And I can't even get anybody to read my manuscripts

[blacbird]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20253683/

caw

[dclary]

The video caption is priceless.

"OJ Simpson chastises the Goldman family for trying to profit from his book."

Um, OJ... You owe them $100,000,000 dollars. Oh yeah, and a daughter. Maybe you could cut them a little slack? Test.

[blacbird]

Oh yeah, and a daughter. Maybe you could cut them a little slack?

Credit for a nasty, and I'll assume deliberately nasty, and delicious, pun.

caw

[Joe270]

I'll buy the book, so long as OJ doesn't see a dime of it.

I might not read the filth, but I'll support the Goldmans' with my dollars.

Just my way of 'sticking it' into OJ.

[robeiae]

I think this was one major BS decision and you guys should back away from slamming OJ long enough to recognize it.

Setting aside the fact that OJ has no criminal convictions on this matter--well no, lets not set it aside completely, but for the most part--look what has really happened here.

Intelllectual property--a book--of one person has been transferred to another, prior to it having any value, whatsoever! How does that happen? It's one thing for the judge to say "Okay, O.J.--all proceeds from the book's sales go to the Goldmans." It's something else entirely for him to say "Here, take these series of ideas that O.J. has written down. You can have them published as his words, if you want to. See if you can make any money." ****ing awful.

I wouldn't touch O.J. with a ten foot poll--I think he killed two people--but there are plenty of other people walking the streets who have done as much or worse and have never had a lick of punishment. The Goldmans aren't special and subverting our system of justice to appease them is some serious BS, imo anyway.

[Rolling Thunder]

Yeah, the precedence set with this decision will become bent and twisted in the future.

[Birol]

Intelllectual property--a book--of one person has been transferred to another, prior to it having any value, whatsoever! How does that happen? It's one thing for the judge to say "Okay, O.J.--all proceeds from the book's sales go to the Goldmans." It's something else entirely for him to say "Here, take these series of ideas that O.J. has written down. You can have them published as his words, if you want to. See if you can make any money." ****ing awful.

Some might argue that since OJ previously had a contract and was paid an advance for the book, the manuscript already had value. Under the terms of the civil case that the Goldman's (who lost a son, not a daughter, btw), OJ should have paid at least a portion of that advance to the Goldman's, but refused to do so.

[robeiae]

Some might argue that since OJ previously had a contract and was paid an advance for the book, the manuscript already had value. Under the terms of the civil case that the Goldman's (who lost a son, not a daughter, btw), OJ should have paid at least a portion of that advance to the Goldman's, but refused to do so.Then that's exactly where redress should be sought. But since that didn't work out, lawyers--with their usual concern for justice--have tried another avenue of attack. And a judge has backed them up. Again, perversion of the system for the benefit of the Goldmans and to the detriment of a man found not guilty equals bad news for everyone, imo.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Did I miss something? OJ was found NOT guilty in a court of law. Not sure why the Goldman's are entitled to anything.

[Just Mike]

Did I miss something? OJ was found NOT guilty in a court of law. Not sure why the Goldman's are entitled to anything.

Oh, they filed and won a civil suit.

Look here (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html#continue)

[dclary]

Intelllectual property--a book--of one person has been transferred to another, prior to it having any value, whatsoever! How does that happen? It's one thing for the judge to say "Okay, O.J.--all proceeds from the book's sales go to the Goldmans." It's something else entirely for him to say "Here, take these series of ideas that O.J. has written down. You can have them published as his words, if you want to. See if you can make any money." ****ing awful.

I disagree. Intellectual property is property. Just as Michael Jackson had to sell the rights to the Beatles library (he had a series of ideas John and Paul and George and Ringo had written down, had them published as their words, and saw that he made lots of money) to pay off his debts, so too can this. The fact that the property has not made any money yet is no indicator of its actual future value.

OJ lost a $38 million dollar lawsuit, and as such, is liable for this and can have liens placed on his property, subject to seizure by the lienholder. This judgment, while scary for creators of intellectual property as we all are here, should merely be another reminder of how important it is we all stay out of debt, and don't kill people.

[robeiae]

If the book had been published, I would agree with you. but it hasn't been published. In essence, it's still--legally--just a potential as far as property goes. The judgement is only a step away from awarding the rights of what is in one person's head to another person. Wrong.

[Birol]

Rob, to look at this another way, you're saying that if something has not been published, it has no value, therefore, copyrights, etc., should not apply. According to copyright law, it is not just a potential. How many threads have you seen on AW where we've explained that something is copyrighted the moment it is written? This fact implies that it is more than potential, that it has value before it is published, that the value is an inherent quality.

[Jamesaritchie]

Did I miss something? OJ was found NOT guilty in a court of law. Not sure why the Goldman's are entitled to anything.


Because in civil law it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not, or whether the evidence points at you or not. All that matters is that whether the jury thinks you're guilty.

