Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010 | 10:29 a.m.
Sun archives
- R-J mob source hit with copyright suit (7-27-2010)
- More copyright lawsuits filed over Review-Journal stories (7-23-2010)
- Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights (7-20-2010)
- 3 suits over alleged R-J copyright infringements bring total to 72 (7-16-10)
- 5 more suits filed over alleged R-J copyright violations (7-15-10)
- Nevada Democratic Party hit with R-J copyright lawsuit (7-9-10)
- 5 more websites face R-J copyright lawsuits (7-8-10)
- Six more suits filed over R-J copyrights (7-1-10)
- Three more websites hit with R-J copyright suits (6-29-10)
- R-J copyright suit filed against newspaper source (6-25-10)
- 3 more R-J copyright suits filed; defendant responds (6-10-10)
- 8 more websites sued over R-J copyrights; 34 total (6-5-10)
- Former news anchor among targets of new R-J copyright suits (5-30-10)
- 4 more copyright suits over R-J stories brings total to 22 (5-28-10)
- 4 more sites sued over alleged R-J copyright infringements (5-20-10)
- 14th website sued over R-J copyright allegations (5-17-10)
- More suits over alleged R-J copyrights bring number to 13 (5-14-10)
- Suits accuse groups of posting copyrighted R-J stories (5-5-10)
- Two more websites sued over posting of R-J stories (5-3-10)
- Sixth copyright suit filed over R-J stories on websites (4-26-10)
- 3 copyright suits filed over R-J stories on Web sites (4-16-10)
- Suits accuse 2 groups of posting copyrighted R-J stories online (3-17-10)
Righthaven LLC, the company suing over online copyright infringement of Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, may have hit the litigation jackpot when R-J Publisher Sherman Frederick posted a six-paragraph blog on May 25.
Called "The TSA's mini 'Watch List,"' the column complained about unionization by Transportation Security Administration workers and said the TSA was maintaining a list of "peeved travelers."
Righthaven last week filed three lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas against websites and bloggers, demanding $75,000 apiece for copyright infringement after the same four paragraphs from Frederick's blog showed up on the defendant bloggers' websites. In each case, there was a link to Frederick's blog on the R-J website.
The suits were filed against:
--Ezekiel Kennard, Marc Lee and Serkadis.com. The blog allegedly was posted at the www.serkadis.com website. Information on the Serkadis website indicates the company is based in London.
--INKONET Networks, SonicVibes Entertainment LLC, INKOSONIC Network and Antonio LaRosa. The suit claims the TSA blog was posted at a website called www.wnytruthers.org. That site and SonicVibes are based in Niagara Falls, N.Y.
--Jerry Ryburg and Ryan Burrage, whom Righthaven says are associated with the website www.jerryryburg.com. Ryburg on his website describes himself as a political commentator and freelance writer specializing in the area of political conspiracy. Ryburg's location couldn't immediately be determined.
This brings to at least five the number of suits Righthaven has filed over the copyright it obtained to the TSA blog.
Righthaven is a company set up this year to sue bloggers, individuals, companies and nonprofits that it says have infringed on copyrights by posting Review-Journal stories without authorization.
Besides the three suits over the TSA blog copyright, Righthaven sued two other website operators last week.
They are:
--Americans for Immigration Reform and the owner of its website domain name, the Greater Houston Partnership Inc. They were sued after three R-J stories involving immigration and politics in Nevada were posted on its website. AIR calls itself "The business community's voice on sensible immigration reform."
--Silver Matrix LLC and Justin Beech, who run the telecommunications industry website www.dslreports.com. They are accused of copyright infringement because an R-J story from June 16, "Telecom groups run out of cash," about the CommPartners companies' bankruptcies in Las Vegas, allegedly was posted on the website.
Messages for comment on the lawsuits were left with all the new defendants.
These cases bring to 86 the number of copyright infringement lawsuits Righthaven has filed since March.
Well if circulation is down, recouping losses with lawsuits makes sense. Not just simply as a way to get money, but to ensure unique content stays with the authors. Glad to see this.
These are to recoup what was stolen nothing more!
