Slashdot Mirror
Quentin Tarantino Vs. Gawker: When Is Linking Illegal For Journalists?
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Jon Healey writes in the LA Times that a new lawsuit against the Gawker Media site Defamer for linking to an infringing copy of an unreleased screenplay should send chills down the spines of every reporter who writes about copyright issues. Tarantino had kept the script for his ensemble western The Hateful Eight unpublished, but someone obtained a copy and posted it online. In its piece, Defamer quoted only a brief excerpt and a short summary published earlier that day by the Wrap. But it also included two links to the leaked screenplay on a file-sharing site called AnonFiles. In a complaint filed in federal court in Los Angeles, Tarantino's lawyers say they repeatedly asked Gawker Media to remove the links, to no avail. John Cook, Gawker's editor, responded with a post that rebuts the complaint's most damaging allegations, saying Defamer had no involvement whatsoever in the leak or the script's posting online. Cook also quotes Tarantino's comments last week to Deadline Hollywood, in which the filmmaker said he likes having his work online for people to read and review. 'Reporters often assume that providing links to items of public interest is perfectly aboveboard, even if the items themselves aren't. If this case goes to trial, it could help clarify what links simply can't be published legally, regardless of the news value,' writes Healey. 'I'm not arguing that what Gawker did was legal — that's a judge's decision. I'm just saying that there's a journalistic reason for Gawker to do what it did, and those of us who write about copyrights struggle often with the question of how to report what seems newsworthy without crossing a line that's drawn case by case.'"
who started this idea that a hyperlink is infringement?
What the pirates over at TPB are saying. Find those comments here:
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent...
when it's illegal for everyone else. presumably. there is no special law for journalists. very few journalists kicked up a fuss when Joe public was losing his house because hr linked to copyrighted material. but now that one of their own is in the firing line its a big deal? fuck journalists. where were they when the content mafia took over the nation?
It definitely shouldn't be illegal to report on the script being leaked, but I can't see how it being legal to link to the leaked copy would work. That'd make it easy to have a "news" website that reports on all the newest music, TV, and movie leaks...by providing links to all of them. Honestly, though, having that be legal wouldn't bother me. There just needs to be some consistency. If my hypothetical news site would be illegal, then it should be illegal for Gawker too.
I'll go grab a copy.
Linking is not a crime, download is not a crime. Distributing without authorization is a crime. Find the people who leaked it, there at fault.
That said; I wonder how many scenes contain close ups of feet?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Linking is one of the biggest legal dilemmas of modern days. In no Western country has a clear line been drawn when is linking illegal and when not when the content the link leads to is illegal.
Sometimes the fact whether the link is clickable or not also carries weight.
From what I gather this is a civil issue. Not a criminal issue. Would you post links to Google maps pointing people to houses in your neighbourhood that are not locked? Sure there is some vague journalistic value to posting such links... but there is also an issue of responsibility.
Tarantino's lawyers are arguing that it wasn't available online - until Gawker offered to pay anyone who leaked a copy.
It's not illegal to report a murder. It is illegal to say, "I'll pay $10,000 for the exclusive story for the person who kills my wife."
IANAL and I've no idea whether that analogy holds true for copyright but it's apparently the angle Tarantino's lawyers are pursuing - that it's not the linking so much as the linking to an act they solicited.
...giving away your source. If it's something illegal, there's absolutely no reason to do it. It's unprofessional.
This is the sort of case that needs to be appealed to the Supreme Court instead of being settled, because there's plenty of uncertainty in prior court precedent as to whether linking to infringing content is itself an infringement (particularly with reference to DMCA takedown requests).
And then afterwards, Tarantino could write and direct a new movie about the case, which would probably include Ruth Bader Ginsburg mowing down hordes of zombie attorneys in slow motion with an M249.
It's a more complicated issue than it may seem without serious contemplation. If linking infringing material is permissible, while hosting said material is not permissible, what is to prevent, let's say, Gawker, from uploading some infringing material to some server (in a way that is not traceable), and then linking to it? They would obviously profit from it, and would not face any potential downside. I'm not arguing for one side or the other, just pointing out that it may not be a black and white issue.