The Goldman family make have the legal right to publish this book, but I strongly suspect they have no right to add commentary.

I'm sorry for their loss, but I honestly don't think much more of them than I do of O. J.

[dclary]

If the book had been published, I would agree with you. but it hasn't been published. In essence, it's still--legally--just a potential as far as property goes. The judgement is only a step away from awarding the rights of what is in one person's head to another person. Wrong.

Once it's on paper, it has copyright. Once it's copyrighted, it's an intellectual property.

I can see where you're trying to draw a distinction, but consider this: if I were to come up with an amazing new software product right now, at my desk at work, and never publish it or sell it, but wait until I leave my company and then sell it -- it's still theirs. The fact that it hadn't been sold yet doesn't change its status or potential value.

[blacbird]

The Goldman family make have the legal right to publish this book, but I strongly suspect they have no right to add commentary.

Why not? Other people add commentary to books, in forms like forewords and afterwords, even footnotes, all the time.

I'm sorry for their loss, but I honestly don't think much more of them than I do of O. J.

Which says more about you than it does either of them.

caw

[robeiae]

Rob, to look at this another way, you're saying that if something has not been published, it has no value, therefore, copyrights, etc., should not apply. According to copyright law, it is not just a potential. How many threads have you seen on AW where we've explained that something is copyrighted the moment it is written? This fact implies that it is more than potential, that it has value before it is published, that the value is an inherent quality.But the value is not fungible. You can't simply assign a value to it and make it a part of a settlement. It's real value is wholly a potential. Copyrights are not really germane, here.

[robeiae]

Once it's on paper, it has copyright. Once it's copyrighted, it's an intellectual property.

I can see where you're trying to draw a distinction, but consider this: if I were to come up with an amazing new software product right now, at my desk at work, and never publish it or sell it, but wait until I leave my company and then sell it -- it's still theirs. The fact that it hadn't been sold yet doesn't change its status or potential value.But until it's on the market, it's not an asset, is it? If it's not an asset, how can it be attachable in a lawsuit that seeks monetary compensation? The Goldmans weren't awarded OJ's property per se--intellectual or otherwise--they were awarded money. With no real value to a piece of intellectual property, how can it satisfy a defined portion of the judgement? The judge's decision was flawed.

[III]

Copyrights are not really germane, here.

They were talking about Michael, not Jermane. Keep your Jacksons straight.

[dclary]

But until it's on the market, it's not an asset, is it? If it's not an asset, how can it be attachable in a lawsuit that seeks monetary compensation? The Goldmans weren't awarded OJ's property per se--intellectual or otherwise--they were awarded money. With no real value to a piece of intellectual property, how can it satisfy a defined portion of the judgement? The judge's decision was flawed.


Clearly the property has value, by virtue of having greenlighted for publication. While that value is in dispute, the property is worth something, and as such, the Goldmans were in their rights to attach a lien to it.

[robeiae]

Clearly the property has value, by virtue of having greenlighted for publication. While that value is in dispute, the property is worth something, and as such, the Goldmans were in their rights to attach a lien to it.How about his toothbrush?

Regardless, I maintain that awarding the Goldmans control of an unpublished manuscript was a bad decision. This isn't a divorce proceeding. Not every piece of property is attachable, by definition. Clearly, that point was lost on the judge.

Beyond that, I find the Goldmans' willingness to have it published in the hopes of monetary gain to be despicable. And I find the entire civil suit that they filed and won to be contrary to the spirit of the Law and of Justice, ala the no double jeopardy provision. But that's neither here nor there.

[dclary]

How about his toothbrush?

Regardless, I maintain that awarding the Goldmans control of an unpublished manuscript was a bad decision. This isn't a divorce proceeding. Not every piece of property is attachable, by definition. Clearly, that point was lost on the judge.

Beyond that, I find the Goldmans' willingness to have it published in the hopes of monetary gain to be despicable. And I find the entire civil suit that they filed and won to be contrary to the spirit of the Law and of Justice, ala the no double jeopardy provision. But that's neither here nor there.

I am well aware of that, and have always questioned the ability to bring a civil suit against a person cleared of criminal wrongdoing. I find myself in a situation where the same thing could possibly happen to me, and the thought terrifies me.

[Birol]

But until it's on the market, it's not an asset, is it?

Of course it's an asset before it's on the market. Look, advances do not make a book worth something. Instead, advances are offered because the writing is worth something before it is published.

Although I realize this is a more political discussion, the concept that writing has no inherent value is why so many people think that writing is not work, that writers should be willing to work for free or for "exposure."

[robeiae]

Of course it's an asset before it's on the market. Look, advances do not make a book worth something. Instead, advances are offered because the writing is worth something before it is published.That's EXACTLY right. Advances do not make a book worth something. And of course a book/writing can be worth something in a general sense. But in a legal sense, an unpublished book isn't worth a specific dollar amount (exception: manuscripts with collectible/historic value that can be appraised). And again, for purposes of a lien, it's non-fungible, as well.

