What Polanski has done is worse and Hollywood keeps working with him and giving him (undeserved) awards.
We can question whether a person of his record should be eligible for Academy Awards at all, but if you were referring specifically to "the Pianist", then you are wrong.
It's the perennial debate about art and the artist. Polanski is a horrible man, but he makes good films quite regularly. Woody Allen is a horrible man, but he makes good films as well (once or twice every decade or so.) Does a work of art cease to be appreciable simply because of who made it?
That's the kicker. Somebody like Cosby can't get away with it, because he is light entertainment: without the "friendly" image, the whole gimmick collapses (see Rolf Harris); but people who make things a bit deeper can escape as flawed geniuses or whatever.
I don't think Weinstein will get away with it. Historically people like him would get away scot-free (Louis B Meyer being the classic monstrous predator), but if your main skill is procuring capital and talent and you have access to neither, you're effectively useless.
Not to mention Cosby was supposed to be a role-model of sorts.
Polanski and Weinstein never had that on them, and in the case of Polanski, his work was out there to begin with.
The logic's the same logic Trump got by on against everyone else.
