18 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleMonday, Feb. 28, 2011 | 2 a.m.
One of the Righthaven LLC copyright infringement lawsuits over the Denver Post "TSA enhanced pat-down" photo has turned into a public relations debacle for Las Vegas-based Righthaven.
Defendant Brian D. Hill of the North Carolina-based website uswgo.com has been telling his story to The Associated Press, North Carolina and Virginia television stations and to Colorado media outlets.
He's often portrayed as a sympathetic victim of Righthaven with Hill, 20, saying in his court response he can't afford to pay for a lawyer or Righthaven's $6,000 settlement offer and that he has diabetes, hyperactive attention disorder and mild autism.
The lawsuit is reminiscent of earlier image problems for Righthaven when it sued Las Vegas Review-Journal source Anthony Curtis over a story he had made possible and when it sued unemployed Boston cat blogger Allegra Wong over a post on her nonprofit site.
In the Colorado case, look for Righthaven to quickly offer a more favorable settlement to Hill.
Otherwise, Righthaven is going to be dealing with attorney David Stevens Kerr of Santangelo Law Offices P.C. in Fort Collins, Colo., who has stepped up to defend Hill. Santangelo Law Offices specializes in intellectual property litigation, i.e. patent, trademark and copyright lawsuits.
***
The federal court in Colorado appears eager to get the Righthaven lawsuits there resolved quickly and efficiently.
There are 30 active suits there, all over the same Denver Post pat-down photo.
Each case has either been assigned to Senior Judge John L. Kane, or re-assigned from magistrate judges to Kane.
Kane is an interesting choice to handle the Righthaven cases.
A few months before Righthaven started filing lawsuits in Colorado, Kane expressed concern about something that regularly comes up in Righthaven lawsuits: the inability of many people being sued to afford legal representation.
"The increase in the cost of lawyers’ services has made representation by legal counsel nearly impossible for most Americans in many cases," Kane said in an address to the Faculty Of Federal Advocates in Denver, a group of attorneys dedicated to improving the quality of legal practice in the U.S. District Court for Colorado.
"People representing themselves, so-called pro se filings and defense appearances have increased at alarming rates. Reliable numbers are hard to find, but pro se litigants are no longer confined to the poor who have been unable to secure legal aid. My rough estimate for our court is that more than 25 percent of civil cases involve some pro se activity," he said.
In the Righthaven cases, many defendants have settled for a few thousand dollars after learning it could cost tens of thousands of dollars to employ a law firm to fight Righthaven.
Kane has ordered Righthaven to file a status report on each Righthaven case there and those are due today.
***
Colorado court records, in the meantime, show defendants in another of the TSA pat-down photo lawsuits, Michael L. Davis and Software Farm Inc., have agreed to settle with Righthaven under undisclosed terms.
But in another Colorado Righthaven case over the TSA photo, defendant Jason Chrystal in Baltimore is fighting back. Chrystal said in court papers he and his codefendants, associated with the website thoushaltnotsteel.com, are representing themselves as they're unemployed "with no assets to speak of."
"The picture was obtained from the website www.deadseriousnews.com, whom was thought to be the original producer of the picture in question, not from the Denver Post website," Chrystal said in his response. "No harm was caused by this infringement. The webpage displaying the work in question obtained 42 views by family and friends of the defendants."
"The work (photo) appeared in over 300 individual websites in search results and could not be properly traced to the rightful owner," Chrystal said.
"Righthaven is wasting taxpayer money to file a lawsuit against a not-for-profit website -- that is a humor blog read by family and friends of the defendants -- to try and make money," his filing said.
Court records indicate multiple Righthaven/Denver Post TSA pat-down photo lawsuits involve defendants saying they first found the photo on the deadseriousnews.com website.
The Denver Post TSA photo appeared to be posted on the Dead Serious News site on Nov. 21 and as of Sunday it was still displayed there, along with some off-color commentary suggesting passengers face arrest if they become sexually aroused during TSA enhanced pat-downs.
Records indicate that as of late last week, Dead Serious News had not been named as a defendant in any Righthaven lawsuits and it's unknown if Righthaven or the Denver Post have told Dead Serious News to remove the photo.
***
Separately, two law professors who have been critical of Righthaven expressed skepticism about threats by Righthaven defendant Dana Eiser to ask a federal judge in South Carolina to order Righthaven to refund settlement funds from prior lawsuits.
Attorneys for Eiser made the threat Sunday as they challenged Righthaven's standard lawsuit demand that Eiser forfeit her website domain name to Righthaven.