Although I realize this is a more political discussion, the concept that writing has no inherent value is why so many people think that writing is not work, that writers should be willing to work for free or for "exposure."Please don't assume that's what I am saying. I'm not saying that at all. And note, I never said anything about inherent value. I said real value, as in economics. And when it comes to quantifiable assets in a legal sense, that's what we're talking about.

[Birol]

Rob, you did say it has no value.

Intelllectual property--a book--of one person has been transferred to another, prior to it having any value, whatsoever!

Here.

If the book had been published, I would agree with you. but it hasn't been published. In essence, it's still--legally--just a potential as far as property goes. The judgement is only a step away from awarding the rights of what is in one person's head to another person. Wrong.

And here. [emphasis added]

But until it's on the market, it's not an asset, is it? If it's not an asset, how can it be attachable in a lawsuit that seeks monetary compensation?

And here. [emphasis added again]



Reread Dclary's example with software. Publication does not determine ownership or value.

[robeiae]

Rob, you did say it has no value.Well, you said that I said it had no inherent value, which means something different to me than real value. and I didn't say that. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that, earlier. And again, I am talking about it from a legal standpoint, as an attachable asset. And again, I think the judge was wrong to rule as he did, as--again--an unpublished manuscript has no real value, is not a fungible asset, and shouldn't be used as a means of meeting a monetary judgement.

Beyond that, what value writing has--to an author or to others--is not what I am talking about. Again.

And Deek's software example is not on point, as he didn't present it as an attachable asset.

Again, this is not a divorice proceeding, which seems to be the model that is being used. All of Simpson's property is not "up for grabs." There are specific limits and tests to determine what can be used to pay the judgment. Fungibility is one of those tests; fungible assets can be attachable. You know what else is not fungible? An annuity contract ( just thought I'd throw that in for funsies).

[dclary]

Come on Robeiea... you're allowed to surrender a lost position, let's see, ah yes, here it is. You're allowed to surrender a lost position 3 times a year.

Give this one up, man. You're wrong, and it's okay.

[robeiae]

Come on Robeiea... you're allowed to surrender a lost position, let's see, ah yes, here it is. You're allowed to surrender a lost position 3 times a year.

Give this one up, man. You're wrong, and it's okay.:ROFL: Bastard.

No.






But the judge ruled this way, and there's nothing I can do about it. Just like the eminent domain ruling. should I surrender there, as well?

[dclary]

:ROFL: Bastard.

No.






But the judge ruled this way, and there's nothing I can do about it. Just like the eminent domain ruling. should I surrender there, as well?
No, no, let's continue the emiment domain fight. The supreme court is WAY wrong on that one.

:D

[SC Harrison]

Rob and I are in total agreement on this issue, and I am at a loss to understand why so many writers here don't see the implications of this precedent.

Forget OJ and the way you feel about him for a moment. Let's say you write a full-length manuscript, get an agent, and that agent is able to sell your novel to one of the big houses. You come here (AW) and make a gushing announcement, and everybody congratulates you on your success. Unfortunately, you have a skeleton in your closet, in the form of an old landlord whom you owe money to but refuse to pay, for whatever reason. He never took you to court because it wasn't worth it, but now it is. He sues you and wins, and the judge grants him the intellectual property to the novel you slaved over for years.

[blacbird]

No, no, let's continue the emiment domain fight. The supreme court is WAY wrong on that one.

:D

Just for digressive grins: The Supremes weren't actually wrong in the way they ruled on that famed eminent domain case. What they did was dodge the main issue, and rule narrowly on the technicality of the state law. The current court is famed for working in this manner; they did the same thing on several other recent controversial cases, including the Pledge of Allegiance "Under God" case. One of their favorite ploys right now is to rule that the plaintiffs "have no standing" to bring the case, and then throw it out without having to make a decision on the issue itself.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

Rob and I are in total agreement on this issue, and I am at a loss to understand why so many writers here don't see the implications of this precedent.

Forget OJ and the way you feel about him for a moment. Let's say you write a full-length manuscript, get an agent, and that agent is able to sell your novel to one of the big houses. You come here (AW) and make a gushing announcement, and everybody congratulates you on your success. Unfortunately, you have a skeleton in your closet, in the form of an old landlord whom you owe money to but refuse to pay, for whatever reason. He never took you to court because it wasn't worth it, but now it is. He sues you and wins, and the judge grants him the intellectual property to the novel you slaved over for years.

Good. I'm all for it. There's no room for thievery, which is exactly what not paying a bill is.

If you've owned a business, SC, had these guys give you checks that won't clear and then duck behind bankrupcy, you'd understand. When the sun's shining and it's payday, again, they still owe all the people stole from. Simpson stole a life, in fact, two. He owes big time.

