It's not even that there are ethical reasons people in Hollywood don't steal scripts. The reasons are practical: if your script is good, it's going to cost me a lot less to pay you for it than it would cost to pay some other more established writer's quote to develop a new script from the same premise.
Which is oddly similar to the buy vs. pirate internal debate I have seen several people go though on hard to find content.
EX: Underworld did not use any of white wolf's IP. There was a negotiation, but in the end the studio 'went in another direction' that just happened to look the same as if they had used their IP.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/15641336/ns/today-entertainmen...
http://artherworldblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-u-s-supr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-34211...
So... the question is; are you a liar or just ignorant?
a. I didn't downvote you. I don't meet the karma requirement, and even if I had the karma, downvoting is for "mean and/or stupid comments." The comment I'm now replying to qualifies. Your original comment did not.
b. You were right that Hollywood has a reputation for stealing a script if they like it. What isn't true is that Hollywood actually steals scripts.
I'll give you a comparable example: Catholic priests. Catholic priests have a reputation for molesting children. But what percentage of Catholic priests actually does so? How does that percentage compare to the percentage of molesters in the rest of the population?
Follow that down the rabbit hole and you'll see the problem with your hasty generalization.
Now, to your links:
1. Sounds like a legitimate claim. The lawyer saying "screenplays are stolen all the time in Hollywood," on the other hand, does not. That's just a lawyer posturing in the interests of his client for media coverage. I've followed many similar suits. The vast majority of them are completely bogus.
2. This one is a lot of FUD. You can't get around copyright by "simply tweaking a few details." The actual standard is a "sufficient degree of similarity." That's why, if the first article is accurate (not a given) and Reed Martin isn't stretching the truth in his explanation of the similarities, he has a good case. Without hearing more about the "stolen" version of Rounders, we can't say whether Jeff Grosso isn't just paranoid. Most likely the similarities between the two boil down to "guys playing poker," give or take. Maybe he should sue the creators of 21, Shade, et al., too?
3. The Supreme Court declined to hear a case, as they do with most of the cases that come their way. There's no support for your claim here.
4. It isn't at all clear from this case that any theft took place. What is clear is that there were sufficient similarities that the studio should have paid Buchwald regardless.
5. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp Nope.
If hearing all this makes you angry, I recommend going for a jog. It's better for your health than fuming at the keyboard.
But this is what matters when it comes to the way people will try to sell their scripts. If hollywood has a rep (true or not) for stealing scripts then people will be wary.
>Follow that down the rabbit hole and you'll see the problem with your hasty generalization.
Which? I said they have a rep for stealing scripts. They clearly do. The majority of what they make these days is also sequels and remakes, which calls into question if they have any creativity and adding to the perseption that anything original they make is likely stolen.
As for the articles, I literally did a search for "hollywood steal scripts" or some such and dumped in the first five. Clearly theft is happening at least somewhat and clearly they have a rep for it (deserved or not).
