Althouse: "Gawker Media has made a business of predatory journalism, violating people's rights to make a buck."

January 27, 2014

"Gawker Media has made a business of predatory journalism, violating people's rights to make a buck."

"This time, they went too far. Rather than merely publishing a news story reporting that Plaintiff's screenplay may have been circulating in Hollywood without his permission, Gawker Media crossed the journalistic line by promoting itself to the public as the first source to read the entire Screenplay illegally."

That's the language of the complaint filed in federal court by Quentin Tarantino.

People's rights to make a buck. That's pithy.

32 comments:

chickelit said...: Vox populi!; 1/27/14, 2:32 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Pox Gaucili!; 1/27/14, 2:37 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: People's right to be stupid, with dumbed-down weed brains or not, and consider I don't consider ultra-cultivated THC weed unless I'm dumbed-down to do so by pressure from society, pressure which I support in theory but not practice, results in living in ultra-arctic environs.

It is stupid to cause so much energy to be expended by living in high energy areas compared to more comfortable terrains unless you completely disregard Global Warming psychosis.; 1/27/14, 2:42 PM
Revenant said...: Since all Gawker did was mention where the script could be found, Tarantino hasn't got a leg to stand on.; 1/27/14, 2:52 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: They linked directly to the script.; 1/27/14, 2:54 PM
Hagar said...: But did he build that?; 1/27/14, 2:57 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: That Southern man or person you adhere to in your mind for purposes here, might just be emitting fewer carbon emissions than other more prominent people talking about carbon fucking reduction.

If so, we must note the disparity.

If not, racist.

What is the average carbon emission per race?

Why don't we know this?

Hmmm?

Whites emit carbon unprecedented and don't want to admit it, unless it becomes their religion ala Gore.; 1/27/14, 2:58 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Just so I am not misunderstood, which I don't allow for, when above I wrote "It is" by God I meant it.

I didn't meant "It was" or something else variating.; 1/27/14, 3:11 PM
jr565 said...: Freeman Hunt wrote:
They linked directly to the script.

Hmmm,that does make it a lot worse. I'm wondering if he actually has a case then.; 1/27/14, 3:14 PM
AustinRoth said...: I see a successful SLAPP-back here.; 1/27/14, 3:17 PM
jr565 said...: THe only thing I might question is whether a script for a movie that has yet to be made is the same as a completed movie that is protected by copyright.; 1/27/14, 3:20 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: A script is copyrighted from the moment of its creation.; 1/27/14, 3:21 PM
jr565 said...: THen, yeah, if they linked to the actual script I'd imagine they'll at least get a cease and desist letter.; 1/27/14, 3:23 PM
chickelit said...: THe only thing I might question is whether a script for a movie that has yet to be made is the same as a completed movie that is protected by copyright.

Analogous to whether something has rights after conception but before reduction to practice...I think the answer is yes.; 1/27/14, 3:23 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: It seems they did get those letters and ignored them. They're trading on his stolen work to gain more traffic and revenue.; 1/27/14, 3:24 PM
jr565 said...: Could I make the movie using his script that I see online without getting approval from him first? If not, then why should a company be allowed to profit from leaking of said script, again without approval. They are profiting by getting traffic to their website to view this script. Using his script as a means to increase their circulation.; 1/27/14, 3:25 PM
jr565 said...: Very Aaron Schwartz of Gawker. Maybe he should fight fire with fire by making a website that links to all of the editors on Gawker's personal info. Bank accounts, credit card info.
He'd just be providing a link.; 1/27/14, 3:27 PM
lgv said...: Pithy indeed. Can one "read .... illegally"? Is the copyright infringement by Gawker for posting the manuscript? Is a copyright violation to download it? Even if one doesn't read it? If I read it after downloading, is that the illegal act, "illegal reading"? How much of it do I have to read for it to be illegal? Is it the one word rule?

I need help on the whole legal argument. Help me.; 1/27/14, 3:28 PM
Rocketeer said...: A script is copyrighted from the moment of its creation.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Until it takes it's first breath on the big screen, it's just a clump of pixels.; 1/27/14, 3:35 PM
Jaq said...: I think the whole problem with the "right to make a buck" argument is that gawker could make the same claim.; 1/27/14, 3:42 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Hitchens, C., once wrote "No no fuck you" and for than I respect the Hell outta him.

He did what he did, call the individual person Ron Reagan, President of the United States of America, a lizard.

He did it.

I've done shit.

All good from here on out.; 1/27/14, 3:44 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: If your day of birth was the same as Mozart you'd know it too.

Narcissseeset

Heh I can't even spelll it so's I ain't; 1/27/14, 3:45 PM
Jaq said...: I am pretty sure, just based on the title, that the "Hateful Eight" (H8FUL8?) is a sequel to the Magnificent Seven, but turned into a PC revenge fantasy and ahistorical morality play, building on the two previous in the series, Inglorious Basterds and Django, moving to treatment of Mexicans by Americans, probably. I like QT's movies, but I hope, if he is making another of these revenge for history's crimes movies, it is the third in a trilogy and he is done with it.; 1/27/14, 3:49 PM
Jaq said...: I guess Kill Bill 1 and 2 were revenge fantasies too.

So was Deathproof...

Pulp Fiction certainly touched on the theme of going "medieval" on the cracker gun shop owners, but you can't say that was what the movie was about like the others.; 1/27/14, 3:54 PM
KCFleming said...: Gawker o Tarantino; ¿Quién es más repelente?; 1/27/14, 4:07 PM
Diamondhead said...: "I think the whole problem with the "right to make a buck" argument is that gawker could make the same claim."

How dare Wal-Mart interfere with my right to make a buck by selling TVs I stole from them?!; 1/27/14, 4:09 PM
Diamondhead said...: Without knowing the law, I would think the better argument is that Gawker didn't interfere with his right to make a buck since in all likelihood if Tarantino wants to make the film he will be able to. From an artistic point of view, I can understand his not wanting to make a film using a script that's already been read by a couple million people.; 1/27/14, 4:14 PM
Scott M said...: I wonder if any of the characters in that screenplay die. I wonder, if so, whether or not that character who dies will be killed with a gun of some kind. I wonder, if so, whether or not that character who dies, killed by a firearm of some kind, will give Quentin Tarantino pause when he advocates for gun control, or whether he'll just continue killing his characters with guns of some kind.; 1/27/14, 4:28 PM
cubanbob said...: A script is copyrighted from the moment of its creation."

Not so fast. The key here is statutory damages since they won't be able to prove actual damages. And since the work wasn't published the statutory damages are lot less for an unpublished work than for a published work.; 1/27/14, 4:48 PM
JackWayne said...: Tarantino is right to be pissed at someone stealing his script. Too bad it wasn't Snowden so then we could have a discussion about what a hero he is. But I am grateful that the plug has been pulled on another lousy Tarantino movie..........; 1/27/14, 8:15 PM
Laura said...: Mr. Tarantino,

The copier is not your friend. See "The Devil Wears Prada," regarding advance copies of novels.

Sincerely,
An underpaid office assistant with interview pending at Gawker; 1/28/14, 12:06 AM
SeanF said...: To both Ann and Tim in Vermont, I'm pretty sure you're misreading that quote. "To make a buck" modifies "violating", not "people's rights."

In other words, Gawker is violating people's rights, and they're doing it solely so they (Gawker) can make a buck.

He's not talking about anybody's right to make a buck.; 1/28/14, 8:25 AM