Please, oh please, don't defend him.

[dclary]

Rob and I are in total agreement on this issue, and I am at a loss to understand why so many writers here don't see the implications of this precedent.

Forget OJ and the way you feel about him for a moment. Let's say you write a full-length manuscript, get an agent, and that agent is able to sell your novel to one of the big houses. You come here (AW) and make a gushing announcement, and everybody congratulates you on your success. Unfortunately, you have a skeleton in your closet, in the form of an old landlord whom you owe money to but refuse to pay, for whatever reason. He never took you to court because it wasn't worth it, but now it is. He sues you and wins, and the judge grants him the intellectual property to the novel you slaved over for years.

Dude. I've already addressed this. If you have debts... pay them, or pay the consequences. Eventually, you pay.

[SC Harrison]

*sigh*

Okay, let's say you sign a six-month lease on an apartment. After you move in, you realize the building is infested with rats and cockroaches, the tap water is too nasty to drink or bathe in, the heat doesn't work, the plumbing backs up, etc., etc., and the landlord refuses to do anything about the problems. After two weeks you pack your shit and leave, without even trying to get your security deposit back.

Are you a thief?

[Bird of Prey]

*sigh*

Okay, let's say you sign a six-month lease on an apartment. After you move in, you realize the building is infested with rats and cockroaches, the tap water is too nasty to drink or bathe in, the heat doesn't work, the plumbing backs up, etc., etc., and the landlord refuses to do anything about the problems. After two weeks you pack your shit and leave, without even trying to get your security deposit back.

Are you a thief?

Whoa. You're making a correlation between Simpson the murderer and his book. . . with a rat invested apartment? Or are these separate issues?

If you're talking in principle - the apartment business, that is: you document it all and fight it out, especially if you leave. You don't eat it or do the wrong thing because somebody else did.

Simpson? I mean it's so clear to me. . . . .

[robeiae]

Simpson? I mean it's so clear to me. . . . .Because you think he is a murderer (so do I, btw). But he was tried and found not guilty in a court of law. The civil judgment is merely a tool for vengance, not justice. Why follow that road? After all, BoP, you oppose CP for exactly this reason, no?

[Birol]

Rob and I are in total agreement on this issue, and I am at a loss to understand why so many writers here don't see the implications of this precedent.

Forget OJ and the way you feel about him for a moment. Let's say you write a full-length manuscript, get an agent, and that agent is able to sell your novel to one of the big houses. You come here (AW) and make a gushing announcement, and everybody congratulates you on your success. Unfortunately, you have a skeleton in your closet, in the form of an old landlord whom you owe money to but refuse to pay, for whatever reason. He never took you to court because it wasn't worth it, but now it is. He sues you and wins, and the judge grants him the intellectual property to the novel you slaved over for years.

My statements have nothing to do with OJ. Either our writing has value or it doesn't. We can't have it both ways. We can't pick and choose when it does and when it does not have value.

Okay, let's say you sign a six-month lease on an apartment. After you move in, you realize the building is infested with rats and cockroaches, the tap water is too nasty to drink or bathe in, the heat doesn't work, the plumbing backs up, etc., etc., and the landlord refuses to do anything about the problems. After two weeks you pack your shit and leave, without even trying to get your security deposit back.

Are you a thief?

In which case, you document the state of the apartment and produce your documentation as appropriate in court. Landlords are required to keep their rental properties inhabitable.

[SC Harrison]

Whoa. You're making a correlation between Simpson the murderer and his book. . . with a rat invested apartment? Or are these separate issues?



I began talking about intellectual property (something you create with your mind) being taken away from you in court. The thing about the apartment was merely an example of how any one of us might find ourselves in court, and how this precedent might have an application to us personally, as writers.

What if a judge took it one step further, and decreed that any future creations (literary or otherwise) were also instantly forfeited? That's the crux of my concern, that our thoughts could eventually be considered fair game. It's one thing to sign a multiple-book contract, legally binding yourself to a specific publisher. But for someone to come along and take away your words and give them to someone else?

[Bird of Prey]

I began talking about intellectual property (something you create with your mind) being taken away from you in court. The thing about the apartment was merely an example of how any one of us might find ourselves in court, and how this precedent might have an application to us personally, as writers.

What if a judge took it one step further, and decreed that any future creations (literary or otherwise) were also instantly forfeited? That's the crux of my concern, that our thoughts could eventually be considered fair game. It's one thing to sign a multiple-book contract, legally binding yourself to a specific publisher. But for someone to come along and take away your words and give them to someone else?

I understand, SC but your life is a total. Even if you transgressed as a thirty year old, you don't totally get off as a forty year old, intellectual property or not, because what you produced was in the sanctuary of your head. It's out there now in the real world for P R O F I T. If your creative endeavor is worth anything, Mr. Wronged gets enough out of it to become Mr. Right-ed, because he's owed.