This all seems almost surreal to me. I don't understand what the paper's really trying to do -From the looks of it, none of these people have the money to pay the statutory damages and the settlements, from what I've read, seem so small that they don't cover legal costs.
Stephens Media ought to sell the paper to some company that knows how to run a newspaper, or fire the publisher and editor.
Keep it up RJ - the music industry went this route and lost a total of over $60M in 5 years trying to sue people on the internet. I have a hard time thinking you'll do much better than that if you have a few people fight back.
since they are settling most cases for just a couple grand, if a few of them decide to fight Righthaven, their own legal costs could exceed the small settlements they've been getting. THe whole business plan of Righthaven should be questioned. They know that a simple cease and desist letter would correct the problem but there is no money in doing that. The law allowing $75,000 without proof of damages should be changed. None of these copyright violations cause any damage of any kind to Righthaven and if the law doesn't get changed you will be reading about many more of these type of suits all over the country by third party companies like Righthaven.
So is linking to a website article considered copyright infringement too?
Local bloggers are getting nervous and this may have caused some to leave town. VegasRex is apparently following DB Coopers escape route in the pacific NW. LOL!
This is a pretty weak move by the RJ, but it is getting results. I have seen how these lawsuits have quickly gotten the attention of and the proper response by almost everyone that is aware of them. Once the word is more widespread we won't be hearing much more about these lawsuits.
way to destroy your reputation, r-j.
and you know what's so funny is that if just ONE advertiser...just ONE of the r-j's advertisers DEMANDED for the r-j to produce IN COURT the "readership" numbers they claim to have and use in their rate card to sell ads...it would be lights out for the r-j.
$75K for Sherman's rantings? That's a laugh riot. Real value of his "stuff" is 2 cents and not a penny more.
I hope Sherm knows what he's doing getting in bed with Steve Gibson. If he bothered to check out his scorched earth past he might have a change of tune.
Yaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn! Repetition and redundancy don't equal news. I am going back to bed now!
bbtbrain: What is his "scorched earth past?"
The law...
a) There is absolutely no defense for a staff person or owner of a website to copy and paste all or a significant portion of material from another website
b) You have to be an idiot to say it is OK to copy and paste material from another site
c) The damages that they are suing for are statuory and fixed. The reason for that part of the law is scare people out of copying and pasting.
d) The law is very black and white. That is why most of the defendents are settling with cash and getting the case closed
Sarge --- pipe down. we know you're not coming up with this stuff by yourself and that not everyone is rolling over. As a matter of fact I know two of these folks who are patiently waiting for their day in court with all the confidence in the world. Rihthaven probably won't exist when they're done with them.
I know you think it's as simple as Sherman and Mitchell tell you it is --- but not everyone agrees with them and is why there are court dates set.
First, you have no freaking idea who I am and where I get my information from.
Do you want to make a bet on the cases?
I bet good money that they will not win with a Fair Use defense.
I bet good money that they will not win with a failure to notify defense.
They might win on something else but it is not going to be one of those defenses.
Do you have any idea what defense they are going to use?
The only way they can win or delay is something very technical like venue or something.
Most of these site are small time, if they post a link to the story the RJ should be jumping up and down, someone else is reading their paper.
No body want to see copyrights infringements, and most should know not to post the whole story, a letter would work much better! They could keep up their circulation, the new papers have a rough road to follow, Their circulation is way down, most people are now getting their new elsewhere!
The get it off their phones, the web,and all the new stuff that they keep coming up with just about everyday there is something new for the news.
The Las Vegas Sun is doing a great job, with their news and web site, because of the great work they are rewarded with readership and advertisers.
It's like anything else if you have a good product, you have repeat customers.
If you want to sue your readership, what do you think will happen?
Sam.....
a) We are not talking about links. These people are copying and pasting all or a significant parts of copyright material. That is just plain dumb and it is stealing.
b) So are you going to volunteer to be the copyright guy for the LVRJ and monitor for them and call up and send letters to websites that are stealing their stuff. And you are going to do that all for free. That is nice of you otherwise it seems that you want them to spend money to be nice to people who are stealing from them.
It is like a guy running a convenience store. People come and still some beer. I guess you suggest he hire some people. There job would be find out who stole the beer. They would then call the thief and asking him nicely to return the beer and not do again.
