Tarantino's Hateful Eight is canned

[Reverend]

^Why would he need an excuse? Even if that were the case it's not like he need to justify his decisions beyond "I'm not feeling this, let's go with something else."

As for the Django script, as you said, he released it himself because he wanted to. His script, his choice. In this case he wanted it kept under wraps and someone leaked it. Again, his script, his choice. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[JWPlatt]

^Why would he need an excuse? Even if that were the case it's not like he need to justify his decisions beyond "I'm not feeling this, let's go with something else."

As for the Django script, as you said, he released it himself because he wanted to. His script, his choice. In this case he wanted it kept under wraps and someone leaked it. Again, his script, his choice. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

That is EXACTLY what I was going to write until I saw your post. Agreed 100%. Common sense like this should really go without saying, but apparently needs saying anyway.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Here's a snarky take on the lawsuit from a lawyer involved in litigation that set some of the relevant precedents.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, not knowing much about this area of law, I tentatively agree. I also agree wholeheartedly about the amateurishness of the brief. I hate briefs that blow up the rhetoric in a way that seems targeted more at the public than the court but is also too cumbersome to be an effective advocacy tool to the public.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I do think he has a case in terms of contributory infringement. There's absolutely no reason for Gawker to link directly to infringing material. Hacker magazine 2600 was smacked down for merely linking to DeCSS source code. If you knowingly (possibly even unknowingly) provide links to infringing material, you may be liable for contributory infringement.