Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Aug. 5, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.
Sun archives
- Legal attack dog sicked on websites accused of violating R-J copyrights (8-4-2010)
- Some targets of Righthaven lawsuits fighting back (8-4-2010)
- Are website copyright violations hurting newspapers' bottom line? (8-4-2010)
- Defendants in R-J copyright lawsuits speak out (8-4-2010)
- Five more R-J copyright lawsuits filed (8-3-2010)
- 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)
The Democratic Party of Nevada is fighting back against a copyright infringement lawsuit over Las Vegas Review-Journal stories posted on its website, enlisting Washington, D.C., attorneys experienced in representing public officials, candidates and political parties.
The party’s attorneys with the law firm Perkins Coie LLP on Tuesday filed the party’s response to a federal lawsuit filed in Las Vegas on July 9 by Righthaven LLC, a company that has purchased R-J copyrights and since March has sued at least 86 website owners over R-J stories that were posted on those websites.
In the response, the party admitted three R-J stories and portions of two more R-J stories at issue were displayed on its website.
As for one story for which Righthaven obtained a copyright and is seeking $75,000 in damages for — involving February gaming win numbers — the party admitted it did not seek permission to display the story.
The party response said: “The party denies that its display of the work (story) is properly characterized as ‘infringement.’”
“The parties’ activities complained of in the complaint constitute fair use of any copyrighted works pursuant to (the Copyright Law),” the party response said.
The party response didn’t include any of the harsh language seen in some other defendants’ responses to Righthaven.
Attorneys at the Las Vegas office of the law firm of Lewis and Roca said in a case involving the website MajorWager.com: “While this case masquerades as a legitimate copyright dispute, in reality, it is arguably frivolous and nothing more than a thinly disguised shakedown.”
“Plaintiff Righthaven LLC knows that the costs of defending this action will far outweigh the value of this case, and is seeking to extract a settlement under the threat of protracted litigation and expense,” a Lewis and Roca filing in the MajorWager case said. “Neither the federal courts nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were established for this purpose.”
Righthaven has denied the shakedown allegation.
The Democratic Party response asked that the lawsuit against it be dismissed, a routine request Righthaven is likely to contest.
Unless a settlement is reached in the case, it’s likely attorneys for Righthaven and the party will continue trading legal briefs and motions for months until there’s a ruling on a motion for summary judgment or a motion for dismissal or there’s a trial.
The party response was filed by Perkins Coie LLP attorneys Marc Elias and Ezra Reese, as well as Las Vegas attorney Bradley Schrager with the Las Vegas law firm of Jones Vargas.
Elias’s bio says his clients include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, numerous U.S. senators and representatives, and governors and their campaigns.
The bio says Elias recently served as lead counsel for Sen. Al Franken in the 2008 Minnesota Senate election recount and contest and that he successfully argued the case before the Minnesota Supreme Court that resulted in a unanimous decision affirming that Franken had received the largest number of votes legally cast in the 2008 general election for U. S. senator.
In 2004, he served as general counsel to the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign and was general counsel for Chris Dodd for President during the 2008 primary campaign.
Reese’s bio says he focuses his practice on political law and nonprofit tax law.
Sooner or later he'll hit the hornet's nest that will unravel the house of cards. The RJ is doing indeterminable damage to its reputation in the community.
Here is their defense:
Yes we copied and pasted entire LVRJ copyright material without permission. We believe that is fair use. Plus the plantiff is using its due process rights under the law to recovery damages. We believe that is not fair.
I don't believe that is going to go very far in court.
Either they are going to have to come up with something better or I bet that they are going to settle othewise it is going to be a pretty quick case for the judge to decide in flavor of the plantiff.
These cases -- or at least a few -- must be brought to completion through the courts to establish precedence. Of the many issues involved, "fair use" by non-commercial and non-profit entities must be established. SgtRock, you seem to believe that "fair use" does not exist, but admittedly it does.