That someone could consider hyper linking infringement or someone could consider gawker journalists.
Now everybody spoiler-happy dude will go read the leaked screenplay. The Tarantino effect is just like the Streisand effect, but bloodier...
The fact that someone actually questioned the ethics of Gawker is kind of funny. I thought everyone just knew the were the bottom feeders of bad journalism.
" I'm just saying that there's a journalistic reason for Gawker to do what it did"
Err...what "journalistic reason" could there possibly be for offering a ransom for an illegal activity, then publishing the results of that activity, for the sole purpose of generating adview/click revenue? Aside from gawker not even having any journalistic content, what in the world is the "journalistic reason" for that?
Now that said, I think there's a moral/ethical reason for creators to willingly do it - and somewhat for the consumers to share it even if it is against the will of the one who created it - but that's because I'm a biased open society guy, and a complete nutjob. I can't though, in all my madness, envision a world/perspective/banana in which there is a "journalistic reason" for this. Someone help me here?
Tarantino was his usual take-my-ball-and-go-home self about the leak.
He shared the script with a small circle of people, mostly Tarantino regulars (Madsen, Roth), but included the agents of a few people, including Bruce Dern's and Reggie Hudlin's. He pretty much blames someone at CAA for leaking it, and wanted a name on a platter; not getting one, he promised to shelf the film as some sort of punishment.
Regardless of the quality of the web site/newspaper, if the people running it had no fiduciary duty to protect the stock price of this or that studio, I don't think he has a leg to stand on legally.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
This is why you should always add unique watermarks to each copy of any document that you don't want people to see, so you'll be able to decode the watermark and figure out who leaked it (aka the person you can sue for breach of contract).
Mr. Tarantino appears to be new to this thing called 'the Internet'.
He should probably call up his friend Barbara Streisand and ask her how it works!
Is this the kind of screenplay that can be readily adapted to a stage play?
So this lawsuit is 100% without merit, period.
Too bad, so sad, and all the rest.
Let us know when you join the rest of us in the real world please.
How would cite an online source? Hyperlinks...!
You've got it backwards. DMCA applies very much to content added by the webmaster. DMCA specifies how a web hosting company ought to respond to complaints of copyright infringement in their servers / datacenter. Some sites with user-generated content have argued that they are effectively hosting the user content.
If the web host follows the procedure, they are immune from claims of contributory infringement and the like. The process is:
Copyright owner sends a sworn notice to the host, specifying exactly which content is theirs (infringing).
Web host chchecks that the NOTICE complies with the law - it's properly signed, etc.
Web host informs the webmaster and temporarily blocks the content.
The webmaster may reply saying it's not infringing.
DMCA specifies this counter-notice should be signed, etc.
Web host puts the content back upon receipt of proper counter-notice.
Copyright owner could sue in federal court to try to get it taken down again.
Webmaster can sue if the original notice is bogus.
Unfortunately, many people aren't well informed about the counter notice and their right to sue someone who files a bogus notice.
Note that the web host does not make any judgement as to whether the claim is valid. They have no discretion about taking it down temporarily and putting it back up when they receive a notice under DMCA. Their only decision is whether or not they've actually received a DMCA notice. For example, "Slashdot stole my shit" is not a notice under DMCA. A good friend of mine, and long time customer, won a suit on the basis that the alleged DMCA notice was not in fact a proper notice under DMCA because it didn't specify exactly what was claimed to be infringing.
Imagine stolenmovies.com charges $5 / month for access. Within the protected member's area of stolenmovies.com, members see a Netflix style interface where they can browse and search for movies. When you actually click "play" to play a movie, it plays a short commercial, then redirects to http://randomhackedmachine.ru/...
In that case, stolenmovie.com would be infringing, criminal infringement even. Since the site infringes, one could use a DMCA notice to have it shut down for a day or two.
On the other hand, say CNN.com does a news story about Justin Boober dancing in the street with three strippers. CNN links to a YouTube page which embeds a video of this newsworthy event. That video turns out to be infringing. (modulo fair use) because it was uploaded without the videographers permission. The news story is not infringing.
