Ronald Goldman's Father Sues Pirate Bay Over OJ Simpson Book. Will He Sue Google Too?
from the your-bizarre-story-for-friday dept
It's really not all that surprising that when people first discover The Pirate Bay they think that it's responsible for the unauthorized content that people can find through it. However, at some point you would think they would take the time to understand what's really going on and how it's more of a search engine than anything else. Unfortunately, too many people seem to jump right to the "sue them!" stage. That's apparently what's happened with Fred Goldman, the father of Ronald Goldman, the guy who was killed along with O.J. Simpson's ex-wife years ago. Goldman won a civil lawsuit against Simpson, for which Simpson owes him millions of dollars. Since Simpson isn't paying, the court has been turning over various assets to Goldman, including the royalties from the bizarre "If I Did It," book that Simpson wrote. It's that book that's the problem. Apparently (and not surprisingly, for a best seller), someone scanned in the book and put up a torrent of it which can be found via The Pirate Bay. Goldman, of course, is blaming the site rather than whoever actually made it available and suing the Pirate Bay, claiming he's "lost" at least $150,000. That, of course, incorrectly assumes that the people who downloaded the book would have bought it in the first place (most of them wouldn't have) and that none of the people who downloaded it later bought the book to read it in the more convenient book form. No matter. It's more fun to just sue. Goldman tries to bolster his argument by pointing out that The Pirate Bay has big name advertisers on the site, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not the one who offered up the infringing content. Besides, if that's Goldman's criteria, why doesn't Goldman sue Google as well? After all, a simple search on Google shows that you can find the book there as well -- and there are advertisements right next to it as well.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: book, oj simpson, ronald goldman
Companies: pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who's telling the truth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You get Nothing! You Lose!
Good Day Sir
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hmm. It would appear that it's you who is having trouble understanding intellectual property here. There's a huge difference between *copying* content, where the original remains and *stealing* tangible goods where the original doesn't remain. We've pointed that out repeatedly and it seems rather silly to then go back and make a bizarre statement like the one you have here that clearly suggest that you don't understand the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: pixelm
And you apparently don't understand the difference between intellectual and physical property to use your furniture analogy. Since when could we make infinite, perfect copies of furniture for free? Your example is nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not "profit"
The idea behind damages is that the harm that one causes to another must be repaired. If you were to ever lose your child (or if you're a youngster, your parents), you'd likely lose a valuable part of your life. That lost life is extremely difficult to measure in money, but that's the only way the judicial system can repair the damage from the harm that another causes.
In this case, the idea is that OJ killed Ron Goldman, so he must repay the damage that he caused to Fred Goldman in order to make Fred Goldman whole again. Fred Goldman is not trying to turn the death of his child into a business, as you seem to coarsely characterize the situation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred Goldman
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's hardly a win if you don't receive anything for the win. A public shaming of OJ does not repair the damage that OJ caused to Fred Goldman. Goldman deserves the $33M damage award that he won from the civil case, and if this is what it takes to get it, so be it. Believe me, if OJ still had a substantial interest in the proceeds from the book, he'd be bringing a suit similar to this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Question
If he did so from the US, what would keep The Pirate Bay from simply not responding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I lost my daughter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pirate Bay should be enjoined
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who's telling the truth?
No book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I lost my daughter
the drunk did not serve time. yes I was angry and sued in
civil court I won a judgment ..less than 33m
anyway the defendant does not have any money and i will never
see a dime ,I knew I wouldn't but I was glad that he was found guilty, this was 15 yrs ago.
I have gone on with my life .. it seems to me the this
Mr. Goldman is trying to cash in on his son's death..
no amount of money is going to bring my Daughter back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Question
Goldman can sue Pirate Bay in the US if he can establish that Pirate bay has conducted business in the U.S. and that business is relevant to the harm that Pirate Bay has caused Goldman. This probably can be shown merely by Pirate Bay availing its website to the U.S. public in every state through the internet. Thus, Goldman can likely sue Pirate Bay in any state in the country.
If he did so from the US, what would keep The Pirate Bay from simply not responding.
The likelihood of a default judgment, requiring either money damages or an injunction. It would probably be difficult procuring money from Pirate Bay, but Goldman probably could enjoin Pirate Bay from allowing Pirate Bay from reaching U.S. internet lines. I think the latter would be far more damaging, considering Pirate Bay probably receives a substantial sum from its advertisers based on U.S. traffic to its site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Who's telling the truth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I lost my daughter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re: Re: I lost my daughter
I think you mean his daughter's death,
No, his son was Ron Goldman, who was killed by O.J.
The female that was killed was Nicole Brown-Simpson.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
U.S. law doesn't mean jack to Sweden.
We (the U.S) can't stop TPB and we can't stop online gambling because we don't control the Internet, in any sense of the word. Even our freshest carrots and sharpest sticks can't make the impossible happen.
Take a look at how well China is doing on their Internet censorship efforts. You think they don't have some sharp fellas working on that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On unenforcible law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Question
The Pirate bay does not conduct business in the US. All their servers are hosted off US-Soil and they have no company pretense or Employees in the US. They are subject to Swedish jurisdiction and it appears that what they're doing is not against Swedish law.