"I've never heard of anything like this, and I can't imagine how it would work. Eiser's heart is in the right place. I'd love to see Righthaven have to give back the settlement money, but I don't know of any legal way of forcing them to do that," said Eric Johnson, an associate professor of law at the University of North Dakota. "Eiser's attorneys don't cite any legal authority supporting their claim – at least in the motion.
"Courts perceive very strong public-policy reasons for not overturning or interfering with settlements, even when they seem very unfair," Johnson said.
Eric Goldman, associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California and director of the High Tech Law Institute there, expressed a similar sentiment.
"Eiser raises the issue as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Courts impose Rule 11 sanctions sparingly, so on that basis alone, the motion is not likely to prevail. Further, even if the judge decides to grant Rule 11 sanctions, it would be quite remarkable for the judge to impose a remedy that reaches beyond Eiser's own case. I don't think the odds of this motion's success are high," Goldman said.
But he added that the motion is not improper.
"Arguably, given that Righthaven has repeated its (domain seizure) demands for nearly a year despite repeated criticism and its own acknowledgements that the request has no textual support, perhaps a disgorgement of Righthaven's past settlements would satisfy the (rule's) standard," Goldman said.
For Goldman, Eiser's motion illustrates a bigger issue.
"I have repeatedly questioned Righthaven's profitability. Righthaven's model assumes lots of low-cost settlements. Instead, Righthaven has been running into buzzsaws of opposition on a surprising number of lawsuits -- perhaps far more than it initially modeled. All of that opposition jacks up Righthaven's costs. So even if this Rule 11 sanction motion is unsuccessful in court, it still shows the fragility of Righthaven's profitability. For every quick settlement Righthaven gets, it's also getting embroiled in time-consuming and costly battles," Goldman said.
***
Righthaven and several of its Nevada defendants, in the meantime, are waiting for federal judges to issue key rulings in some of these legal battles involving defendants such as the Democratic Underground, Thomas DiBiase, the Center for Intercultural Organizing and Bill Hyatt.
These involve motions for dismissal, a threat to dismiss, counterclaims and Righthaven's request for $150,000 in damages and a domain seizure against a defaulting defendant.
"...has turned into a public relations debacle for Las Vegas-based Righthaven.
Defendant Brian D. Hill of the North Carolina-based website uswgo.com has been telling his story to The Associated Press, North Carolina and Virginia television stations and to Colorado media outlets.
He's often portrayed as a sympathetic victim of Righthaven with Hill."
I think is totally fabricated by the Sun or just something that they got from some lawyer or the defendent and have not check out.
If one googles ...Brian D. Hill uswgo.com... all they will find are Las Vegas Sun stories and a few obscured blog postings by Hill himself.
He might be telling his story but they have not been listening.
I am not sure if there is nothing on the Internet about this then how can it be a "public relations debacle".
This seems to be totally not true: "often portrayed as a sympathetic victim " Not sure if once (like only on the Sun) qualifies as "often".
You can't trust what goes into print at the Sun.
"Records indicate that as of late last week, Dead Serious News had not been named as a defendant in any Righthaven lawsuits and it's unknown if Righthaven or the Denver Post have told Dead Serious News to remove the photo."
-------------
More than likely that website is DMCA registered, complies with what's needed to stay that way, and simply not worth the time of Righthaven. So they go after many of the little guys or look for loopholes. They are bloodsuckers but smart about who they sue (at least most of the time).
Endoscopy lawsuits bad, Rightklaven lawsuits good..so much for the RJ's legal logic.
Chunky says:
The more defendants with resources and gutsy attorneys who pile on top of Righthaven the better! Smother them with the same #$%^^%# they're trying to smother others with.
That's what Chunky thinks!
If one "judgment-proof" defendant and a pro bono attorney would push for trial, all the profits made so far could be wiped out. If Righthaven actually wins, just follow it up with a defendant bankruptcy and bye, bye Righthaven.
well, Sgt, maybe you should be reading the RJ
adam1885282: I don't think a defendant bankruptcy would wipe Righthaven because it doesn't care about its image at all. I do think that there are at least two that are likely to go to trial, the EFF's is one of them. As I've said before, there's no doubt that just about every defendant is "guilty" of infringement, but also no doubt that they're guilty because, like just about everyone until these came along, figured it was okay to post. In light of that, and other issues, I think it's very unlikely any Federal Judge awards more than a few dollars, if anything and certainly nowhere near the statutory number.
And, as Green said, Righthaven's taken in "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in settlements, but even so, I think that it's nowhere near enough to be profitable, let alone pay the RJ back its $300,000 investment.
I guess we'll just have to see and count on Green to update us on what happens in court.
