Here's a link to the Gawker post: <a href="http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-details-from-quentin-tarantinos-leaked-1507675261" rel="nofollow">http://defamer.gawker.com/here-are-plot-details-from-quentin...</a><p>and in case it gets taken down, here is the script they link to: <a href="https://anonfiles.com/file/ba77fe6f664d451a4725fbcca0846f67" rel="nofollow">https://anonfiles.com/file/ba77fe6f664d451a4725fbcca0846f67</a><p>I'm glad to see Gawker fighting this instead of being intimidated by Tarantino's lawyers.
The lawsuit is without merit, but it's a bummer that QT is considering dropping the film altogether:<p><a href="http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/quentin-tarantino-hateful-eight-leak-novel/" rel="nofollow">http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/quentin-tarantino-hateful-ei...</a><p>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).<p>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 <i>wanted</i> 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)
I love this because it should decide once and for all whether <i>linking</i> 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 <i>links</i> to infringing content anymore, which means Google will be able to reject all the mass-takedown of links in its search engine, too.
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?