Funny way to run a business....
c) They are not suing their readers. They are suing website providers who are mosting likely competitors in information business and they are suing to protect their property from other websites that seem to think they can steal it.
d) Are you OK with stealing? If that is a yes, can I drop by your house and pick up some things?
I've just personally seen one fansite post up a full story, which in its law standard of black and white, was illegal.. The other viewpoint, of course, is that, they were adding in new viewers for stories in the future. "I liked this UNLV athletic story from March. I shall go straight to the source for future uses." Or maybe they say, "there are photos here, Let me go here." Reality is not black and white. The internet reality is even more complex.
The same can be said for professional sports leagues. The NBA for example, hasn't taken as strict of an approach as MLB and NFL on their youtube content because they know that sort of mass "free" marketing may capture a few thousand fans. They lose out on advertising money on videos that arent on nba.com, but the mixtapes and other "stolen" content bring in something unique that, even the letter of the law, seems to ignore, as common sense comes into play and they realize, the gains are better than the losses.
It's like they(NBA) have the thought process of "hey at least we are being talked about and "stolen" from. Let's keep this trend up and use it to our advantage". The letter of the law says take down everything and sue. Common sense says, it's not that simple.
How is a C&D order not to their advantage if they could keep up with the blog viewers and now have the corrective action being done with their story. A one time "copy and paste" now leads to these blogs COMPLETELY ignoring this paper as a source of information. Are they saying, "If you are going to steal, we don't need you"? That's quite a mighty high stance to be taking when you do need viewers.
I'm totally missing this "biting off the hand that feeds us" approach. I guess it isn't their job to give out a PSA to these blogs that says, "Don't copy and paste fully. Just paraphase lightly and send the link to LVRJ." It's a win-win as these blogs would continue to use the webpage as a source. Instead, the exact word of the law is taking precedence over common sense.
A corrective action is much better than the riding off into the sunset alone.
As an advertiser, I would be 100% upset at this route they are going with. Let a corrective action ensure that linking is done right, and the view count stays where it should be. Instead the LVRJ is a source no one is using to link or talk about anymore. It's seriously a night and day approach on a viewership count, and as an advertiser, I would be un accepting of this short term gain in these lawsuits.
Do they believe that their content is so unique that even after being sued, these blogs will go back to using their stories in the right manner? Heck no. They will go to other sources, learn from their mistakes, and use correct linking to other newspapers... They are helping everyone but themselves with their actions, in my opinion.
Sorry Charlie, but the law here is very clear and very black and white.
The issue is not linking.
The issue is that one can't copy and paste a significant part or all of copyright material from another site without permission.
That is copyright infringement....very black and white.
That is why most of the defendents are paying out cash to close the case.
It has nothing to do with links. If you copy and paste then that is stealing....linking is not a defense for stealing copyright material.
I know for a fact that the RJ has lost some advertisers over the way they are handling these cases.
Over time this will cost them much more then they will recover. Most of the web sites they are suing have no money.
I agree no one should be stealing content. There are simpler and better ways of handing most of these cases though.
I call your bluff.
Name one advertiser that the LVRJ has lost over this issue.
Sgt. Rock: You are right, the law is clear, but given the fact that most people aren't aware of it and believe copying verbatim with full attribution and a link is alright. And, by the way, there is case law to support "ignorance of the law" as a defense.
And, you're also right on the "fair use" issue.
However, "most of the defendants" are not paying out cash to settle and those who are are paying a fraction of the statutory damages. That says something about legal considerations in these cases that are beyond me, however, something here does seem amiss.
Moreover, these settlements beg the question of "Why is Righthaven settling?" in light of the fact that damages are statutory.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it is all kind of strange.
Plagiarism is the best you can say if you compare the blog entry to the original entry. Seems a bit of a stretch for them to sue ppl for posting the R-J version when it certainly appears to have been stolen in the first place.
See for yourself:
R-J Version
http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/The_TSAs...
Original story link:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2...
Who in God's name would want to "steal" anything that rag prints, unless to make MOCKERY of it???
This kind of crap is just another nail in the coffin of print media.
Click, click!!!