Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Friday, Aug. 6, 2010 | 1:15 p.m.
Updated Friday, Aug. 6, 2010 | 7:36 p.m.
Sun archives
- State Democratic Party fighting R-J copyright lawsuit (8-5-2010)
- 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)
Attorneys for a Las Vegas law firm continue to attack a copyright infringement lawsuit campaign involving Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, saying it's a "massive cash grab" aimed at coercing settlements from small website owners throughout North America.
The Review-Journal has partnered with a Las Vegas company, Righthaven LLC, to have Righthaven file no-warning copyright infringement lawsuits against owners of websites that post R-J stories without authorization. The suits typically demand $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names.
Through Friday, 91 Righthaven lawsuits had been filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. Court records indicate 18 of the suits have been settled under generally undisclosed terms -- and that more settlements are in the works. The only publicly-reported settlement amounts for two cases were $2,185 and $5,000, respectively. In these settlements, the defendants have been able to keep their domain names.
In many of the cases, "mom and pop"-type website owners and bloggers are defending themselves, finding it cheaper to settle than to hire an attorney to litigate the cases.
But in a few cases, attorneys are fighting back and one of the more aggressive defenses is being mounted by lawyers with the Las Vegas office of the law firm Lewis and Roca LLP, which has one of the busier intellectual property practices in town.
A case involving Lewis and Roca client MajorWager.com, a one-man company based in Montreal, is shaping up to be test of the validity of the Review-Journal/Righthaven litigation strategy.
In its April 7 lawsuit against MajorWager, Righthaven claimed MajorWager copied and displayed without authorization 14 R-J sports stories, including one from March 18 for which Righthaven obtained a copyright for on March 29 -- after it appeared on the MajorWager site. The copyright was transferred to Righthaven from Stephens Media LLC, owner of the Review-Journal.
Court records show entire R-J and Las Vegas Sun stories were posted on the website, not just links, and that the R-J and Sun were credited as the source of the stories.
(The policy of the Sun and the rest of Greenspun Media Group is not to sue copyright infringers, but rather to request that Sun and other Greenspun Media stories be taken down and be replaced with links. Besides the links, Greenspun Media allows websites to use text totaling as much as 100 words or 10 percent of a story, whichever is less.)
In initially responding to the MajorWager suit June 1, Lewis and Roca attorneys said it was "arguably frivolous" and "nothing more than a thinly disguised shakedown."
In a June 28 filing, Lewis and Roca said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that this case borders on being frivolous. In fact, that has been the consensus of the substantial media coverage given to the now 47 Righthaven lawsuits currently pending before this court."
"These lawsuits are based upon the posting of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles on websites often, as in this case, by third parties, to further their own personal interest in an online discussion about a particular topic. Also in many cases, including this one, the allegedly infringing posts either give credit to the R-J or link right back to it. In addition, most of these suits, again, including this one, were filed by Righthaven without even notifying the defendants or providing them with an opportunity to remove the allegedly infringing articles.
"This strongly suggests that these suits were filed, not for the legitimate purpose of enforcing copyrights, but rather, to coerce several settlements as part of a massive cash grab facilitated by judicial process," the Lewis and Roca filing said, adding the stories at issue can be found for free on the R-J website by Googling for them.
"The R-J even encouraged visitors to download or distribute the article electronically via email," the attorneys wrote. "In addition, the R-J’s website does not impose any terms or conditions on the viewing, copying, or distributing of articles posted on the website. In short, there is nothing to indicate that the articles cannot be freely copied or distributed and, in fact, the R-J’s own website encourages users to do exactly that," the Lewis and Roca filing said.
In backing up its argument that media coverage has found the Righthaven lawsuit initiative to be frivolous, Lewis and Roca attorneys filed three stories with the court about Righthaven from technology, law and media websites Techdirt.com, the Blog Law Blog and MediaPost.com. The Techdirt and MediaPost reports were critical of Righthaven.
The Lewis and Roca filing didn't include any stories from the Las Vegas Sun on Righthaven.
