If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Gawker to Tarantino: "Good luck, I'm behind seven proxies"   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting, Quentin Tarantino, Gawker, Cayman Islands, Nick Denton, Gawker Media, foreign films  
•       •       •

8264 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:30 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 12:28:29 PM
Hypocrites
 
2014-02-20 12:47:25 PM
If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.
 
2014-02-20 12:54:20 PM
Out of court settlement, undisclosed terms, more clicks on Gawker, more ticket sales for Tarantino, Oscar for Taratino and some unheardof, rubbery statuette award for Gawker.
 
2014-02-20 12:56:56 PM
wow, what a derpy shiatstorm in  those comments.

/all taxes are theft, damn liebruls, etc.
 
2014-02-20 01:00:38 PM

mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.


THIS.

FTA:  "On this date, plaintiff gave an interview, which was widely reported in the media, to the effect that he had given copies of the script to certain individuals and that the script was now circulating publicly," says the brief. "

This is no different for the expectation of a nude picture to be sent out to a phone to have no privacy claims.  If something that was private goes to another party, there is no expectation of privacy UNLESS you've signed non-disclosure clause.

I'm no attorney but it would make sense.
 
2014-02-20 01:47:13 PM
Sounds like they're guilty to me.
 
2014-02-20 01:48:05 PM

mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.


Yeah, he should...sue Harry Knowles? Where are you going with this?
 
2014-02-20 01:49:29 PM
He should go after whomever gave it to Gawker.
 
2014-02-20 02:21:56 PM
I dont know the details of the case or who is in the right, but I hope Tarantino wins and the judge orders Gawker to be shut down forever.
 
2014-02-20 02:24:32 PM

HotWingConspiracy: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

Yeah, he should...sue Harry Knowles? Where are you going with this?


It is very hypocritical to publicly associate with a crack dealer, driving traffic to his crack peddling website, then complain when someone sells your daughter crack.
 
2014-02-20 02:29:53 PM
FTFA:  "GMGI has no operations or employees in California or elsewhere," says a motion to dismiss. "Rather, it is a Cayman Islands holding company. Its sole assets are equity securities in its subsidiaries, one of which is defendant Gawker Media, LLC. In short, GMGI does not publish anything, including without limitation the website found at www.gawker.com

Wow, gotta love that logic.  Gawker media doesn't publish Gawker?  OK then...  That's some pretzel thinking there.  While it may be technically (the best kind) & legally accurate, come on, now.
 
2014-02-20 02:29:54 PM
Oh, shiat. It's backtracing time.
 
2014-02-20 02:40:19 PM

mjbok: HotWingConspiracy: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

Yeah, he should...sue Harry Knowles? Where are you going with this?

It is very hypocritical to publicly associate with a crack dealer, driving traffic to his crack peddling website, then complain when someone sells your daughter crack.


I'd say that's a pretty terrible analogy. But regardless, even hypocrites are allowed to use the courts.
 
2014-02-20 02:51:34 PM

BalugaJoe: He should go after whomever gave it to Gawker.


Why?
 
2014-02-20 02:53:48 PM
"GMGI has no operations or employees in California or elsewhere," says a motion to dismiss. "Rather, it is a Cayman Islands holding company. Its sole assets are equity securities in its subsidiaries, one of which is defendant Gawker Media, LLC. In short, GMGI does not publish anything, including without limitation the website found at

I'm willing to bet that not a single Gawker/GMGI employee lives in the Cayman Islands and few, if any, have ever been there.
 
2014-02-20 02:57:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: mjbok: HotWingConspiracy: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

Yeah, he should...sue Harry Knowles? Where are you going with this?

It is very hypocritical to publicly associate with a crack dealer, driving traffic to his crack peddling website, then complain when someone sells your daughter crack.

I'd say that's a pretty terrible analogy. But regardless, even hypocrites are allowed to use the courts.


Okay here's a better one.  Someone who admits to using/watching bootlegs videos shouldn't piss and moan about copyright infringement.
 
2014-02-20 02:58:20 PM

Satanic_Hamster: "GMGI has no operations or employees in California or elsewhere," says a motion to dismiss. "Rather, it is a Cayman Islands holding company. Its sole assets are equity securities in its subsidiaries, one of which is defendant Gawker Media, LLC. In short, GMGI does not publish anything, including without limitation the website found at

I'm willing to bet that not a single Gawker/GMGI employee lives in the Cayman Islands and few, if any, have ever been there.


And?

GMGI is simply filing a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. They do not dispute that Gawker Media, LLC is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, just that GMGI should not be listed as a defendant.
 
2014-02-20 03:08:50 PM

BalugaJoe: He should go after whomever gave it to Gawker.


My understanding is that nobody gave it to Gawker. Someone told Gawker that it had been posted on scribd or something and Gawker posted a link to it.
 
2014-02-20 03:27:43 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And?

GMGI is simply filing a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. They do not dispute that Gawker Media, LLC is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, just that GMGI should not be listed as a defendant.