"While this case masquerades as a legitimate copyright dispute, in reality, it is arguably frivolous and nothing more than a thinly disguised shakedown."
Bwahahaha. The democrat party is well familiar with shakedowns when it comes to race (Reverend Jackson) and employment (union thugs), so I guess they know a shakedown when they see it.
And the democrats know that confiscating the fruits of others labors for their own (the donkeys) use is just par for the course. After all, it's just like their tax policy.
Ummm lisa, yes there is "fair use", but fair use does not extend to *taking the whole damn article*. (Which the donkey party has admitted to doing three times.) That is not fair use, that is stealing.
Ahh but I forget, there are different rules for democrats because they are just so darn better than us, right?
The governing law is US Copyright Office Summary of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DCMA).
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_mate...
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5...
Here is a key legal definition:
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
In other words, one can't copy and paste all or a significant portion of copyright material. You can copy a tiny portion like a few sentences.
But you can't copy all or a significant portion.
Not sure how much clear they could have made the law.
Perhaps, they need to put in big bright red letters in bold 130 font for people like Lisa to understand.
Actually, there IS such thing as fair use and there IS such thing as public record. Righthaven and The R-J are taking this too far, and they've become the laughingstock of the country due to their sue-happy ways.
And btw, I thought conservatives were supposed to be against "frivolous law suits"...
Anybody that is contacted for a story that lives in Vegas by any of the reporters that work for the R-J should have two words for them "NO Comment"!
You have got to ask your self what is a news paper function? It's not to sue the readers of the paper; after all they did have to read the story, before they posted it on their site, increasing the circulation of the paper. Some of these sites will have millions of hits, linking back to the news paper!
They are probably selling more advertising because of the web section of their news paper, then the printed section! All businesses needs to wake-up to the new world as we now know it and come up with a formula that will make them money off the web, suing is not the way to do it!
Why don't they write a story about the right way to post a story, the Sun should do the same thing! Nobody wants to infringe on anybody's rights!
Every time someone cancels their subscription to the R-J they should tell them, they do not want to get sued!
It's all about the MONEY!!!
If the RJ was suing people to "protect copyrighted material", one could understand.
Anyone, including sgtrock, who unnerstands the story behind Righthaven, LLC & the Review Journal
know that this is NOT THE CASE.
Weasels.
HAHAH the democrats and the republicans smell like rotten fish. No one ever listed to me warn against partisan politics. Stupid insolent fools.
Your logic is lame gmag.
If the lawsuits are not claiming copyright infringment exactly what are the claiming?
The LVRJ probably stands to make little or money from lawsuits and is only doing this to protect its copyright intellectual property which it has the right to do.
This way they don't have to hire staff to monitor the internet, run around trying to find contact information and then ask nicely for the dumb and unethical people, like the Nevada Democratic people, to stop stealing property that does not belong to them.
You could start fund and donate money to give to the LVRJ so that they hire the staff to do the above.
Why not start it today?
What Sarge doesn't tell you about the DMCA? (Besides the part where it's DMCA, not DCMA, of course...)
It's customary for a copyright owner to notify the infringing party of an alleged violation via takedown notice, allowing the infringing party to remove the alleged violation prior to adjudication.
Righthaven will have a few months of successfully wringing cash out of some folks, but this will be laughed out of court, eventually.
Sarge isn't a lawyer, he just plays on on the internet.
You don't know what you are talking about.
The law is very clear.
If a staff member of website or the owner of the website cuts and paste all or a significant portion of a website then there is absolutely no legal defense for that. The party that is violated does not have to give notice. They can sue and they will win.
What you are talking about is if a user (not the website owner or a staff member of the website) copies and pastes copyright material in a comment section of a website.
If the website owner registers their contact information with the US Copyright office and pays the fee that goes along with that plus puts the contact information on the website then the violated party must give them a take down notice before going to court.