Righthaven, in firing back at Lewis and Roca and Lewis and Roca's assertion the Nevada court lacks jurisdiction over MajorWager, said in a court filing: "MajorWager's reliance on Righthaven-related media articles to support its jurisdictional argument exemplifies the futile, legally groundless nature of MajorWager's position."
Righthaven submitted to the court a July 9 Las Vegas Sun story on the Democratic Party of Nevada and other websites being sued that day by Righthaven. At that time, 64 Righthaven suits had been filed. The Sun story included links to previous Sun stories on the Righthaven lawsuits.
"MajorWager's attachment of three, hand-picked, Internet-based 'articles' commenting on Righthaven's legal activities hardly represents a fair and balanced view of the media coverage. Furthermore, while MajorWager states that Righthaven's lawsuits have garnered 'substantial media coverage,' such coverage is largely attributable to the Las Vegas Sun, which has published no less than 17 Righthaven-related stories since March 17, 2010. Importantly, the Las Vegas Sun has historically and arguably been a direct competitor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and thus, is a highly impeachable source," Righthaven's filing said.
Besides the stories mentioned in the court filings, Righthaven has been covered by the Los Angeles Times, Wired.com, Reason.com and numerous media and legal blogs.
Righthaven in court papers also defended its litigation strategy as being necessary to protect the financial interests of the newspaper industry.
"The decline of newspapers nationwide has coincided with the rise of the Internet, and thus coincided with the rise of Internet-based copyright infringements such as those committed by MajorWager," Righthaven's filing said.
"While Righthaven is certainly not suggesting that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is facing an imminent demise, the Las Vegas Review-Journal – like every other newspaper – is nevertheless at risk due to the disturbing trend of Internet-based copyright infringements. Moreover, if newspapers fail to adopt solutions similar to that provided by Righthaven to protect their copyrights, there is no reason to believe that the outlook for these newspapers will be improving any time soon," Righthaven's filing said.
The latest dustup between Lewis and Roca and Righthaven, which is led by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson, is over Righthaven's request to the court that it be allowed to conduct discovery including taking depositions from MajorWager CEO Russ Hawkins and "CLEVFAN," a MajorWager user who allegedly posted the R-J stories at issue in the lawsuit. Righthaven has asserted CLEVFAN is a MajorWager employee, Lewis and Roca says he's a former employee.
Righthaven also wants permission to make five document production requests of MajorWager and for five interrogatories -- written questions and answers -- of MajorWager.
Lewis and Roca attorneys Michael McCue and Jonathan Fountain on Wednesday filed court papers opposing Righthaven's discovery plan, calling the allegations in the Righthaven lawsuit "empty, threadbare and conclusory."
In arguing the Nevada court lacks jurisdiction, the Lewis and Roca filing said MajorWager has had no contact with Nevada and since the stories were posted not by MajorWager but by the former employee, "plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery is utterly futile."
"Nevertheless, Plaintiff seeks to correct its failure to conduct any pre-litigation investigation into the existence, (or non-existence), of jurisdictional facts at MajorWager’s expense. On this extremely thin record, in addition to being burdensome and expensive, jurisdictional discovery is nothing short of harassing," Lewis and Roca's filing said.
"Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery is nothing more than a last-ditch fishing expedition made not for the proper purpose of advancing this case to trial, but rather, for the improper purpose of driving up MajorWager’s legal fees and pressuring it to settle," the Lewis and Roca attorneys wrote.
"Even if plaintiff were to prevail on the merits, because plaintiff offered the article to the world on its own website for free, it has not suffered any actual damages. Plaintiff would be entitled, at most, to statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000. Given the de minimis (minimal) nature of the alleged infringement, it is doubtful that the court would award a significant amount of statutory damages.
"Thus, the amount in controversy is minimal, probably somewhere around $750. With respect to ... the parties’ resources, MajorWager is a one-person company. It does not sell any goods or services. It does not operate at a profit. Its resources are limited and dwarfed by Righhaven’s -- a company 'grubstaked' by the Las Vegas Review-Journal," the attorneys added.
The judge assigned to the case hasn't yet ruled on the discovery issue or set a hearing on the dispute.
