comments

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree here. From everything I've seen and read about the situation (which admittedly excludes the full offending column itself, since that was pulled almost immediately), the problem wasn't just that he downloaded it. It's that he rejoiced in that fact, and went on to talk about how easy it was to download it and how he was planning on downloading I Love You, Man next and so on. If he hadn't said anything about where he'd gotten the copy, most people would have assumed he'd gotten a screener or been to a screening. Instead he glorified an illegal activity (whether I think it should be illegal is entirely beside the point). He was boneheaded, and IMO got what he deserved.

[avram]

I found Friedman's review in Google's cache. Yeah, he does spend a ridiculous amount of space going on about how easy it was to find and watch, blah blah.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

He's also clearly a new guy at this "file-sharing" thing, since he spends more than a couple of paragraphs at the "GEE WOW THIS IS EASY!" sort of talk. It's less to me like he's reveling in it than he is SHOCKED, SHOCKED to discover this sort of thing goes on. (Note: I mean that sarcastically. Yes, he's new to the file-sharing, but he sounds mocking, not celebratory in his discussion of it. He actually goes "I found all Top Ten movies in the theaters RIGHT NOW on this!" As if that's news? It makes it clearer to me that he's not the gee-whiz kid or anything but nor is he like "FILE SHARING IS THE COOLEST" even when he says it is.

I dunno, I see as much room here for eyebrows being raised on either side of the article.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

See, because I don't have the column, I can't make comments on his particular spin on it. Yes, broadcasting "YAR, I AM A PIRATE" is stupid and needs to be beat down. Mentioning how easy it is to download stuff isn't a bad thing, per se. It's a valid point in an article about piracy, after all, to mention how easy it is (and how common) to pirate.

But if he was really as aggressive as reputed (the NYT didn't go into it), then yeah, he's not making socially acceptable convenient excuses and that's just dumb.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

As agrumer says, you can read the whole thing online. I think what got him in trouble was:

"I did find the whole top 10, plus TV shows, commercials, videos, everything, all streaming away. 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? Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It’s so much easier than going out in the rain!"

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

To me? That reads as sarcasm mixed with admonition and less like genuine sentiment. It's like the downloader's credo but spoken by the guy who discovered it two minutes ago.

It also doesn't further his "I'm a downloader, ask me how!" that he then admonishes pirates and leakers at the end...

[(Anonymous)]

While I agree that it could be taken as sarcasm, I think it can be--and was by many, I'm sure--taken as completely sincere enthusiasm. Which means it was still a supremely stupid move, and sufficient reason for them to fire him. Whether he was serious or not is beside the point--he knew better, or should have.

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

"But is it really the journalist's fault that he tried to access this?"

No, but IMHO, it's his fault he was stupid enough to talk about it in his professional column. I don't think what he did was bad, but I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that publishing about illegal activity - particularly in a venue owned by a corporation with a vested interest in preventing that specific illegal activity - is going to lead to dismissal.

I mean, it's sad, but this isn't his private, semi-anonymous blog, this is him using his real name in a legit news source.

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

...his is him using his real name in a legit news source.

While your point is heard, there are many who would question FOX as a "legit news source" =-þ

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

Oh, I totally don't think they're legit in the traditional sense, only in the "corporate machine/tool of the man sense" :P

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

It's kind of like those dudes in the military who do gay porn and then think it won't get out.

It's like... okay, I may not agree with the policy, but DUMBASS, what were you thinking?

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Okay, so see here there is a parallel to my defense of the guy, albeit one made without having read his material. There is this sort of surprise shame people have when things they do that are either illegal or taboo get out. Porn is one of them. It's one of those things that most people would shrug and think isn't a big deal but which irreparably damages a person in a professional capacity (because once a sex worker, always one). But nobody really cares about file-sharing other than the studios/RIAA. If this guy had been like "Do you know how easy it is to get bootlegs?" it wouldn't have been an issue (even though we'd know that he had to have tried to know). But because he made no bones about what he did, he's liable. That just seems wrong.

And yes, you're right, less wrong because you don't poke the tiger, but still.

