Talkin bout OJ Simpson again

November 20, 2006 12:00 AM

Is it morally reprehensible to pirate OJ Simpson's new book (and spread it around the internet for all to read) with the express purpose of hurting the sales of his book?

just email the pdf to 5 of your friends!

posted by Sir Mildred Pierce to computers & internet (26 comments total)

Yes, and illegal.

OJ was found not guily in a court of law.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:01 AM on November 20, 2006

No.

And he was found guilty to the tune of $33 million. _{Yes, it was a wrongful death civil suit. But still.}
posted by null terminated at 12:07 AM on November 20, 2006

On one hand, this is a gross violation of copyright law.

On the other hand, this would reduce the potential income he might make from his book - and if you're firmly in the "the asshole did it" camp, would be morally just.

It might depend, too, on how good/bad the book is. My email is (my username) at gmail dot com. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
posted by micketymoc at 12:15 AM on November 20, 2006

Law != morality. Go to town.
posted by nicwolff at 12:16 AM on November 20, 2006

Yes, it's morally reprehensible. When it's out, anyone can read it for free from the library, no piracy required.

On a related note, Borders is donating all profits from the book to charity. This doesn't prevent O.J. from profiting, obviously, but I thought it was an acceptable way to allow customers to buy whatever they want while keeping their hands clean.
posted by Violet Hour at 12:17 AM on November 20, 2006

Why wouldn't any money he makes revert to the families given the civil judgment?
posted by Rumple at 12:20 AM on November 20, 2006

Ack--I don't mean to imply that people who buy the book are (morally) off the hook, just that Borders was keeping it's hands clean by not profiting from the sales. I should have been more specific.
posted by Violet Hour at 12:21 AM on November 20, 2006

Why wouldn't any money he makes revert to the families given the civil judgment?

Exactly. Most of what he earns from this will probably go directly to the Goldman family. Basically, by attempting to reduce the sales of the book, you are decreasing the likelihood that the full judgment against him will ever be collected. I would imagine that the book is in fact an attempt by OJ to get that judgment off his back.
posted by kindall at 12:26 AM on November 20, 2006 [1 favorite]

Where's the evidence that widespread piracy reduces legitimate sales, rather than increasing the buzz and demand for the product? An awful lot of TV shows provide free downloads as a way to INCREASE sales, and most recording artists I know encourage free ("pirate") MP3 sharing.

Is the RIAA sponsoring this thread?
posted by rokusan at 12:36 AM on November 20, 2006

Would be nice if the Goldman & Nicole's family get some dough from this debacle. I'm not convinced of the value of pirating copies on the internet as a method of devaluing the book's $$ potential to ReganBooks. I did write them a note letting them know how glee-filled I would be to see piles of the book on remainder piles. And for those so inclined, try to read the book while loitering at B&N or read it in the library. Just don't allow that kind of crap to settle into your shelves. Can't be good. Just when you think it's sunk as low as it can, something like this let's you know that there's really no bottom limit to greed.
posted by lois1950 at 12:49 AM on November 20, 2006

I've read that Simpson has stated his intent to avoid paying anything to the Goldman family, and I've seen that lawyers speculate that he may have the money moved to a trust, a third party, or offshore to avoid payment. But my favorite non-payment strategy is one MSNBC says Simpson bragged about to the National Enquirer:

Simpson can never be retried for the murders because of double jeopardy laws, according to the Enquirer, which also claims that Simpson aims to keep any book money instead of paying it out in a civil suit judgment against him by spending it all quickly.

Clever.
posted by washburn at 12:55 AM on November 20, 2006

Bang on, rokusan. There's no compelling evidence that widespread piracy reduces sales.

And OJ is, apparently, not making a dime off the book anyway.

So I guess, to answer the OP's question, pirating the book won't hurt anyone. So I would say that it's not an immoral act.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:58 AM on November 20, 2006

it' not really morally anything. just as with everything else given away for free on the internet, the only people who would pick it up are people who wouldn't have bought it anyway. if anything, it would have a microscopically positive effect on book sales. if you don't want to support a murderer like simpson, the best thing to do is to have nothing to do with him.
posted by facetious at 1:01 AM on November 20, 2006

For a more philosophical answer, you can peruse (or post to) AskPhilosophers' ethics page.
posted by spiderskull at 1:03 AM on November 20, 2006

No, I'm answeing the question just fine.

So it's morally correct to steal and to break the law just because you don't like that someone got off?