[Birol]

What if a judge took it one step further, and decreed that any future creations (literary or otherwise) were also instantly forfeited? That's the crux of my concern, that our thoughts could eventually be considered fair game. It's one thing to sign a multiple-book contract, legally binding yourself to a specific publisher. But for someone to come along and take away your words and give them to someone else?

I understand, SC but your life is a total. Even if you transgressed as a thirty year old, you don't totally get off as a forty year old, intellectual property or not, because what you produced was in the sanctuary of your head. It's out there now in the real world for P R O F I T. If your creative endeavor is worth anything, Mr. Wronged gets enough out of it to become Mr. Right-ed, because he's owed.


What you're talking about is nothing new. It's not without precedent. It happens with convicted felons all the time. They are not allowed to profit from their crime and any proceeds from books, movies, etc., are often awarded to the families of the victim.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Oh, they filed and won a civil suit.

Look here (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/dead_16.html#continue)I understand that. A criminal case you actually need proof, evidence, and have to convince a jury, but in a civil suit all you have to do is suggest he looked at your cross-eyed and you get your award. I think its a failure of the system where you can be found not guilty in a court of law and still end up liable for millions.

What you're talking about is nothing new. It's not without precedent. It happens with convicted felons all the time. They are not allowed to profit from their crime and any proceeds from books, movies, etc., are often awarded to the families of the victim.What crime would that be? The one they found him not guilty of?

[SpookyWriter]

What you're talking about is nothing new. It's not without precedent. It happens with convicted felons all the time. They are not allowed to profit from their crime and any proceeds from books, movies, etc., are often awarded to the families of the victim.Lori, we're talking about the difference between intellectual property and profits. Yes? Don't the rights to intellectual property remain with the writer, inventor, or artisan? The proceeds from the sale is a different matter.

[Birol]

No, we weren't talking about the difference between them. At least that's not what I understood.

First, Rob said that the manuscript created by OJ was an intellectual property and could not have a lien placed on it or have its ownership reassigned because it had no value. However, the manuscript, already completed, does have value and is an asset. As such, its ownership can be reassigned under court order, as it was.

Then, SC stated if you commited a crime or incurred a debt, regardless of the nature, that the proceeds of your book should not be able to be used to pay retribution or repay the debt incurred prior to their creation. This is just silly. Debts owed, regardlesss of the source, are debts owed, and if you acquire something of value that can be used to satisfy that debt, even if the acquisition is after the fact, then, yes, the courts are going to require you to use that new asset to repay the debt.

The implication throughout this thread has been that the decision made against OJ in regards to his unpublished manuscript is unique. It's not. There have been individuals found guilty of various crimes who have been required to forfeit their life stories, etc., in the forms of books or movies, to repay their debt.

Regardless of whether you feel OJ is guilty or not, or that the civil case should not have been allowed, he was found guilty based upon a preponderance of the evidence in a wrongful death suit filed in civil court. Because of this fact, regardless of whether you feel it is just or unjust, the judge's decision to award the rights and resulting proceeds from OJ's story to the Goldman's was in keeping with US legal tradition.

If you don't like the system, work to change it; don't just sit there and complain that it's functioning the way it's always functioned.

[SpookyWriter]

No, we weren't talking about the difference between them. At least that's not what I understood.

First, Rob said that the manuscript created by OJ was an intellectual property and could not have a lien placed on it or have its ownership reassigned because it had no value. However, the manuscript, already completed, does have value and is an asset. As such, its ownership can be reassigned under court order, as it was.

Okay, but here's a new twist. A civil judgment has a life of seven years, if I'm not mistaken. The copyright on intellectual property is for the life of the copyright holder, plus fifty years after their death.

Raises an interesting stink. Why not wait another six or seven years for the legal judgment to become null before attempting to write a story (fictional of course) about the murders?

Then, SC stated if you committed a crime or incurred a debt, regardless of the nature, that the proceeds of your book should not be able to be used to pay retribution or repay the debt incurred prior to their creation. This is just silly. Debts owed, regardless of the source, are debts owed, and if you acquire something of value that can be used to satisfy that debt, even if the acquisition is after the fact, then, yes, the courts are going to require you to use that new asset to repay the debt.

That's a federal (or some state laws) law that is meant to deprive the criminal any profits from their crimes. But this is supposing that they (incarcerated) aren't under appeal or have an appeal that may exonerate them of the crime. What happens if (and when) they are found not guilty by DNA evidence and yet the proceeds of their book(s), plays, screenplays, movies, etc. were distributed to the victim (or family) who turn out to be not (what's the word I'm looking for here?) entitled to any benefits?

The implication throughout this thread has been that the decision made against OJ in regards to his unpublished manuscript is unique. It's not. There have been individuals found guilty of various crimes who have been required to forfeit their life stories, etc., in the forms of books or movies, to repay their debt.