[mithras03.livejournal.com]

I don't think he would have been fired if he talked about how much he loved porn though.... :-P

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

At Fox? Not a chance. Their entire "news" team proves that. You can be as disgusting as you like about sex so long as you go "Tut tut!" at the end of it. (You don't have to mean it. Bill O doesn't.)

[mithras03.livejournal.com]

Ah, Bill O'Reilly, who recently freaked out b/c his apparent favorite contestant or something like that on American Idol has been revealed to be gay! *gasp!* HE KISSED BOYZ!! AND THERE ARE PICTURES!! AHAHAHAHA - he was all talking about what this kind of this would do to the "integrity" of a show like American Idol. Lol. His guest was like, yeah, people don't care...

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

There's also the "indecency" at the Oscars, with the boys kissing and what not, despite the fact that the hetero kisses outnumbered homo ones like five-to-one.

tl;dr 1

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying, and am as totally fine with Porn/sexwork (even the illegal kind, as long as all parties are not coerced, and I don't count simply being hit by generalized/systemic financial hardship as coerced, people are "forced" into shit jobs all the time, it's not unique to sex work, and I don't see *choosing* to strip because of brokeness/bankruptcy as any more inherently exploitive than being "forced" into joining the military or crabbing or waitressing by the same economic disadvantage. Does sex work *tend* to lead to more exploitation, sure, but legit, voluntary sex work, IMHO, isn't in and of itself, necessarily a horrible thing. And I say this as someone close to a few and aquainted with more than a few current and ex sex workers, many of whom had experiences that were better or at least no worse than many other non-sexworker friends job experiences. But wow, off topic rant, returning to original point now...)

So, I don't have a problem with a person deciding to do gay porn and then taking their lumps from prejudiced people and fighting for their right to do gay porn. But when you sign up for the military, you agree to a set of rules (which FWIW involves all porn, but the gay porn has the double DADT whammy.) You signed a contract. You said you *wouldn't* do certain things, with the understanding that if you would, it was within their rights to fire you.

Whether or not it's right to exclude gays (which it's not, obviously), you know going in that them's the rules. And if you decide to risk the waters of DADT, then go ahead and give a big gay interview or gay porn and consciously put that information out there, you're shooting yourself in the foot. And while you don't deserve to be kicked out for gayness, obviously, if you (deliberately) come out in public media or by sucking cock for pay on camera, you are deliberately breaking the contract you signed, and IMHO, you do deserve to get kicked out. Being outed by others, no. Outing yourself (or doing porn, which is against the rules) yes.

Now for this movie guy... I'd say that "no one" but the studios cares about file sharing is debatable. I think that while plenty in the industry don't care, I think there are others who (rightly or not) believe that filesharing cuts into the corporate profits and contribute in some way to less jobs/pay for them. And no, he probably didn't sign a contract that says "I will not promote illegal activity that the company I work for doesn't like," but at that level, working for the one big group that *does* actively work to fight piracy... it's pretty close. He wasn't working for some free weekly or other outlet that doesn't have direct ties to the bigwigs, he worked for Fox.

He should have known better. I think whether or not Fox is right to care or was right to fire him is up for debate. But his massive, foot shooting stupidity isn't, IMHO. By doing what he did - so blatantly and in that context - he was consciously taking a risk that he'd fly under the radar and that (unspoken) rules wouldn't be enforced. He lost. But he put *himself* out of a job. (more)

TLDR 2

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

It's kind of like when my mom went on a HUGE rant when she got a ticket for running a stopsign in her gated community. Cops had set up a trap, she rolled through the stopsign like she always did, she got caught, fined, and (I think) a point on her license.

And while I thought that was too bad, I didn't have any big sympathy for her, and didn't hold it against the cops. I don't drive much, but I've always taken my driving instructor's advice and done a rockback stop at all stopsigns, even if I think no one's around. (that's a full stop to the point where you feel yourself rock back in your seat, gently). Does it delay me by an extra ten seconds per stopsign? Sure.