If the website owner does not adhere to those rules and an user violates copyright laws then the website owner can no longer hide behind a lack of a take down notice.
Go read the freaking law before pulling stuff out of your butt as facts.
I gave links to the law above. Go click on it and read up and get back to me.
edgwise: "It's customary for a copyright owner to notify the infringing party of an alleged violation via takedown notice, allowing the infringing party to remove the alleged violation prior to adjudication."
That's absolutely true. I worked for major newspaper for about 25 years. I cannot recall that paper ever bring a copyright suit. On the other hand, I do recall a number of liable suits against it.
As I said before, a simple note to the offenders probably would have been sufficient.
"You don't know what you are talking about."
Says the guy who didn't even know the law was the DMCA!
"What you are talking about is if a user (not the website owner or a staff member of the website) copies and pastes copyright material in a comment section of a website."
Wrong. DMCA takedown notices are regularly sent to not only website operators, but individual users for infringing copyright. Most commonly it is due to illegal file sharing, which happens on a person's PC, not a website.
Either way, it's nearly impossible for the R-J to claim damages due to the nature of the R-J's website, which does not reside behind a paywall.
See, there's this carved-out exclusion for copyright law called "fair-use." Since you seem to have little to no knowledge of it, please refer to Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which dictates several factors which identify use as "fair use." One of which is the nature of the work. If the nature is educational or informational, it tends to fall inside of "fair use."
In fact, fair use is widely defined as, "criticism, comment, scholarship, research, news reporting or teaching."
Unless your argument is that the R-J is full of fiction, in which case Righthaven would have a case.
"Go read the freaking law before pulling stuff out of your butt as facts."
Who ever said that Republicans lacked class and dignity?
edgewise: Decorum, please. While the GOP isn't what it once was, folks like me, a very liberal Dem, have the greatest respect for what they're doing, especially in Nevada. To wit: Angle.
Mr. Rock clearly has no respect for those who, arguably, were ignorant of the law and I suspect would have immediately responded affirmatively to even a phone call from the RJ.
And, by the way, Sen. Dirksen was the epitome of class and dignity...though not my cup of tea.
"Mr. Rock clearly has no respect for those who, arguably, were ignorant of the law and I suspect would have immediately responded affirmatively to even a phone call from the RJ."
(ring) (ring)
Sarge: "Howdy!"
Sherm: "You must let me speak to Jim Nance!"
Sarge: "This is Jim? Who is calling?"
Sherm: "I AM SHERMAN FREDRICK! BOW TO ME!"
Sarge: "Sherman? Who? OH! The Review-Journal!?! Oh my god! I love you guys! You guys are the most fairest, balanced newspaper ever! Every morning I wake up and write many comments on your superawesome editorials. And your BLOG? I LOVE YOUR BLOG! Did you read my comment yesterday about--
Sherm: "SILENCE! My lawyer demands your immediately pay us $75,000."
Sarge: "Well, I'm already a loyal servant, I mean subscriber, but hey... why not? I totally trust you and your shady lawyer! I think I know what this is about. You want me to pay you $75,000 because I copied a paragraph of text with a link back to your freely-accessible website, right? That's totally fair! And balanced! And the copyright law says your lawyer is 100% right. I read it myself."
Sherm: "SILENCE! You must pay us now. We accept cash or charge. At one point, we were accepting souls, but we've got Thomas Mitchell's now, and... frankly, that's all we can handle. I'm saying his soul is worse than he is. It never shuts up and likes to make YouTube videos where he karaoke sings songs. SEND ME A CHECK IMMEDIATELY!
Sarge: "Right away, sir!"
(click)
(The YouTube singing thing? I didn't make it up. It's totally true... and... it's a violation of copyright.)
Edgewise: It's not "The Front Page," but you might write a treatment and try to sell it.
Its not about copyright infringement... It's about doing stupid things to make people not want to do business with you. Sue everyone and anything that touches your website doesn't exactly instill confidence in the company or make for good community relations.