There are several factors that are different. It largely comes down to intent. Stolenmovies.com is blatantly trying to unfairly profit from other people's work. CNN is covering the news. Both link to an infringing work, but for different reasons, with different intent. CNN's position would be even stronger if they were non-profit. It would be weaker if they KNEW that the video was infringing.
it rocks the boat.
No, not your little crappy dingy you people reading this are stuck in.
I am talking about the 1200ft Yacht over there.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The best movies I know all come from a book. And most readers are usually the ones who want to see what the book gives on screen (eg LOTR). Thus saying "if the story leaks in a book, nobody will go see it in a theater" is wrong. So, does such leak have a bad impact on the movie success is yet to be proven. With all the media publicity it created (like /.), the leak is probably not so bad for QT (besides, one may wonder why it took Tarantino a week to sue the guy...).
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
What baffles me is how Gawker would think to do this and expect their advertisers not to care. Why would a movie or game company give them any money after they've shown they're willing provide easy links to copyrighted material? Whether or not linking is illegal, advertisers are under no obligation continue supporting them. I sure as hell wouldn't pay to have a banner ad for some peice of media next to a link to a torrent or rapidshare link.
In this case, the web site "quoted a brief excerpt and a short summary". So they not only linked to the material - they had a (partial) copy of it as well.
Fair use - as in a movie review - does not apply here, since it is not a published work. So, link or not, Defamer/Gawker are guilty of copyright infringement.
Because advertisers are the absolute last people who are going to complain about someone distributing their ads for free....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
1. Gawker somehow got hold of a copy of the screenplay and linked to it.
2. Tarantino asked them to remove the link.
3. Gawker refused.
So there's still a disagreement, and so Tarantino went to the courts. This is what courts are for, people. Resolving disputes between parties that haven't been able to sort things out among themselves.
"First they came for the grandmothers with unsecured WiFi..."
Stolenmovies.com is blatantly trying to unfairly profit from other people's work.
CNN is covering the news.
Same difference or has CNN become a charity http://www.google.com/finance?q=TWX ?
gawker shouldn't have linked to the script, there was no journalistic reason for it.. What's next, writing an article about childporn and then link to a gazillion sites with childporn? get real.. journalists shouldn't act like they are so naive, links to the real scripts will attract more readers, it has nothing to do with journalism, and everything to do with advertisment/money...
So there's an article containing a link to a page on another site, which contains a link to a file which contains computer readable instructions which, when run on a separate special program, negotiates with peers the downloading of parts of a file which contains different computer readable instructions which that program can use to negotiate with yet more peers the downloading of the parts of a file containing, in this case, copyright material distributed without authorisation.
Seems straight forward enough. What's their problem?
Not like this is the first time, I'm suprised that nobody has mentioned Barret Brown yet.
http://freebarrettbrown.org/issues/
TL;DR The hacker magazine 2600 was prohibited from posting links to sites that hosted code for DeCSS, decrypting DVDs. The prohibition was upheld on appeal.
http://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html
'The Court's injunction barred the Defendants from: "posting on any Internet web site" DeCSS; "in any other way . . . offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS"; violating the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA in any other manner, and finally "knowingly linking any Internet web site operated by them to any other web site containing DeCSS, or knowingly maintaining any such link, for the purpose of disseminating DeCSS." Universal II, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 346-47.'
Webmaster can sue if the original notice is bogus.
Bzzt. Wrong.
DMCA take-downs are required to be made "in good faith", it is perjury if they are not. Beyond that, there is zero requirement that they be correct. As long as the DMCA sender asserts that they "believed" their claim to be valid and the judge agrees then that's the end of the road, does not matter how much time and money they cost you dealing with their transparent bullshit. This is one the many problems with the DMCA, beyond the fact that it even exists.
Yet another example of the very sad state of technical knowhow among the unwashed masses (yes, QT is a technical neophite unwashed mass member).
From the unwashed masses point of view, a "link" is "right there on the site". I can "click it" and "get the stuff". So therefore, the site must be the infringer.
