+1 more lawsuit filed against Pirate B-ay - HAHAHA
 

I love seeing this.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/...s_ topstories



Fred Goldman didn't fight that hard for the rights to If I Did It just to let pirates plunder his returns.

The embattled patriarch is suing The Pirate Bay, a file-sharing Website based in Sweden that he alleges has cost him at least $150,000 in royalties by offering free downloads of the hypothetical tell-all which details from O.J. Simpson's point of view how the ex-NFL great would have gone about killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.

According to the lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Goldman's attorneys sent cease-and-desist letters to Pirate Bay operators, but the communiqués were for the most part ignored.

The defendants indicated they believe that "they are not subject to the laws of the United States," the complaint reads. However, it's American advertisers such as Wal-Mart, Target and the Wall Street Journal that enable such a site to exist, the plaintiff alleges.

Goldman is looking to recoup any lost profits, 90 percent of which would belong to him, as per a previous court ruling that diverts the remaining percentage to the bankruptcy trust that took over the shell corporation Simpson set up to hang on to his book royalties.

"Ron Goldman LLC will never be able to stop these pirates from posting that book online, but they can do that in the poorhouse," Goldman attorney David Cook told reporters.

If I Did It became a bestseller in September, despite it being the very same book that prompted so much bad press last year that News Corp.-owned HarperCollins scuttled the project and fired publisher Judith Regan.

Except for the fact that the tome, put out by Beaufort Books, now boasts an afterward by famed celebrity trial analyst and Vanity Fair columnist Dominick Dunne, and that the "If" on the cover is in much smaller print than the rest of the title.

As soon as it was reported that Simpson had received somewhere in the vicinity of an $800,000 advance from ReganBooks, the Goldmans seized what they viewed as another opportunity to finally collect on the $33.5 million wrongful death judgment awarded to them and Nicole's family in 1997.

Simpson was acquitted of the murders in 1995 but a civil jury found him liable.

Although they may never get close to collecting their $19 million share of the judgment, which now amounts to almost $39 million with interest, the Goldmans have claimed a few small victories in their efforts to squeeze the Juice over the years.

An auction of some of Simpson's possessions, including the Heisman Trophy he won playing for USC, netted about $500,000, although Goldman has said that the sum went entirely toward legal expenses.

Earlier this year, a judge ordered Simpson to start turning over all of his Screen Actors Guild residuals from past movie and TV appearances to the Goldmans and, soon after, the family scored the rights to If I Did It.

The Goldmans have also laid claim to the sports memorabilia recovered from the alleged September heist that has Simpson facing armed robbery charges in Las Vegas (a turn of events that hasn't exactly displeased the Goldman clan).

If it turns out that the items belong to Simpson, as he claims they do, then the memorabilia could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.

"When all is said and done, my son on the night of June 12, 1994, made a choice to stand and fight and didn't run away. And we're not going to run away," Goldman told the Associated Press recently when asked what motivates him to keep fighting Simpson after all these years. "It wouldn't serve to honor Ron's memory to walk away and pretend like it never happened."



Keep piling them on, bury them in legal fees. There is no way in hell they are making that much money to afford to defend all of these high profile suits.

Keep em coming. I think the best thing people can do is find people's shit on these sites and inform them. Let them do the work.

This is gonna be great. More and more people with REAL money are going after these thiefs.

Go after the advertisers is the vibe I'm getting from this. Thats what needs to be done. Cut the money and those sites go bye bye.

I don't think they have any legal fees. They are not breaking any of the laws in there country.

Cutting off the advertisers is probably the best approach although there will always be someone willing to pay at the end of the day. Sure the fortune 500's will eventually drop, but someone else will always spring up.
WG

I agree going after advertisers is the best way and if the advertisers get hit hard enough it might deter other advertisers taking there spot

you can't just "not respond" to a lawsuit... right or wrong, guilty/not guilty.

Wherever there is someone offering millions of impressions per month, there will be a willing advertiser. Simple as that.
Even if (hypothetically) PirateBay would shut down, you can be assured that the next one is just around the corner. It's not going to stop, just going to get more sophisticated.
My suggestion: Let the ones that have the cash burn it by chasing them down, use your time to get innovative and bypass PirateBay and others.

ep

Is this action being filed in the United States or in Sweden or wherever PB is located?

Something in my gut really expects some company to find some very poor third world citizen who would give their life in order to have their family taken care of. That would strap a bomb to their chest and pay the owners a visit.

