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 Tarantino had kept the script for his ensemble western The Hateful Eight unpublished, but someone obtained a copy and posted it online.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?
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.
That someone could consider hyper linking infringement or someone could consider gawker journalists.
Problem here is that Tarantino said he wouldn't make the movie since it leaked from some actor's agent, and that now that it was out, he didn't mind people reading it. So the movie has been reduced to a script, permanently, unless Tarantino changes his mind which seems unlikely.
The best news of all is that Tarantino canceled the movie.
" 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?
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.
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.
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.'