See above.

Regardless of whether you feel OJ is guilty or not, or that the civil case should not have been allowed, he was found guilty based upon a preponderance of the evidence in a wrongful death suit filed in civil court. Because of this fact, regardless of whether you feel it is just or unjust, the judge's decision to award the rights and resulting proceeds from OJ's story to the Goldman's was in keeping with US legal tradition.

And so we may now discover a new precedent for profiting from a crime that never happened (or the accused is later found innocent). New territory.

If you don't like the system, work to change it; don't just sit there and complain that it's functioning the way it's always functioned.
Just a few thoughts.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Regardless of whether you feel OJ is guilty or not, or that the civil case should not have been allowed, he was found guilty based upon a preponderance of the evidence in a wrongful death suit filed in civil court. Because of this fact, regardless of whether you feel it is just or unjust, the judge's decision to award the rights and resulting proceeds from OJ's story to the Goldman's was in keeping with US legal tradition.

If you don't like the system, work to change it; don't just sit there and complain that it's functioning the way it's always functioned.

US legal tradition? To take a man proven not guilty and extort him into paying money for something he didn't do?

Sorry, but until this case, I didn't realize our courts worked this way.

[SpookyWriter]

US legal tradition? To take a man proven not guilty and extort him into paying money for something he didn't do?

Sorry, but until this case, I didn't realize our courts worked this way.Tha't why we have civil and criminal courts. Helps to read up on the differences. Just saying... :)

[Shadow_Ferret]

I thought the difference was that civil courts don't have the burden of proof. In other words, they can accuse someone of something, present their "evidence" and the judge decides if they can extort money from the others.

"Judge, he looked at me cross-eyed."
*sound of gavel*
"I award you a million dollars for emotional trauma!"

While a crimnal court needs burden of proof, they actually have to PROVE that the person is guilty of whatever crime they are accused of.

"Judge, he looked at me crosse-eyed."
"Do you have any proof?"
"Um, no, but he did it?"
"Get out of my court!"

One is a kangaroo court and the other is real.

[robeiae]

First, Rob said that the manuscript created by OJ was an intellectual property and could not have a lien placed on it or have its ownership reassigned because it had no value. However, the manuscript, already completed, does have value and is an asset. As such, its ownership can be reassigned under court order, as it was.Again, I disagree. The judge was wrong to give the Goldmans control of the manuscript, as it is not an attachable asset. Not being fungible, it cannot be used to satisfy a debt. As you just noted, proceeds from something like book sales have been awarded to families of victims--that have won a civil case--and rightly so. Those proceeds are fungible and attachable as assets. Judges are wrong all the time in my world.

And of course, the hypocrisy of it all remains, as Shadow Ferret noted. The precedent you allude to is not much of a precedent, here:


What crime would that be? The one they found him not guilty of?

[Birol]

Again, I disagree. The judge was wrong to give the Goldmans control of the manuscript, as it is not an attachable asset. Not being fungible, it cannot be used to satisfy a debt. As you just noted, proceeds from something like book sales have been awarded to families of victims--that have won a civil case--and rightly so. Those proceeds are fungible and attachable as assets. Judges are wrong all the time in my world.

Not agreeing with the judge's decision to award control of the manuscript does not make the manuscript any less of an asset. If it weren't an asset, what is there to be assigned or awarded?

And of course, the hypocrisy of it all remains, as Shadow Ferret noted. The precedent you allude to is not much of a precedent, here:

Precedent is precedent.

OJ was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court.
OJ was found guilty based on a preponderance of the evidence in civil court.

Two different courts. Two different cases. Two different judgments.

The rulings of the latter are as binding as the rulings of the former.

Ignorance is not the same as hypocrisy.

[robeiae]

Not agreeing with the judge's decision to award control of the manuscript does not make the manuscript any less of an asset. If it weren't an asset, what is there to be assigned or awarded?It wasn't an asset that could be attachable because it wasn't fungible.



Precedent is precedent.

OJ was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court.
OJ was found guilty based on a preponderance of the evidence in civil court.

Two different courts. Two different cases. Two different judgments.

The rulings of the latter are as binding as the rulings of the former.

Ignorance is not the same as hypocrisy.
The spirit of the law, re the prohibition on being tried twice for the same crime, was clearly violated in my view. What was OJ found guilty of, exactly?

Hypocrisy.

[Birol]

Hypocrisy deals with morality, not legalities.

[robeiae]

If someone thinks the legal system should be about Justice, and believes in the protections it affords--like no double jeopardy--but still accepts the validity of the civil case against OJ, I would call that an example of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy can exist anywhere that a standard exists. In this case the standard is Justice.