No idea that the link actually says: "if this is what you want, then turn around, go down 5 blocks, turn right, go 6 more blocks, turn left, then go 7 blocks, turn right, enter the store in front of you, ask the counter person for item "xyz-pdq".
Technically inept idiots.....
What they are saying is Gawker's actions harmed the plaintiff. It's a civil suit, not a criminal trial.
Whether the existence of this leak odes harm the movie is up to Tarantino to prove. However if it does, then Gawker knew, or should have realised that the leak was an unofficial leak, that linking to it will result in more people going there.
This whole "it's only a link" argument is irrelevant unless gawker didn't realise what they were linking to.
It may surprise you to learn this, but "bogus" is not a legal term. "In good faith" is. DMCA provides for ADDITIONAL liability if the notice is not in good faith. Meaning, it gives you an additional ground for suit for large values of bogus. DMCA does not undo other grounds such as tortious inference.
If the notice is very bogus, knowingly false, you can sue directly under DMCA itself. If the claim is less bogus, recklessly false, you can sue under tortious interference or a half dozen other grounds.
Which it doesnt.
However, it does abet infringement.
Exactly!
The word of the day is: Abet
And precedent has been set, several times, that abetting infringement is not tolerated by the court. Gawker will lose and Tarrentino will make bank on an unpublished manuscript!
I'm sure the freetards will be beside themselves with confusion as their psychotic hero acts against their favorite "cause".
I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. This is the same company that paid for a stolen iPhone prototype and published a breakdown of its contents before Apple had even announced the device.
That sounds like MegaUpload... Hi Kim!
Obviously this could never happen, because the video from stolenmovies.com would have the evil bit set per RFC3514. Duh.
Yes indeed. I thought of Megaupload while writing about it. For some reason people get emotional about that case and have strong opinions, whether because they enjoy getting the content without paying those who produce it or for whatever reason. Apart from whatever else can be said about Megaupload, Kim bragged about getting rich by screwing over the production companies. He made it very clear that his goal and intent was make a bunch of money from copyright infringement, so it's a pretty clear case in that respect.
The courts have distinguished a site built for the purpose of facilitating copyright infringement vs another purpose, such as "help people find everything on the internet". They've ruled that "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" is a purpose that's useful to society, even though "the world's information" includes some infringing infringing resources.
I love the way you ignore that CNN is a major for-profit corporation (with ads even!). I see no difference in those cases.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> I love the way you ignore that CNN is a major for-profit corporation
Not that it's all that relevant, but in fact I said "CNN's position would be even stronger if they were non-profit".
Did you miss that part?
> I see no difference in those cases.
The law does. The law is that an action (including building a site) for the purpose of profiting from infringement is different from an action undertaken for the purpose of covering the news. Come to think of it, that's a pretty darn good one-sentence summary of "fair use". If you have any interest in copyright at all, you might find the concept interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
DMCA specifies how a web hosting company ought to respond to complaints of copyright infringement
More precisely, DMCA, a law passed by Congress, allows infringement of freedom of the press, which Congress may pass no law infringing by the explicit text of the 1st Amendment.
If Congress needs the authority to infringe freedom of the press, the only ethical and legal way to do this is by means of first passing an amendment negating the 1st Amendment in whole or part. Anything else creates a contradiction in the legal system between the explicit text of the 1st Amendment, and the reality of what legal professionals are attempting to do with the DMCA.
Contradictions in the legal system inherently embody unethical practice of law, since -- as they make the legal system harder for non-legal professionals to understand -- contradictions create an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals.
The right to ethical practice of law is certainly a fundamental right retained by the people, and thus protected under the 9th Amendment. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when possible.
Rights retained by the people being retained by the people, no court can alter this, for if a court could, the rights would no longer be retained - a contradiction.
In short, the DMCA is illegal, and any lawyer enforcing it is engaging in unethical practice of law, and a violation of the oath that lawyer has sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights.
Third house on the Left.
Is directing people to a known crackhouse illegal? No.
Is directing people to a known crackhouse facilitating use of and buying of crack? No.
All you did was give directions to somone, and what they do from hence forth is their own business and nothing to do with me.