Oh, I'm not even addressing the validity of the lawsuit.

I'm just saying that their claims they have no employees in California may, in fact, be a crock.  Hate the way our law lets businesses bullshiat around with shell corporations.
 
2014-02-20 03:40:33 PM
Satanic_Hamster I'm willing to bet that not a single Gawker/GMGI employee lives in the Cayman Islands and few, if any, have ever been there.

Then they're missing out on a biatchin' sea turtle sanctuary...
 
2014-02-20 03:47:21 PM
But our federal government enforces protection from terrorist attacks with military aggression.  This clearly falls under that premise.
 
2014-02-20 03:55:33 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Out of court settlement, undisclosed terms, more clicks on Gawker, more ticket sales for Tarantino, Oscar for Taratino and some unheardof, rubbery statuette award for Gawker.


The AshPlugtm Award for screwing the director out of his royalties for 2014 goes to....GAWKER MAGAZINE!
 
2014-02-20 04:29:36 PM

squidgod2000: BalugaJoe: He should go after whomever gave it to Gawker.

My understanding is that nobody gave it to Gawker. Someone told Gawker that it had been posted on scribd or something and Gawker posted a link to it.


So it was posted in a public forum? No hacking required?  Isn't that the internet equivalent of leaving it on the subway?
 
2014-02-20 04:31:40 PM
I didn't pay attention and don't really care.  Why did publishing another of his violent odes to his childhood keep him from making another violent ode to his childhood?

Gawker's not saintly and their redesign sucks all kinds of mammalian ball sacks, but they've given me far more value than Tarantino ever did.

/Pulp Fiction was okay
/really I just like Lifehacker
 
2014-02-20 04:47:37 PM

DivorceWar Veteran: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

THIS.

FTA:  "On this date, plaintiff gave an interview, which was widely reported in the media, to the effect that he had given copies of the script to certain individuals and that the script was now circulating publicly," says the brief. "

This is no different for the expectation of a nude picture to be sent out to a phone to have no privacy claims.  If something that was private goes to another party, there is no expectation of privacy UNLESS you've signed non-disclosure clause.

I'm no attorney but it would make sense.


Copyright lawsuit != privacy lawsuit
 
2014-02-20 04:48:44 PM

Why Would I Read the Article: I dont know the details of the case or who is in the right, but I hope Tarantino wins and the judge orders Gawker to be shut down forever.

 
2014-02-20 05:02:05 PM
Hmm...well, I don't like Tarantino and I don't like Gawker.

Not really a downside to this.
 
2014-02-20 05:07:23 PM

Vertdang: wow, what a derpy shiatstorm in  those comments.

/all taxes are theft, damn liebruls, etc.


So, no different than every other website with comment sections?
 
2014-02-20 05:34:35 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-20 05:38:05 PM
But what about the consequences?! They said nothing about the consequeces! Will they be the same or different? Come on Gawker, we need to know!
 
2014-02-20 06:21:46 PM

mjbok: HotWingConspiracy: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

Yeah, he should...sue Harry Knowles? Where are you going with this?

It is very hypocritical to publicly associate with a crack dealer, driving traffic to his crack peddling website, then complain when someone sells your daughter crack.


What in the fark...
 
2014-02-20 06:54:57 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What in the fark...


It's far from a perfect analogy, but I think it's valid.  QT admits (brags about) his huge bootleg collection, and he has openly supported a website with a history of linking to screenplays as well as screenplay reviews of movies yet to be released(supporting the crack dealer).  When it is his script (his baby) that is being linked to he has a problem.  He supports the action in and of itself, but has a problem when the same action results in him being negatively impacted.

Removing debates about the quality of the art, no one sets out to make a bad film (even the guy who made The Room), so everyone should be afforded the same protection of their art, whether it be Pulp Fiction or Star Trek Nemesis.
 
2014-02-20 07:21:12 PM
Simpsons did it.
 
2014-02-20 07:29:34 PM

BalugaJoe: He should go after whomever gave it to Gawker.


No one gave it to Gawker.  That's their defense.  They never leaked or published it.  They just posted a story that was basically "The script leaked, here's some sites that are hosting it".  They didn't even link directly to the file, but to the page hosting the file.
 
2014-02-20 07:59:33 PM

somemoron: FTFA:  "GMGI has no operations or employees in California or elsewhere," says a motion to dismiss. "Rather, it is a Cayman Islands holding company. Its sole assets are equity securities in its subsidiaries, one of which is defendant Gawker Media, LLC. In short, GMGI does not publish anything, including without limitation the website found at www.gawker.com

Wow, gotta love that logic.  Gawker media doesn't publish Gawker?  OK then...  That's some pretzel thinking there.  While it may be technically (the best kind) & legally accurate, come on, now.


As long as it is technically correct (the best kind of correct) then they are home free.
 