But I've never been stopped and ticketed for that. It's the rule, it's a simple one to follow, and if you choose not to, you're handing the cops a reason to stop you. You choose to take the risk and gamble, particularly when it's a gamble it's easy *not* to take, I don't think you get to bitch when you get caught. You have weed in the car? You don't speed or run stop signs. In your pocket? You don't jump a turnstile. Can't afford a ticket? Don't fucking run stop signs. (don't want to get pregnant, don't fuck without condoms. Accidents happen, yes, but it's way more common that, when pressed, people like the dude who knocked up Bristol Palin, and my sister, and my cousin will admit that they used birth control *almost* every time. In that case, your birth control didn't fail. *YOU* failed at correctly using birth control. And got handed the consequences.

And if you care about keeping your military job, wait till you're out to do porn. Wanna be a public figure politician with aspirations? Don't fuck around on your wife or screw prostitutes or drive drunk. Wanna work for a media outlet sharing a name and an owner with a huge movie studio? Don't brag about doing something the movie studio has a vendetta against.

Re: TLDR 2

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

For the record, I was not disparaging sex work, merely pointing out that it is so disparaged by our society.

Where that gets people into trouble is, as you say, when they violate rules more specifically about not doing that. However, there's a letter-of/spirit-of sort of conflict here in that, like porn, most people don't really care about shaming file-sharers. Even those who have a media outlet job. There are arguable fair-use type things that he could have used to justify seeing the bootleg (that, granted, do not apply to bragging about bootlegging and how easy it is) that most people would shrug it off. Because he was obnoxious about it (and possibly because he was negative about the film he saw), he got busted.

I think it's too hard on him to toss him out for making what seems to be at turns a sly or else incredibly naive sort of article. Either he has no idea what is this "bit torrent' of which you speak, or he, like most people, knows only too well and is going "Gee gosh, you can get so much stuff that way" tongue firmly in cheek. It's open to interpretation so far as his first few paragraphs go. Either he's sincere in the expression "Wow! This piracy thing is awesome!" in which case he's and idiot and got what was coming to him, or he's rolling his eyes through type. Being that I see cynicism everywhere, it read more like the latter to me, is all, and for that I wouldn't think he deserved to be fired.

He did review the movie, though. There, whatever his intentions in the disseminating information about file-sharing, he goofed. Saying things like "the film was unfinished, effects weren't completed, there was no score," etc. are less damning than a full review even though both imply that he downloaded and watched the movie. So he goofed, but we only hold him responsible because he related too many details in a specific way. If we were really concerned with "NO PIRACY" he should be hosed either way. But it's open to debate whether or not his editorializing (which he, as a media "journalist" ought to be doing) made him more of a target for being busted for the same crime.

Re: TLDR 2

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

"For the record, I was not disparaging sex work, merely pointing out that it is so disparaged by our society."

Oh I know. :) I just let that rant get away from me, sorry to imply that you did.

And I think you're right that had he been more sly, or less critical, or less blatant about *gee, filesharing is awesome, ask me how*. And there likely were other reasons contributing to the firing. But his blatantness is where he totally loses my sympathy. If you're doing something where any sane person would know that you're taking a risk... you need to at least give plausible deniability. The thing with rules that are imperfectly enforced and stuff that people tend to let slide is... yeah, people can use that excuse to justify other behavior. A racist cop can use a broken tail light or a run stop sign to justify stopping a black guy, and that's super fucking sad and annoying that, as a black guy, you might have to be extra careful about shit white guys get away with.

But when you're consciously breaking the rules, a) you pays your money, you takes your chances and b) you don't jump up and down and rub it in the law/man/boss's face. You don't brag loudly about all the office supplies you stole while the boss is in the room. When a cop stops you for running a stop sign and asks what you're up to, you don't say, "Just came back from buying some primo chronic, officer." And you maybe, at the very least, coyly allude to having seen a workprint of the film while visiting a friend. In that case, yeah, they might come down on you for partaking, or to teach your friend a lesson, but you give them an out to look the other way. You've made it possible for them to look the other way.

If you don't. If you're REALLY stupid and flaunty about it, like this guy apparently is, you're kind of taking away the rule-enforcer's option to look the other way. You're daring them, and you're making it so the mid level dudes whose job it is to enforce this shit are in the position where they have to deliberately ignore your flaunting of their rules/policies/laws. If head-honcho guy gets wind of this, he basically has every right to go to otherwise sympathetic mid-level guy and be like, "Why the fuck aren't you doing your job. Do you your job or you're fired."