@sgtrock, you are right, if you do a google search for brian d hill uswgo.com you won't find much, but try doing a google search of brian d hill righthaven and see what you come up with. Pages and pages of articles about Mr. Hill's lawsuit. Now tell us why you think there are no articles about the lawsuit, and that Righthaven isn't paying any attention to it. Notice all the tv stations and newspapers that have picked up this most worthy interview Mr. Hill had with news outlets.
I just love this newspaper. Steve Green is my favorite reporter. He's always right on target about everything he reports. I know first hand that Brian Hill has had an interview with at least 2 different TV news shows, a few radio shows, many different newspapers. He is very truthful in explaining that he has not broken any laws and what his true circustances are financially and with his 3 serious disabliities. He has brittle diabetes as well as mild autism. This website has been a hobby for him, not a money making site. Anyone who faces chronic illness has to find ways to spend each day. This has been Brian's hobby for years. Do a Google or a Yahoo search: Type in Righthaven and Brian Hill, then see how many different people have reported Brian's story, several TV stations, radio shows, Associated Press on many newspapers, other newspapers and many blog sites on the Internet. Amazing!! Thank you, Las Vegas Sun and Steve Green for bringing the truth in the light for all to see.
adam1885282 said:
> If one "judgment-proof" defendant and a pro
> bono attorney would push for trial, all the
> profits made so far could be wiped out. If
> Righthaven actually wins, just follow it up
> with a defendant bankruptcy and bye, bye
> Righthaven.
I'm a judgment-proof defendant and disabled like Hill, just not as good a publicist as he is.
There is no way Righthaven will ever see a dime of any judgment they get, if they manage to get one. Righthaven hasn't made any indication they are willing to drop the suit, so I might end up in court.
I haven't been able to find a pro bono attorney to help with my case. If you could suggest one I would be eternally grateful.
I would prefer to present a case based on logic and law rather than an appeal to emotion. I've been reading court documents from other Righthaven defendants to get ideas how to proceed.
If anyone has any suggestions, I'm listening.
RighthavenVictim: I'm sorry you have to endure this nonsense. I don't know of any pro bono attorneys who are taking this case. However, my understanding is that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org)is handling some cases, I think, pro bono. You might contact them.
If you are, indeed, "judgement proof," I mean have no job from which wages can be garnished, no car or assets that can be taken in lieu of cash, then at least for the moment you're probably okay. Having said that, down the road, if you do, you could have a pending judgement against you that can be enforced.
I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that should you have any assets, you should be able to legally protect them in some way. Though I haven't heard of Righthaven doing this, maybe you could simply write a letter saying you've removed the infringing material, this is a bad economy and you have no money. Ask them to settle for a dollar, or some other token under $100.
On a worst case basis, go to library and try to figure out how you could answer the Righthaven suit. There are some who've done that and as far as I know, the more paper you generate, the longer the Court will have to take to make a judgement. Everything does have to be answered and right now it looks as if Righthaven has a lot on its greedy hands.
There has to be a time when these media companies like News Media Group, parent company of the Denver Post, realizes that Righthaven is a huge liability for them. The PR disaster they are facing far outweighs any kind of benefit they perceive by taking a hard line on their copyrights.
adam1885282
You need to go to the press just like Brian. Call all members of your local media. Contact Denver area media particularly the ones that compete with the Denver Post. Your best defense is massive publicity. Call the AP as well. Also call your Congressmen and Senators and tell them what is happening. Shout this from the roof-tops.
Stella...I call you bluff and raise you 20.
"a Google or a Yahoo search: Type in Righthaven and Brian Hill, then see how many different people have reported Brian's story, several TV stations, radio shows, Associated Press on many newspapers, other newspapers and many blog sites on the Internet."
I dare you to list 3 serious news (not blogs or opinion sites) sites that listed a story on Brian Hill and Righthaven.
I know you will not post because you want find even one (excluding the Sun with is really an opinion/news site).
When are the courts going to sanction Righthaven for their frivolous lawsuits?
I think I mentioned last night that wronghaven should rot in he$$.
For SgtRock:
As always, thanks for your comments
TV coverage
http://www.wtvr.com/wghp-story-copyright...
http://www.myfox8.com/news/wghp-story-co...
http://www.wxii12.com/r/26956369/detail....
Associated Press: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_1739...
You are correct Mr. Green and I am wrong.
The AP story was carried by many newspapers at least in their websites.
You can't find those stories by just doing a Google search on Righthaven and Brian Hill. Which is an indication that is not being searched on much by people using Google. That means it is not a popular virual story on the Internet.
I have not see any stories since the AP story.
I still don't think it is a public relations debacle. That term is very subjective.
Most people who even read the story probably can't tell you what newspapers are involved and who is the company that is doing the suing.
I am sure that most people are bored when they read the story. It is not a water-cooler type of story either.