Roger Friedman Sues News Corp, Blames Them For Wolverine Leak

Published 6 years ago by , Updated February 23rd, 2014 at 12:33 pm,

x men origins wolverine Roger Friedman Sues News Corp, Blames Them For Wolverine Leak

Do you remember that rant I went on back in April about the Wolverine online movie leak and later in a subsequent article, when I wrote about Roger Friedman, who worked for a subsidiary of News Corp called Fox 411 for over 10 years, who had reviewed the online work copy of Wolverine and bragged about the ease of how he could abscond with the illegal print.  In fact, he bragged about how he could get a copy of any of the present box-office top-10 films from the Internet.

He was subsequently fired for his part in the process of seemingly supporting this act of copyright infringement.

Me personally, I’m not sure I’d brag about snagging something my own bosses created, but that’s old-school me. Now, Friedman is now firing back with a $5 million lawsuit.

He claims his contract was violated when he was let go after his April 2nd review of the bootleg movie.

He claims he was told that after his review was pulled, that he didn’t need to worry about his $250k a year job.  Alas, that was not to be.

Friedman was let go, and News Corp stated that it had “zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy.”

Friedman is saying that News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch invalidated their zero tolerance policy by allowing the inadvertent online release of the film.

According to Friedman’s lawyer, Martin Garbus, Murdoch had asked the studio to make him a copy of the unfinished movie and it seemed that during that process, someone made another copy for themselves.

So things aren’t as clear cut as they may seem and I am a wee bit surprised that Murdoch may actually have been part of the process that caused this whole shindig.  If that’s accurate.

I guess as time moves on, we’ll discover all the nitty gritty of this situation.  Wouldn’t that be a hoot if Murdoch really was part of this mess?

Sources:  Variety, Deadline Hollywood Daily

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

41 Comments - Comments are closed.

  1. Ken J, you seem to want to focus on the suit or claim as you call it. That’s a minor point in my overall comment. I’m explaining a bigger picture. One that bores you because you find it conspiracy based…

  2. I am just pointing a few things out about your argument. What, I’m not allowed to do that? Frankly, I can care less who’s a d-bag or who did what, my point is simply that in your so-called “argument” you include several things that really don’t prove anything at all. But you’ve stressed them anyhow. But instead of providing some kind of argument against this fact, you’re just going to keep playing dodge ball. It’s ok, you can cancel out those two aspects that I’ve pointed out and you’ve still made other points, focus on those for your argument. But they are points I really don’t care to prove or disprove since I am not siding with either one of those idiots, they can both be guilty for all I care… Heck, I’m willing to bet that is the REAL truth, lol.

  3. Ken J, this is the last time I’m going to explain it to you,,,
    My so-called-argument, is an attempt to point out how NewsCorp/Murdoch “possibly conspired, IMO” to leak an unfinished copy of Wolverine online a week before the films release.
    Followed by using the piracy issue to publicly fire an employee for reviewing the film, citing it as a strict example of no tolerance… (Quickly taking the publics attention away from the actual leak…)
    This in turn ends up generating huge box office numbers for Wolverine and propells Representatives and Senators (who are clearly in the back pockets of Media Giants) to begin looking into ways to stop online piracy.
    Leading us back to Murdoch who clearly has a motive and now an obvious agenda (IMO) in having this copy get leaked online…
    Rick Boucher (Democrat from Virgina) Chairman of the House Subcommittee, (btw) is already drafting up legislation that will restrict all intellectual copyrighted material online(.) This type of legislation “if passed”, will impact all blogging sites like Screen Rant, /Film, even News home pages like “Drudge Report” and “Variety.”
    Look into Murdochs past comments on what he feels about the World Wide Web and its freedoms. He wants it taken down and restricted…
    Do you think I’m making this stuff up based on something Art Bell said last night on Coast to Coast Am ???

    Or rather let’s forget about that stuff Ken, and continue to argue about Friedman’s “claim” and the fact that I have absolutely no proof if he’s telling the truth or not?
    A factor that has “zero” to do with my overall point even if he’s involved…

  4. You get back to me Ken J, when you get a clue…

    Until then don’t try to start arguments with me, you will loose everytime.

  5. Hey, don’t call me loose, I don’t sleep around! lol :-D

    Anyway, again, you’re missing the point, as usual. I DON’T CARE about any of that, I’m MERELY pointing out that it was pretty pointless to try to use those two aspects to further your argument. I’m not going against your argument, because like I’ve already said several times in several different ways, I don’t really give a rat’s ass! How much simpler do I need to make it? Believe what you want, I really can care less if it’s true or not. I’m not being sarcastic, seriously, believe what you want, it can be true, it can be false, I really don’t care. But just for your own education, using someone’s claim in a court case is pointless because it means NOTHING, and the fact that someone would sue after getting terminated also means nothing, so no point wasting your time even bringing those things up. I’m trying to HELP you streamline your argument by cutting out the fat! That’s all I’m saying, didn’t think it would evoke an argument because both points are so surprisingly obvious I thought it was a “duh, thanks cpt obvious” moment but I guess not…

    Ah, you know what, as usual, forget about it…

  6. Wow I guess if you throw enough crap on the wall some of it will stick ah Ken J…
    Again your argument is totally babble…
    Nice work… Wow keep it up. Lol ;-)

  7. OMG, there goes the “your argument” business again… Geez 790, I know I really shouldn’t even bother to try to explain because it’s POINTLESS to try, but can’t you understand that there is no “argument” against yours?? I’m NOT CONTESTING what you said for the last freakin time! I made two simple and obvious points, and did not even TOUCH or even pretend to make an “argument” against what you’ve said, because, LIKE I’VE SAID LIKE FIVE TIMES ALREADY, I don’t CARE if Murdoch is part of some bigger scheme or not. I REALLY don’t, I don’t know him, don’t care to know him, and don’t care to defend him either. He can go suck on it for all I care…

    Wow, do you get it now? Please say you do, pleeeaaassssseeeee…. I know it makes it more exciting if someone’s actively trying to disprove your argument, but doesn’t mean that’s what’s going on everytime someone says anything in reply to your posts, seriously… Unfortunately I don’ care if what you said is true or not, I really don’t… wow, I think I’ve said that like 15 times already, or at least it feels like it…

    Dammit, I need to just stick with the “forget about it” and just ignore any more comments… Probably be for the better… It’s worked before… :-D

  8. Like all your pathetic arguments KEN J, you started it… Sorry if you can’t take a joke !!!
    I’ll be here to shove that down your bandwidth my friend. Lol, ;-)

  9. Apologize for what now? Lol, did I miss a joke? You know what they say, if you have to explain it… hahaha :-D

    Although I do hate missing out on a good joke… Should I ask???

  10. And there goes the “argument” thing, haha, guess you still don’t get it. Nevermind, forget about it. I’m going to stick with it this time. Forget about it. :-) *thumbs up*

  11. Ken J, just quit while you think your ahead. You sound/type like a mental patient…

  12. OK, I’m closing this thread.