[Celia Cyanide]

Then, SC stated if you commited a crime or incurred a debt, regardless of the nature, that the proceeds of your book should not be able to be used to pay retribution or repay the debt incurred prior to their creation. This is just silly. Debts owed, regardlesss of the source, are debts owed, and if you acquire something of value that can be used to satisfy that debt, even if the acquisition is after the fact, then, yes, the courts are going to require you to use that new asset to repay the debt.

I agree, Lori. I don't see why this decision is such a bad thing for writers. It reinforces the idea that intellectual property IS property, and having it taken away from you is the same as having your house or car taken away. Having physical or intellectual property taken away from you sucks, but as deek said, if you stay out of debt and don't kill people, it won't happen.

This may or may not be important, but regarding the value of the manuscript, I would argue that it had no value when it belonged to OJ, anyway. When he was going to publish it, nobody wanted it. But now that he no longer owns it, that might chance.

Also, I wanted to add that I agree that the civil suit vs. criminal trial is scary. It seems to be a way of finding a person guilty in one instance but not another for the very same crime.

[SC Harrison]

Then, SC stated if you commited a crime or incurred a debt, regardless of the nature, that the proceeds of your book should not be able to be used to pay retribution or repay the debt incurred prior to their creation. This is just silly. Debts owed, regardlesss of the source, are debts owed, and if you acquire something of value that can be used to satisfy that debt, even if the acquisition is after the fact, then, yes, the courts are going to require you to use that new asset to repay the debt.



That's...not really what I was complaining about, although I probably failed in my efforts to explain it.

The judge didn't just grant proceeds from the book, he granted the book itself. Now, the new owners of the "words" are going to add Key Commentary to the manuscript before it goes to print, which can (and probably will) radically alter the overall effect of the manuscript from the original intent of the author.

[SC Harrison]

Having physical or intellectual property taken away from you sucks, but as deek said, if you stay out of debt and don't kill people, it won't happen.



People are ripped off in court all the time who aren't in debt or killers. Property disputes, family crap, unfair divorce settlements, etc.

To infer that the only people who this might impact have brought it on themselves is just crazy.

[Birol]

Also, I wanted to add that I agree that the civil suit vs. criminal trial is scary. It seems to be a way of finding a person guilty in one instance but not another for the very same crime.

Yes, I agree it can be scary, but legally, it is not double jeopardy. Nor is it hypocrisy, which is, basically, to say one thing and do another, or to condemn someone for actions similar to your own. From the standpoint of people like the Goldman's, it is one more avenue that can be pursued. From the standpoint of people like OJ, it is one more hurdle to overcome.

[blacbird]

Yes, I agree it can be scary, but legally, it is not double jeopardy. Nor is it hypocrisy, which is, basically, to say one thing and do another, or to condemn someone for actions similar to your own. From the standpoint of people like the Goldman's, it is one more avenue that can be pursued. From the standpoint of people like OJ, it is one more hurdle to overcome.

I was about to say pretty much the same thing here, in rebuttal to Robsie's contention that somehow it does constitute double jeopardy. The Constitutional stricture against double jeopardy applies to criminal proceedings. Basically, it forbids prosecuting anyone twice for the same criminal charge. A civil lawsuit does not address the issue of crime. It seeks damages related to an allegation of material harm. And there must be 200 years of case law in the U.S. that supports this interpretation.

caw

[Celia Cyanide]

People are ripped off in court all the time who aren't in debt or killers. Property disputes, family crap, unfair divorce settlements, etc.

To infer that the only people who this might impact have brought it on themselves is just crazy.

Yes, this is true. It isn't always their fault.

In either case, they are losing property. If it's their fault, they deserve it, and if it's not, it sucks. It is property, either way.

Also, I do think that this is a special case. In most cases, the manuscript would have the same value, regardless of who owns it. Since this book was dropped, seemingly because OJ owned it, I think the value has now changed. I don't think it's necessarily going to become a precedent.

[eldragon]

i find this maneuver on the Goldman's part to be disgusting.

They fought not to have the book published because they thought it would be harmful, hurtful, etc., and now they are publishing it for monetary gain, and it's not harmful or hurtful anymore?


Sure, it's been years since the murders, but money makes it all better now?


I find this to be hypocritical and just, as I said - disgusting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_en_ot/simpson_book

[Bird of Prey]

i find this maneuver on the Goldman's part to be disgusting.

They fought not to have the book published because they thought it would be harmful, hurtful, etc., and now they are publishing it for monetary gain, and it's not harmful or hurtful anymore?


Sure, it's been years since the murders, but money makes it all better now?


I find this to be hypocritical and just, as I said - disgusting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_en_ot/simpson_book

Yeah, I used to think that, too, but try to imagine your grief at losing a child and then your rage at letting the murderer of your child off.

