If Gawker hosted the content themselves, they would justly go after Gawker. But when the content is hosted elsewhere, why don't they go after the host instead of Gawker?
It's because they attack the thing with the loudest voice (and deepest pocket) rather than the person or website actually hosting the infringing content. That's why they complain about Google.
Their thinking is that there's a mainstream that supposed to be responsible and business like and share amongst each other and ignore the rest of the internet. Movie studios will do business with a mainstream site like Netflix and an Apple, and everyone else is an infringer.
This is why it's hard for new businesses and startups, and why we always end up with only 4-5 sites where all the content is located. The only way to play in their game is to bring a LOT of money to the table and play by the rules they dictate.
I might add that the MPAA and RIAA have often put out lists of websites that host infringing content. That's far worse than what Gawker did.
It's so easy to find a script for just about any movie made in Hollywood - and it doesn't affect the market in any way because there are ridiculously few people who want to actually sit down and read a screenplay, and most who do will want to see the movie afterwards.
All it does is bruise the egos of people who think what they're doing is so important that it must be kept secret, and Tarantino has never lacked ego.
I'm in the same boat. Going without watching TV has not only eliminated nearly all commercial advertising from my life, but has enabled me to discover all sorts of other things to be interested in. I don't miss it one bit.
The 1923 date has nothing to do with the quality of sound recordings and everything to do with the founding of Warner Brothers (1923), MGM (1924), and Disney (1923).
The 1976 law was all about protecting the output of the major movie studios, and unfortunately every other form of creative expression from a photograph to a poem to a sound recording got lumped in with them, whether the creator wanted copyright protection or not.
So the solution for someone that doesn't want to pay for cable is get new friends?
And wouldn't it be nice to discuss it with your friends, rather than avoid a conversation that they all might like to talk about? The social value is the impetus behind a lot of television's popularity.
The point here is that restricting access to content only drives more piracy. People who want to watch it but can't will find a way, and wouldn't it be better for HBO offered a way where they made some income. A lot of people would be happy to pay, but not at the price of getting HBO.
Netflix has current stuff, but it doesn't have much major Hollywood blockbuster stuff - which is what most people want to see because Hollywood has convinced them that it's somehow important to see it.
I'm perfectly happy browsing through the hundreds of movies in my Netflix queue and there's a vast wide world of movies out there to explore.