You've given them no other choice *but* to enforce a law/rule/etc that they otherwise might not bother to. If piracy were my big soapbox issue, I'd come down on him for the obvious or the subtle, sure. But as someone who (er, HYPOTHETICALLY) might "know" people who engage in this technically illegal, rule breaking activity, I know it's in the interest of the community to keep this shit on the down low. He went way in the other direction. In a hugely public way.

If he were more subtle, or at least given TPTB the option to ignore his rule-breaking behavior, I'd be more sympathetic. As it was, he forced their hand. And it's not hatred of piracy that makes me think his firing was perfectly justified, its my firm belief that if you choose to deliberately break the rules (however lame those rules might be) you need to at least do it in a semi-smart way, avoid it as much as possible in cases where the rules are super obvious and/or a sticking point for people who have direct control over you, and you need to not shove that rule breaking in the face of the enforcers.

Otherwise, you totally reap what you sow. YMMV.

Re: TLDR 2

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

The interesting piece to me is that this went up without any apparent (or competent) oversight. This isn't just one guy's failure. I wonder if he was blogging for the network or what because if this was this objectionable, someone should have caught it before it went out. And if they didn't, they should be in as much trouble as he.

So it's easy to target him--he did some fairly stupid-seeming shit in the public eye--but as a response, this is a little too convenient. And it still doesn't change the fact that, like porn/prostitution/etc., piracy is only busted as crime when it can serve a lesson. Doesn't change the fact that he broke the law, but he's far from the only one at fault and hardly anyone (again, besides Fox) cares. If anything, they should be focusing their efforts on busting the leaker--he/she would seem a much better target.

Re: TLDR 2

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

Not to play continual devils advocate, but I don't know if I agree with "And if they didn't, they should be in as much trouble as he." That smacks of pre-publishing censorship. As much as Fox Noise steers the direction of its reporting, I don't know if I like the idea of some higher ups of a journalist telling them what they can and can't write. If, after the fact, what he writes gets him in trouble, that's one thing, and he can fight over whether he had the right to write that info. But once you start enforcing these rules for the journalists and silencing them - especially if your problem is with the breaking of company policy or acting against the interests of the company as opposed to breaking laws, and I'm guessing that their problem was more that he was advocating breaking of a law that directly impacted his particular parent company, not a general law - you've got a really chilling effect.

I doubt that if he talked of smoking weed they'd have reacted this way, but I really don't like the idea of them censoring him. They gave him the rope, he hanged himself. And I'm not sure Piracy is only busted when it can serve a lesson. I think that's a factor, but I think Piracy is also a lot more likely to be busted if it's really flagrant and really public. Pass off dupes of this film to your non-industry-and-law-enforcement friends in private, you're probably okay. Pass out dupes in the open at, say, Comiccon under the noses of industry professionals, and the lesson teaching is a factor, but the flagrancy is also an issue.

Wave it in their face, and the face of the public and large, and they're forced to enforce the rule - because letting it slide as the might otherwise do is a public renunciation of their own rules, and an implicit approval of all breaking of said rule.

The fact that hardly anyone but Fox cares is a nonissue, I think. If you accept the premise that Pirating has at least *some* negative affect on the movie industry's bottom line (debatable, sure, but a not unreasonable assumption), then pretty no one *but* Fox is in the position to be damaged by piracy. Hardly anyone but the owners of public property that have to repaint it care much about graffiti, but that doesn't mean they don't have every right to enforce anti-graffiti laws. I'm sure they are focussing their efforts on the leaker, but it's not a zero sum game, and he/she was at least smart enough not to post on their company blog, from their company address, so they made themselves a hard target.

This guy made himself an unavoidable target, because if they didn't go after him bragging about breaking their rules while within their space, they basically would be making a tacit approval of an activity that directly harms them - even if it doesn't harm anyone else, and no one else cares.