Having a website be reachable from a specific country does not mean you fall under that country's jurisdiction, otherwise pretty much every single website would be subject to the laws of every single country which would create an impossible situation.
Disabling access to a website for a whole country to a website is problematic at best. Basically the Federal Government would require ISPs to block access to the site and it would be a very simple matter to find proxies and work-arounds. It would also create an undue burden on a lot of parties that are in no way responsible for or party to a civil copyright infringement matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have a theory...
Here goes: if the U.S. government blocked Pirate Bay, millions of people would cry out in horror, and their voices would suddenly be silenced. Regardless of intent, the government would be seen as censoring people, just like the government of China censors its citizens...hmmm.
Also, it would encourage people to use encryption to thwart these techniques (Tor comes to mind, but is a bit leaky). Hey, maybe if more people started using Tor, then the writers would get their act together and block the leaks. No matter, the net effect would be that a vast number of people would move from the relatively un-encrypted web-protocols to encrypted pipes. This would make the job of wide-spread government surveillance much harder.
Well, that's my theory. As for the whole Goldman saga: Simpson owes Goldman millions of dollars, so naturally, the way forward is to sue Pirate Bay for $150,000? No, something isn't right there. Just what is Goldman's problem, anyway? Simpson has houses, he has money, he has a Heismann Trophy, FFS. If he can't get a million dollar's for OJ's Heismann, he isn't trying very hard, is he?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So Sweden is an "illegitimate" country, huh? You're sounding a little loony there.
And now you're lying. TPB does not and has not offered movies for download. Just what kind of shill are you anyway?
A court already has decided the issue. Oh wait, you think Sweden is an "illegitimate" country though don't you? What is inappropriate is lawmakers that accept bribes and roll over for special interests like the RIAA and MPAA. Of course you guys think that is the way government is supposed to work and anything else is "illegitimate".
There you go lying again. Did you really think no one would call you on it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fred Goldman
I want to see you crawl back out of Fred's ass first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pirate Bay should be enjoined
I doubt a court would do that since it would be illegal. Go read the US DMCA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Who's telling the truth?
Well gee, I guess anything is possible, heh? Do you have anything to back up your conjecture or are you just a troll?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
same dirt
to me, he is no difference than oj, trying to make money from murder of kins.
the difference? oj actually trying to reap what he sow, while this freaking monster is a parasite ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suprise Suprise Suprise!!!!
Any sympathy for Goldman losing a son went out the window a view years back when we all realized the guy lost a screw along the way (and no that is NOT an incestuous remark).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
devil incarnate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Stealing is not just limited to the removal of a tangible good. The lost of monetary income due to the misappropriation of an item can constitute stealing. I don't understand how you can say, these people would not have bought it anyway so it doesn't count. The value is in the content as you have pointed out so very often. If that is indeed true, getting the content when you have no right to it, is indeed stealing because you have the content, which has the value.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Suprise Suprise Suprise!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who gave him this advice?
The only way to go after them is with something like the RICO act and get their US based advertisers on conspiracy, because that is a criminal organization they are contributing to (under US law anyway it is). They could try to bleed them dry by scaring off advertisers.
I heard they make between $40,000 and $60,000 a MONTH by trafficking in other peoples stolen material. I don't think Goldman has a chance, but they PB guys are saying screw you to all the people who make that content while laughing all the way to the bank. Sooner or later something will get them, or someone here will get the laws there revised to allow it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, that is simply not true. It may infringe, but it is not stealing. Once again, to the Supreme Court we go:
"Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
I don't understand how you can say, these people would not have bought it anyway so it doesn't count.
I'm not saying it doesn't count, but it is not theft. And, if you are going to try to add up those "losses" then you should also be required to add in the promotional value of such content as well.
The value is in the content as you have pointed out so very often. If that is indeed true, getting the content when you have no right to it, is indeed stealing because you have the content, which has the value.
What do I point out so very often? I think you may be confusing me for someone else. I point out that the content, by itself, will be priced at zero in a competitive market. I do point out that the content can be priced above zero when combined with something that is not scarce, but you seem to be confusing value and price -- which are two entirely different things.
Even if we take your assumption that content has value by itself, that still doesn't make it stealing, because the original creator still has the content as well. Nothing is lost. The only thing that has happened is a copy has been made. That's not stealing. If I "copy" the car that you have, have I stolen it from you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I lost my daughter
That being said, Goldman is an asshat for suing Pirate Bay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I lost my daughter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who gave him this advice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course not, the car does not hold the value, the ability to transport me is the value.
"Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft,"
The key is easily equate, that does not mean that it does not, it means there is a different standard that needs to be applied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am not a coward!! and neither is O.J. a murderer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To Ron Goldmen Sr
I hope some day you and your family can find peace.
I pray for you. Shalom Charles
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Fred Goldman
I am right with you. Don't let anything or anybody get to you. You lost your innocent son, to a very ill man, and you deserve to get any closure you deserve. I'm cheering you on. These other people don't understand obviously. I'm sure if they lost a loved one, they would feel differently. It's easy to judge but it's not you that deserves the judging. GOD will do that. GOD BLESS YOU. Susie H.
[ link to this | view in thread ]