Goldman went to a lot of trouble and expense to have some measure of justice only to have Simpson weasel around what was legitimately awarded him, once again, escaping justice. At this point, I think the book's fair game. I think it will serve to ultimately humiliate Simpson and forever blacken his image, even among those who once believed in his innocence. And Goldman has a right to that. He loved his son.

[robeiae]

Yes, I agree it can be scary, but legally, it is not double jeopardy. Nor is it hypocrisy, which is, basically, to say one thing and do another, or to condemn someone for actions similar to your own. From the standpoint of people like the Goldman's, it is one more avenue that can be pursued. From the standpoint of people like OJ, it is one more hurdle to overcome.

I was about to say pretty much the same thing here, in rebuttal to Robsie's contention that somehow it does constitute double jeopardy. The Constitutional stricture against double jeopardy applies to criminal proceedings. Basically, it forbids prosecuting anyone twice for the same criminal charge. A civil lawsuit does not address the issue of crime. It seeks damages related to an allegation of material harm. And there must be 200 years of case law in the U.S. that supports this interpretation.As I clearly opined, it is the spirit of the law that is being ignored. I fully understand that the civil suit was allowable under current laws.

But again, what material harm did Simpson commit that warranted the civil judgment? Not murder--he was tried and found not guilty. So, the civil courts are being used to get around the criminal ones, in an effort to hold someone responsible for a crime they were explicitly found not guilty of committing. If you guys want to accept this as legitimate and a reflection of Justice, knock yourselves out. I'll continue to characterize it as wrong and continue to see hypocrisy in the support of this tactic by those that claim to want Justice.

[blacbird]

i find this maneuver on the Goldman's part to be disgusting.

They fought not to have the book published because they thought it would be harmful, hurtful, etc., and now they are publishing it for monetary gain, and it's not harmful or hurtful anymore?

I could be wrong, but somehow I don't think monetary gain is the Goldmans' motivation here. They desperately want to get back at Simpson, and have been consistently thwarted at every turn. This book business, weird as it is, gives them some opportunity to make O.J. look like the murderer they (and most of the American public) believe he is. Plus, of course, it prevents him from profiting off the book, which is what he tried to do in the first place.

I'll leave the more techy issue of the judge's decision to others to argue. In fact, if O.J. wants to argue it, he can always appeal and pursue the matter in open court. Which, I'd bet, is about the last thing he wants.

Or, on second thought, maybe not. He obviously has no fear of embarrassment or shame.

caw

[eldragon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/...t/simpson_book

But the initial reason the Goldman's sued to keep the book from being published was not only because they didn't want OJ to profit from it, but because they didn't want to have to relive the events of the murder.

By releasing the book, they stand to make major money off of it. Yes, it's a slap in OJ's face, but as the link provided says "some profits will be given to a Ronald Goldman fund."

Really?


I think, at this point - it's just Mr. Goldman versus OJ. I'm glad to see OJ himself couldn't profit from the book, but I don't think anyone should. No matter if it's truth or lies, a hurtful rag shouldn't be published.

[SC Harrison]

I think monetary gain is the Goldmans' motivation here. They desperately want to make O.J. look like the murderer.

caw

I knew it! I knew that's how you really felt about this! :)

[eldragon]

Mr. Goldman's opinion a year ago:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/16/entertainment/main2188778.shtml


Denise Brown, sister of Nicole Brown Simpson, lashed out at publisher Judith Regan of ReganBooks for "promoting the wrongdoing of criminals" and commercializing abuse. The book goes on sale Nov. 30.

She added: "It's unfortunate that Simpson has decided to awaken a nightmare that we have painfully endured and worked so hard to move beyond."

Like Brown, Fred Goldman voiced disgust toward Regan and Fox. "They themselves have fallen to an unbelievably low standard," Goldman told CBS News.

I understand that Goldman wants to take OJ's ability to make money away, etc. And he has done that by stopping the book from being published. But now he's having it published?

This is the same book that got that Regan lady fired because of it's content, right?

Interesting twist that the content hasn't changed, only who gets the royalty check, and now it's ok to print.

[Bird of Prey]

Mr. Goldman's opinion a year ago:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/16/entertainment/main2188778.shtml




I understand that Goldman wants to take OJ's ability to make money away, etc. And he has done that by stopping the book from being published. But now he's having it published?

This is the same book that got that Regan lady fired because of it's content, right?

Interesting twist that the content hasn't changed, only who gets the royalty check, and now it's ok to print.

Can't say you don't have a good point, El. It's just that the book - in new hands - has an entirely different context. Strange, but I think, true.

[eldragon]

Well, maybe the Goldman's can sue to change the title from "if I did it," to "I did it."



Why not?

[Bird of Prey]

They could also change the title to I'm a No Good Murdering Bastard.

They own the book, don't they? Would they even have to sue to do that?

[dclary]

They're just going to put the price tags over the "if"

[eldragon]

They're just going to put the price tags over the "if"
Ha! Good one!