• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, April 6, 2009

When the final Harry Potter book leaked before its official release date, reviewers from The New York Times and The Baltimore Sun independently obtained copies and reviewed the book days before it officially went on sale.

The publisher wasn't happy, but few people seriously argued that the newspapers shouldn't have printed the reviews. After all, news organizations aren't obliged to run their stories on any particular timetable.

Now, a similar scenario is playing out online -- but has left the reviewer facing repercussions. Last week, a version of Twentieth Century Fox's upcoming "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" leaked online. Fox News freelancer Roger Friedman downloaded a copy and gave it a rave review in his Fox News Web column "Fox 411."

But movie producer Twentieth Century Fox wasn't happy. The studio felt Friedman's column promoted piracy and fired him, Nikki Finke reported. (This morning, rumors swirled that Friedman's actual status was still undecided.)

If Fox did in fact fire Friedman, doing so was a really dumb move. Pretending piracy doesn't exist won't end it. Not only is "Wolverine" out there, but it's been downloaded around 1 million times.

What's more, the review is the kind of piece that can make Fox News more relevant to readers, not less. It draws attention and traffic -- supposedly what all news organizations want.

Besides, Friedman isn't the only film critic with a Web connection. Does Fox really believe that rivals -- either in the mainstream media or blogosphere -- will also eschew the film and await the studio-sanctioned release? If other critics hadn't thought to review the pirated version before, they certainly will consider doing so now.

Friedman also enthused about the ease of downloading in his column. "It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer. ... It's so much easier than going out in the rain!"

Obviously, Friedman isn't the only person to make this observation. Many people find downloading preferable to going to a theater -- just as others prefer viewing movies on a large screen. Acknowledging that fact has to be part of any honest discussion of movie piracy.

Copyright questions aside, even a mere threat to fire Friedman sends a chilling message to other Fox reviewers. If Friedman can be axed for disloyalty for calling attention to a pirated film, what will happen to the critic who pans a Fox Film release?

Taking a stand against bootleggers is one thing. But going after a film critic only discourages people from taking the company's news operations seriously.