
Quentin Tarantino is suing Gawker for posting a link to the script of his film - b3n
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25923343
======
b3n
Here's a link to the Gawker post: [http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-
details-from-quentin...](http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-details-from-
quentin-tarantinos-leaked-1507675261)

and in case it gets taken down, here is the script they link to:
[https://anonfiles.com/file/ba77fe6f664d451a4725fbcca0846f67](https://anonfiles.com/file/ba77fe6f664d451a4725fbcca0846f67)

I'm glad to see Gawker fighting this instead of being intimidated by
Tarantino's lawyers.

~~~
Luc
It seems to me Tarantino's case is not _obviously_ without merit, unless you
reject the idea of copyright altogether.

~~~
farginay
I'm still not sure what the legal rationale is for treating link publication
as copyright violation. When you publish a link, you are not copying anything,
the person following the link is.

By analogy, a person who told people that Tarantino's script was under a box
behind a grocery store would be violating copyright.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
I think the biggest deal is the profit aspect of the situation. If there was a
person earning money for every person that he tells where Tarantino's script
(in some fashion analogous to Gawker's add revenue from site hits) is your
analogy sounds a lot worse. Publishing that link wasn't any kind of public
service, they were using Tarantino's unreleased work to make a profit and he
has grounds to sue for that.

~~~
farginay
But is it illegal, or is this simply a civil thing?

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
As the law stands it looks like it is illegal
([http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)
section 3 subsection D [or search for link]). It looks like the linker is only
protected if they don't have knowledge that the link is infringement and
doesn't receive any financial benefit from the action.

------
ig1
The US has had rulings that linking can itself be illegal, notably in
Universal v. Reimerdes and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

------
danso
The lawsuit is without merit, but it's a bummer that QT is considering
dropping the film altogether:

[http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/quentin-tarantino-hateful-
ei...](http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/quentin-tarantino-hateful-eight-leak-
novel/)

It sounds like a good concept, and hopefully a better homage to spaghetti
Westerns than Django was. I think it's amusingly ironic that he knows for sure
that Tim Roth isn't the betrayer, given Roth's history with QT (mild spoiler).

Also worth noting in that Deadline piece: the agency that QT accuses of
dispersing the script counters that QT did not do the basic precautionary step
of watermarking the script, implying that QT _wanted_ it to be leaked without
repercussion (suing Gawker is definitely a way to bring notoriety to the
project, though QT has enough notoriety to not resort to stunts)

~~~
pc86
Personally I don't see how referencing Roth's history with QT is a spoiler,
but isn't it kind of assumed that you should warn of a spoiler _before_ the
reader has already, you know... read it?

------
Phil_Latio
Anyone counted the "homages" yet? ...

I wish there would be another Jackie Brown.

------
higherpurpose
I love this because it should decide once and for all whether _linking_ to
"infringing content" is actually a crime or not. Right now it's already being
treated like one, so the downside can't be any worse. But the upside could be
that MPAA & friends can't get away with using DMCA to takedown _links_ to
infringing content anymore, which means Google will be able to reject all the
mass-takedown of links in its search engine, too.

~~~
macspoofing
>I love this because it should decide once and for all whether linking to
"infringing content" is actually a crime or not.

That's already been decided, multitudes of times over many cases. Adding
indirection to infringing material does not shield you from liability.

~~~
valleyer
Did you consider taking that position to its logical end before proposing it?

~~~
macspoofing
Why should I? Courts don't. As I wrote in another post, courts have a more
pragmatic view than you give them credit for and take intent and context into
account. This is why torrent files and magnet links and other levels of
indirection won't shield piratebay and other such sites from liability, and
also why HN linking to a Gawker story (which links to copyrighted material)
isn't going to cause problems for HN.

~~~
valleyer
Sorry, sarcasm detector fail

------
coldtea
Though experiment: if someone writes on his blog, "this guy's house is at this
address, and he has valuables there you can get", can he be sued?

~~~
jarrett
As another reply said, context is everything. To elaborate:

If you phrase it exactly as you said, I can imagine a lawsuit being
successful. The comment--specifically, the phrase "you can get"\--evidences a
reckless disregard for the possible consequences. Arguably, a break-in is a
reasonably foreseeable consequence. One might even argue that the commenter
_intended_ to cause a break-in.

I suspect there could be multiple theories of liability here, with all or most
being torts. Naturally, the available causes of action would be a function of
whether anybody acted on the suggestion and broke into the house.

On the other hand, if you phrased it differently, you _might_ be safe. For
example, it seems grossly unjust to punish expression along the lines of:
"John Smith is internationally famous for the extensive Picasso collection in
his home gallery." Almost any fact could conceivably be abused in the wrong
hands. If a speaker were unconditionally liable for any subsequent abuse of
his/her speech, regardless of the character or intent of the speech, nearly
all factual speech would entail extremely burdensome legal risks.

So what determines whether a public comment about someone's valuables is
actionable? Again, context. What did you say about the valuables? (Did you
suggest stealing them?) Where was the comment published? (Was it on a burglary
forum?) What was said elsewhere in the same article or conversation? (Was it
part of a discussion about how to become a better burglar?) These are not
necessarily the only factors. They're just examples of the types of factors a
court might consider.

Check out Eugene Volokh's excellent article on this fascinating topic:

[http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf)

------
jezfromfuture
Go quentin!