Ya that itself may be a little out there. Yet on the flipside lets say some ma and pa porn company is about to loose everything they own and can no longer make any sales cause the second they put up some new content its on pirate bay. Would not seem to far fetched for some guy at wits end to pay them a visit, pop a cap in someones skull and then turn the gun on himself assuming he has a insurance policy where the suicide clause has ran its time course.

So basically you're advocating blowing people with human bombs to stop things happening in other countries that you disagree with, even if they're legal there.

Now I know what you're thinking. Some might say the logical course of action would be to work towards changing the laws to be more in line with international standards.

Not you though, violence is the answer. You have any interest in organized religion? There's one I'm thinking of that sounds taylor made for you! :winkwink:

Hell no I am not advocating it.
I fully understand that it is legal there and I feel that it is fucked up but oh well and I deal with that. Typically I have found if you ask nicely they often will take your shit down.

It was just a thought that has entered my head and a potential possibility I could forsee considering so many others feel violence is the answer when all else fals.

That is common sense.

Did you hear of ValueClick?

Well luckily for many on this board most people tend not to think this way.

I mean, imagine if some stressed out father at his wit's end found his innocent 18 year old covered in cum on some interracial gangbang site and decided that legal or not he's going to do something about it.

already been down that road when shooting. someone I shot got a new boyfriend, I could only assume lies spread about why she was on the web. Next thing I know I have some wackjob at my house in the early AM cutting every phone line, electricty line, cable line, etc that he could find and peeking in the windows. I happened to be away that morning. My pole mounted cameras (no easy to spot cams with no easy to spot electrical lines) caught it all. He was also packing a pistol. Needless to say it sent a shiver down my spine and I made my 2257 location a different building from that point on.

Yeah that's some pretty crazy shit.

What did ValueClick do / announce?
WG

tick toc tick toc

hollywood has money and money lobbys laws in ALL countries. watch the bureaucracy work as hollywood loses more and more money and the us gov sees their share go bye bye. laws will change.

tick toc tick toc.

It doesn't work that way in Sweden or in Europe in general. Swedish laws that protect PB can?t be changed that easily and money can?t buy politicians like they do in USA.

Sure you can, depending on where you live.

If they win in court and hold advertisers accountable. I dont think anyone will advertise because someone will eventually be suing them and they have precedent.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What fantasy country is this :winkwink:

Another lawsuit and tpb's popularity keeps rising http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr...ratebay.org?q= im sure they sit laughing at it all tbh and will be around for a long time to come, they are Swedish so why should they give in to U.S law?

Sweden...and thats why the bay is still up and running .

honestly this is only making their site more popular

people read the story about how xyz is suing pirate bay because they are giving away abc content
and thousands of people who had no idea about the site go over there to get the free content.

the more stupid content producers continue to try and get a foreign company to obey US laws the more popular the pirate bay gets.

it like that chadlaw lawyer here who was trying to claim the berne convention required foreign companies comply with DMCA notifications when all it does is recognize the validity for the laws where the copyright protection is claimed .

" states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied"

you should be suing them in sweden the problem is that there is no contributory infringement in sweden and the torrent file does not include any of the copyrighted material.

They have spend millions of dollar to have it shut down

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bw3HNTRpP-I

Additionally, they need to enforce the criminal aspect of it. If they are within juristiction, start charging some of these execs.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
§ 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. ?
(1) In general. ? Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed ?

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence. ? For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. ? In this subsection, the term ?work being prepared for commercial distribution? means ?

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution ?

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture ?

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b) Forfeiture and Destruction. ? When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. ? Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. ? Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. ? Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. ? Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard...:1orglaugh

they need u.s. advertisers, without them. bye bye.
contributory infringement is where the legal course needs to go.
the advertisers have tons of places to advertise.
keep the u.s. advertisers away and they go bye bye.
be mad all you want thiefs, you will go down.
if this was my board, as a content producer as lens is i'd ban anyone supporting
content theft.

I wonder what the State Department is doing about this issue. Since Sweden doesn't recognize or enforce American copyright laws, perhaps they should be eliminated as a Most Favoured Nation trading partner. Maybe then they can reconsider things.

They've basically made a mockery of anyone attempting legal action against them so far. Not sure how Fred Goldman is going to make any difference.

http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Of course it is stupid. That is why PB is still up and running. Fucking idiot?

What difference could he possibly make? They are not breaking any laws here in Sweden.

Has the EU been talked about in the swedish debate regarding the pirate bay? I´m thinking the socialist in the EU will succeed sooner or later in centralize most state laws.