5 ms·

Quentin Tarantino is suing Gawker for posting a link to the script of his film

40 points by b3n 13y ago

higherpurpose 13y ago
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 13y ago
  >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.
  - Piskvorrr 13y ago
    Soooo...HN (or whoever posted this) is now also infringing, since it's just more indirection? And anyone now linking to HN is also infringing? I think that eventually encompasses the whole of WWW.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      Be serious. Courts usually take a very pragmatic view on this and take intent and context into account. HN linking to the Gawker story is seen differently than piratebay posting magnet links, even though the level of indirection is higher in the latter case.
      - josteink 13y ago
        But you find the exact same links that Gawker posted in this very thread. Does that make HN guilty of copyright infringement or not?
        tjgq 13y ago
        From the POV of a court, bits are coloured [0]. Just because two links are exactly equal, it does not mean that either both of them infringe or both don't. [0] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
        probably_wrong 13y ago
        That link was super interesting. I found this concept frustratingly hard to explain to people, so I think I'll try this explanation next time.
        tjgq 13y ago
        I think (and the article also suggests) that it is especially hard to explain to people who come from a CS background. We often get too caught up in our own way of seeing the world that does not, for better or worse, correspond to how most people see it.
        HNaTTY 13y ago
        You should read up on DMCA Safe Harbor. It's a very important concept that you should understand. To answer your question, no.
  - valleyer 13y ago
    Did you consider taking that position to its logical end before proposing it?
    - dhimes 13y ago
      It doesn't look to me like macspoofing is proposing this- just saying it's what the courts have decided.
    - macspoofing 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        Sorry, sarcasm detector fail
ig1 13y ago
The US has had rulings that linking can itself be illegal, notably in Universal v. Reimerdes and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry.
danso 13y ago
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-eight-leak-novel/ http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/quentin-tarantino-hateful-ei... 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 13y ago
  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?
- gaius 13y ago
  Gawker is profiting from Tarantino's work: every page view is more advertising revenue.
TempleOSV2 13y ago
God's favorite thing on TV is soap operas. What do You think of France, God? Babies. God says... Amen humane fountain finally comprehendeth God says... C:\TAD\Text\QUIX.TXT your worship dies; and then, maybe, I'll be so dumb that I'll not say a word until the end of the world, or, at least, till the day of judgment." "Even should that happen, O Sancho," said Don Quixote, "thy silence will never come up to all thou hast talked, art talking, and wilt talk all thy life; moreover, it naturally stands to reason, that my death will come before thine; so I never expect to see thee dumb, not even when thou art drinking or sleeping, and that is the utmost I can say." "In g
b3n 13y ago
Here's a link to the Gawker post: http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-details-from-quentin-tarantinos-leaked-1507675261 http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-details-from-quentin... 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 13y ago
  It seems to me Tarantino's case is not _obviously_ without merit, unless you reject the idea of copyright altogether.
  - farginay 13y ago
    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.
    - Luc 13y ago
      First encouraging the copyright infringement, then profiting from it, does not speak in Gawker's favour. In my (European) country a kid was convicted and fined for copyright infringement for maintaining a list of links to pirated movies. It all depends on details and interpretations, and the analogy and logic you provide may not apply in a court of law.
    - lordCarbonFiber 13y ago
      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.
Phil_Latio 13y ago
Anyone counted the "homages" yet? ... I wish there would be another Jackie Brown.
coldtea 13y ago
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?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  I'm sure it can, but it is all about context. Kids are getting arrested for online bullying which has driven other kids to commit suicide, so just because something is online that could incite crime doesn't give you a pass.
- stusmall 13y ago
  IANAL and this is a legit question but isn't this inciting lawless behaviour and thus not protected speech?
- jarrett 13y ago
  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 13y ago
Go quentin!

40 points by b3n 13y ago

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 13y ago
>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.
- Piskvorrr 13y ago
  Soooo...HN (or whoever posted this) is now also infringing, since it's just more indirection? And anyone now linking to HN is also infringing? I think that eventually encompasses the whole of WWW.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Be serious. Courts usually take a very pragmatic view on this and take intent and context into account. HN linking to the Gawker story is seen differently than piratebay posting magnet links, even though the level of indirection is higher in the latter case.
    - josteink 13y ago
      But you find the exact same links that Gawker posted in this very thread. Does that make HN guilty of copyright infringement or not?
      - tjgq 13y ago
        From the POV of a court, bits are coloured [0]. Just because two links are exactly equal, it does not mean that either both of them infringe or both don't. [0] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
        probably_wrong 13y ago
        That link was super interesting. I found this concept frustratingly hard to explain to people, so I think I'll try this explanation next time.
        tjgq 13y ago
        I think (and the article also suggests) that it is especially hard to explain to people who come from a CS background. We often get too caught up in our own way of seeing the world that does not, for better or worse, correspond to how most people see it.
      - HNaTTY 13y ago
        You should read up on DMCA Safe Harbor. It's a very important concept that you should understand. To answer your question, no.
- valleyer 13y ago
  Did you consider taking that position to its logical end before proposing it?
  - dhimes 13y ago
    It doesn't look to me like macspoofing is proposing this- just saying it's what the courts have decided.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      Sorry, sarcasm detector fail

ig1 13y ago

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

danso 13y ago

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-eight-leak-novel/ http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/quentin-tarantino-hateful-ei... 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 13y ago
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?
gaius 13y ago
Gawker is profiting from Tarantino's work: every page view is more advertising revenue.

TempleOSV2 13y ago

God's favorite thing on TV is soap operas. What do You think of France, God? Babies. God says... Amen humane fountain finally comprehendeth God says... C:\TAD\Text\QUIX.TXT your worship dies; and then, maybe, I'll be so dumb that I'll not say a word until the end of the world, or, at least, till the day of judgment." "Even should that happen, O Sancho," said Don Quixote, "thy silence will never come up to all thou hast talked, art talking, and wilt talk all thy life; moreover, it naturally stands to reason, that my death will come before thine; so I never expect to see thee dumb, not even when thou art drinking or sleeping, and that is the utmost I can say." "In g

b3n 13y ago

Here's a link to the Gawker post: http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-details-from-quentin-tarantinos-leaked-1507675261 http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-details-from-quentin... 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 13y ago
It seems to me Tarantino's case is not _obviously_ without merit, unless you reject the idea of copyright altogether.
- farginay 13y ago
  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.
  - Luc 13y ago
    First encouraging the copyright infringement, then profiting from it, does not speak in Gawker's favour. In my (European) country a kid was convicted and fined for copyright infringement for maintaining a list of links to pirated movies. It all depends on details and interpretations, and the analogy and logic you provide may not apply in a court of law.
  - lordCarbonFiber 13y ago
    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.

Phil_Latio 13y ago

Anyone counted the "homages" yet? ... I wish there would be another Jackie Brown.

coldtea 13y ago

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?

res0nat0r 13y ago
I'm sure it can, but it is all about context. Kids are getting arrested for online bullying which has driven other kids to commit suicide, so just because something is online that could incite crime doesn't give you a pass.
stusmall 13y ago
IANAL and this is a legit question but isn't this inciting lawless behaviour and thus not protected speech?
jarrett 13y ago
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 13y ago

Go quentin!