Re: TLDR 2

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying this is an issue of censorship, only one of poor editing. As you've pointed out, if he'd been more circumspect in his review, he wouldn't have been in trouble. An editor's job is help out with that sort of thing--to recognize what is up to standard and what will just result in a lot of trouble for all involved.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I agree that leaking a movie early will actually help--if it's a good movie, and will hurt if it's bad. However, from what I've heard, this person's review was along the lines of "hey, it's great that I can get this movie for free before it comes out in theaters. I should do this more often." If his review was like that, he totally deserves to be fired on grounds of being an idiot.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Look above for the google-cached link. To me, he sounds at once too naive and too knowing about this to be so...stupid. Like, he makes it sound as though downloading is this new, awesome thing! But I dunno. If I read that at any other place, I'd assume it was snark. It is Fox "News" though, so they might actually be that far behind the times.

[ecmyers.livejournal.com]

I wonder if they would have been so upset if he had given the film an excellent review instead of panning it, but if he was really promoting illegal downloads, I can see them coming down on him. However, I think the site editor deserves as much blame, if not more, for approving the article in the first place.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think there was a lapse in leading here. It doesn't seem like anyone stopped and thought twice about this...

As to whether or not the pan drew the ire, maybe? I mean, it wouldn't have hurt the Wolverine box office if the reviews had been good. (If you follow my logic about pirates never paying.) There just aren't enough test cases of leaks where people were happy with it. Although some test audiences have mentioned mildly favorable reviews of Star Trek. Does that count?

[saikogrrl.livejournal.com]

Wow. How dumb was he to think he could flaunt his piracy (*of the corporation he was working for*) and get away with it?

It's like this article I read in the Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/web/social-notworking-facebook-snitches-cost-jobs/2009/04/08/1238869963400.html) of people getting fired for saying negative things about their work on Facebook.

I mean, everybody knows how public Facebook is. And you should never post something you wouldn't say to your boss's face, where your coworkers can read it. Really, people. Choose your outlets.

Although, there were some instances in that article which seemed a bit dodgy, like the comments they were fired for weren't even negative or damning...

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

I dunno about Oz, but in the US if you're not a Good Little Worker Bee who would never publicly admit to having any thoughts whatsoever about your employer, you're considered a risk, and best reduced as soon as possible.
It's part of why working here is awesome!!

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

No, Fox's definite be-all, end-all in the argument is that a journalist who gets paid to watch movies in theaters, for free, in advance, instead downloaded an illegal torrent off the internet (the film isn't even complete) and then reviewed it. It's an inescapable position: you cannot ignore what Friedman did and not be condoning piracy. Technically, it's even worse: it's a positive review, so they'd also be accused of letting him off the hook in the name of saving word of mouth.

I don't know what upside there would be for Friedman, but it is definitely possible that this is a fake spin story on the part of Fox. It a) is a positive review of the film (people who learn about this incident want to read Friedman's review, and as this blog thread evidences, it is findable), b) it shows Fox taking action against pirates, and c) it becomes bigger and more interesting than the movie leaking.

The honest truth is everyone does "illegal" things. I think he's a huge idiot for shouting it from the rooftops and thinking nothing was going to happen to him, but I saw the movie too. It's not reviewable. I watched it from a film-curiosity standpoint, because I knew going into it that it wasn't complete (it's 60% finished, or less), and I'll pay $10 to see the movie when it opens, and I'm not going to review that either. As a critic, I was probably more distracted that Friedman felt he could accurately review the movie. He probably can (I don't have much faith in Fox), but the final cut is 15 minutes longer, which could indicate any amount of the movie is significantly different (who knows how many reshot scenes took the place of scenes in the workprint), etc., and of course, even when I do see the movie, I'll be inclined to make comparisons, so as far as I'm concerned, I've given up my right to review it.

There's a point in there somewhere, but I'm really tired. In any case, Fox is dumb. It's possible the workprint leak is even staged too. It's gotten Wolverine more press than anything else Fox has done for it.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Interesting--a conspiracy? Fox seen to be scrambling hard to recover their stuff but really just making noise about it? How does it benefit them if this early cut is so reputedly awful? You suppose it's, as you say, a faux cut meant to make us glad of whatever they end up changing?

This may be my favorite sort of assumption about this yet. Because we can go back and forth over "Friedman broke the law and is an idiot" all day. But intrigue is so much more fun!