2014-02-20 08:16:32 PM
www.jameyhoward.com

/oblig
 
2014-02-20 08:22:16 PM
Why would it matter if a Tarantino script leaked? I could just type a whole bunch of meaningless drivel and swear words and call it a Tarantino script. His movies are generally weird stuff. I doubt seriously written words would ruin how it is to be filmed.
 
2014-02-20 09:07:52 PM

JK8Fan: His movies are generally weird stuff.


They are, but he does work to put a lot of meaning and subtext into them. You couldn't duplicate a Tarantino script with mere drivel and swear words any more than you can match Finnegans Wake by randomly selecting and misspelling words out of the Oxford English Dictionary.

/Not that Tarantino is anywhere near Joyce's talent, just using the best example available
 
2014-02-20 11:05:41 PM
Gawker hired the girl that spread the Quentin toe-sucking story right after that happened. For those that don't know, this was a girl who sent out a mass e-mail being like 'tee-hee, I made out with Quentin Tarantino at some party because he was famous and I wanted to tell people about it. He's super gross and ugly but I tricked him into thinking I was into him, then he took me home and sucked on his toes. It was gross and he's gross. And his penis is gross. I slept over and in the morning I went on his computer when he was in the shower and now I have his email. GO ME!' He denies it, who knows what happened, but anyway, I think this is more over that plus the fact that it's basically a first draft and thus not really good enough you want people reading it yet unless it's to cast actors.
 
2014-02-20 11:07:45 PM
Er...he sucked on HER toes. Him taking her home and then sucking on his own toes would have been a quite different, but also weird story.
 
2014-02-21 12:56:13 AM

mjbok: HotWingConspiracy: mjbok: HotWingConspiracy: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

Yeah, he should...sue Harry Knowles? Where are you going with this?

It is very hypocritical to publicly associate with a crack dealer, driving traffic to his crack peddling website, then complain when someone sells your daughter crack.

I'd say that's a pretty terrible analogy. But regardless, even hypocrites are allowed to use the courts.

Okay here's a better one.  Someone who admits to using/watching bootlegs videos shouldn't piss and moan about copyright infringement.


To make your analogy correct, it would be "Someone who is friends with someone who admits to..."

It's not a direct hypocrisy, and it's a weak argument at best.
 
2014-02-21 03:54:06 AM
I'd rather read the back of cereal box than a Tarantino script - it would be more insightful and intelligent. The guy is an overrated hack.
 
2014-02-21 07:47:01 AM

JK8Fan: Why would it matter if a Tarantino script leaked? I could just type a whole bunch of meaningless drivel and swear words and call it a Tarantino script.


I'm lost as to why you don't do this, you could be wealthy by the end of the day.
 
2014-02-21 10:21:59 AM

mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.


There's a big difference (both legally and morally) between publishing a script review and publishing the script itself.
 
2014-02-21 10:37:07 AM

Dwight_Yeast: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

There's a big difference (both legally and morally) between publishing a script review and publishing the script itself.


Did you read what you quoted?

/yeah, links are not publishing
/that's what Gawker said
 
2014-02-21 11:16:04 AM

Far Cough: Dwight_Yeast: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

There's a big difference (both legally and morally) between publishing a script review and publishing the script itself.

Did you read what you quoted?

/yeah, links are not publishing
/that's what Gawker said


Whether Gawker "published" it or not.  My point still stands and my point was about Harry Knowles, not Gawker.
 
2014-02-21 11:21:23 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Far Cough: Dwight_Yeast: mjbok: If memory serves, Tarantino is friends with Harry Knowles, who made his name in doing script reviews of ill-gotten scripts.  I remember AICN linking to a copy of the Star Trek Nemesis script long before the movie was out.  Apparently it is okay to do this sort of stuff with others' art, but not his.

There's a big difference (both legally and morally) between publishing a script review and publishing the script itself.

Did you read what you quoted?

/yeah, links are not publishing
/that's what Gawker said

Whether Gawker "published" it or not.  My point still stands and my point was about Harry Knowles, not Gawker.


How in the ever loving fark does your point still stand??  You were trying to distinguish between publishing a review and publishing the source material.  The post you QUOTED said that IACN did BOTH things.  Just as Gawker did BOTH things.

It's still merely guilt by association re: Tarantino, but you made no point at all as far as I can see.
 
2014-02-21 11:48:39 AM
Gawker will win this.  You can't get sued for copyright infrigement because you link to something.  Gawker (smartly) never hosted the script; they merely linked to a site where somebody else had uploaded it.
 
2014-02-21 11:52:04 AM

Dwight_Yeast: There's a big difference (both legally and morally) between publishing a script review and publishing the script itself.


I agree.  And Gawker did not publish the script, they linked to it...much like AICN has in the past.
 
2014-02-21 12:53:48 PM

JK8Fan: Why would it matter if a Tarantino script leaked? I could just type a whole bunch of meaningless drivel and swear words and call it a Tarantino script. His movies are generally weird stuff. I doubt seriously written words would ruin how it is to be filmed.


You forgot the violence.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report