Let's rephrase the question to get rid of the OJ factor and see if this question gets answered differently.

Is it morally reprehensible to pirate Bill Clinton's new book (and spread it around the internet for all to read) with the express purpose of hurting the sales of his book?

Is it morally reprehensible to pirate P-Diddy's new book (and spread it around the internet for all to read) with the express purpose of hurting the sales of his book?

Is it morally reprehensible to pirate Michael Jackson's new book (and spread it around the internet for all to read) with the express purpose of hurting the sales of his book?

Stealing is wrong and it is illegal.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:22 AM on November 20, 2006

Pollomacho writes "Stealing is wrong and it is illegal."

No one is talking about theft of any sort. This is copyright infringement. It's tit for tat, really. OJ (according to many) deprived a couple innocent people of their right to be alive, and so in return Sir Mildred Pierce asks if it would be morally reprehensible to deprive him of his right to profit from copies of his book. I think it's morally reprehensible to allow him to profit from murder, so the question to me is "Is it moral to enable a man to profit in this way?" and of course the answer is no.
posted by mullingitover at 1:39 AM on November 20, 2006

Copyright infringement is theft, particularly when the poster wrote: with the express purpose of hurting the sales of his book

Look, I'm not going to argue the belabored 10 year old point of OJ guilt or innocence. What I am going to argue is that the system of laws that we have established failed to find him guilty. Piss us off as that may, it is still not then permissable for us to vent our frustrations on OJ by illegal means.

Would you say it is alright for the poster to ask: Is it morally reprehensible to slash the tires on OJ's white broncho with the express purpose of hurting the OJ?

The legal system in the US tends to believe that people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. True, OJ was found liable in a civil court to violating Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson's rights to this end, but it does not make it morally any more aceptable for us to then violate OJ's rights without due process.

Scumbag, guilty, innocent, it does not matter, OJ has rights too.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:19 AM on November 20, 2006

And he was found guilty to the tune of $33 million.

He wasn't found guilty. He was held liable.


To answer the OP's question: illegal? Yeah, I'd say so. Morally reprehensible? Depends on who you ask.
posted by roomwithaview at 2:39 AM on November 20, 2006

Yes, since to make copies of the book, you'd have to buy at least one at the outset.
posted by felix betachat at 3:15 AM on November 20, 2006

It's illegal regardless of what you think of the author. And if you're getting for free what you would have been willing to pay for, you're depriving a bookstore, distributor, and publisher their cuts of a sale.

Whether doing a part in freely distributing something you don't like helps you strike your blow against its author is up to your own moral code. Keep in mind that some artists deliberately circulate their work for free to make their voices heard.
posted by ardgedee at 3:31 AM on November 20, 2006

Illegal, yes.
Morally "reprehensible," no, because that's too strong of a word.
Ethically suspect, yes.
Pointless, yes, because reading OJ's book gives him publicity regardless of whether he or the charity-designate actually gets your money.

What is more, there are far better things that can be copied and loos'd upon the world than ghostwritten "autobiographies" of celebrities. Project Gutenberg can give you some ideas.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:16 AM on November 20, 2006

Sir Mildred, you're giving OJ more publicity now just by making this post. Spreading his book around the internet could actually result in him selling more copies.
posted by skylar at 4:27 AM on November 20, 2006

Morality aside, pirating is not directly = to stealing. The majority of the media I've bought in the past decade or so I've had "pirate" versions of it first. Based on this behavior, I'd say pirating seems to be a first rate method of promotion. With that in mind, your actions may have the opposite effect.

If you don't like a certain media, the most damning thing to do to it is ignore it.
posted by dong_resin at 4:56 AM on November 20, 2006

The real problem I see here is that until I read this thread, I had no clue there was an OJ simpson book.

I'd take that as small evidence of the real chance that your piracy would increase buzz, and possibly help sales.

If we could be sure that it would *hurt* sales, I would gladly help, without ever feeling as though I had done something immoral.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:04 AM on November 20, 2006

TAPG is right. Morality aside, spreading copies of his book would only raise awareness and increase sales.

If you want to spread copies of a book, Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom is (and all of Doctorow's books are) available for download, which, according to him, increases his real-book sales way beyond what they would have been otherwise.
posted by cmiller at 5:23 AM on November 20, 2006

Copyright infringement is theft

In exactly the same way that copyright infringement is murder.
posted by solid-one-love at 7:01 AM on November 20, 2006