Righthaven, in the meantime, sued five more website owners Thursday and Friday, alleging copyright infringement over the posting of R-J stories on their websites and seeking damages of $75,000 apiece.
They are:
--The Center for Intercultural Organizing and its executive director, Kayse Jama. The nonprofit in Portland, Ore., says it was founded by Portland-area immigrants and refugees to combat widespread anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11. It now works to strengthen immigrant and refugee communities through education, civic engagement, organizing and mobilization. Jama said he had no immediate comment on the lawsuit, which says his group's website posted without authorization a June 28 R-J story about Las Vegas police referring immigrant misdemeanor crime suspects to federal officials for potential deportation. The R-J was credited as the source of that story, a court exhibit shows.
--Second Amendment Sisters Inc. and two officials there, Marinelle Thompson and Lee Ann Tarducci. Based in Lakeway, Texas, the nonprofit group says on its website: "Second Amendment Sisters Inc. is a women's advocacy group dedicated to preserving the basic human right of self-defense, as recognized by the Second Amendment. We believe in personal responsibility, education, and enforcement of laws against violent criminals."
A request for comment was placed with the Second Amendment Sisters, accused of displaying on its website an R-J story from May 17 about a Las Vegas store clerk who died after being shot by a robber -- but managed to shoot and kill the robber before dying. The R-J was credited as the source of the story on the Second Amendment Sisters website, court records show.
--Alan Potasnik and Tom Johnson, whom Righthaven says are associated with the website rollcallamerica.com. It allegedly posted an R-J editorial about the "Obama-Reid agenda." A message for comment was left with Potasnik, Johnson couldn't be located.
--Ronald Baxter and entities he allegedly is associated with called TEB Media and Buy Dog Beds. The story on the slain store clerk was posted on the www.buydogbeds.org website, the lawsuit alleges. A message for comment was left with Baxter.
--Margaret Soltan, an English professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Soltan, who has a blog called ``University diaries'' about American university life, allegedly posted on her website an R-J story about a UNLV assistant football coach who had been charged with trespassing and prohibited use of weapons in Colorado. Soltan said Friday that she did not post the story at issue, but rather quoted some paragraphs from it and posted them with a link to the original story. "Because I feel harassed and intimidated by the lawsuit, I have removed the post. My blog is educational, non-commercial, and includes a long-running critique of university sports, of which this post is clearly a part," she said.
Sean Hannity cites RJ polls and articles without attribution. Rightklaven should sue him.
Maybe our great Senator Harry Reid should pass a new set of copyright laws to protect hapless blogger and websites, and at the same time bring back the fairness doctrine to the airwaves.
Does this ever end? As usual, the only people making any money on this are the attorneys.
They must be evil. They are asking the courts to uphold the law.
No, they are evil because they look to maximize legal costs, instead of behaving like reasonable people. Note the Sun's approach--which is that of just about all other news organizations. Make a polite request first. When did manners go out of style?
(Unsurprising response from a Republican who repeats by rote tort reform unless of course it's for their kind.)
Sure legally the RJ can do this. But can they simply ask these small business websites to simply remove the story/info in question without corroding their reputation? Sure.
This is like firing a bazooka to ward off a gnat.
Unfortunately I would like to boycott that rag that is the RJ but in doing so I also punish the Sun.
"(Unsurprising response from a Republican who repeats by rote tort reform unless of course it's for their kind.)"
Uh, there's a lot of us Republicans who consider Righthaven's actions profoundly wrong. I have even wondered if perhaps this was a campaign to get Democrats to realize the evil of lawsuit abuse. But now that Righthaven is suing everything that breathes (including bloggers so poor that the judgment is going to be unenforceable), it is pretty clear that this isn't about education, or politics, but unrestrained, immoral greed.
Axiom: I'm not certain that you "punish the Sun," as I read it online...and, I'd be willing to pay for the privilege. Second, I agree with you, as I've said here before. This really makes little sense, well any, as letters would have, in all probability, done the trick. Here's what I think is going to happen: They'll get judgements against a number, if not all "Mom and Pops," which will then file bankruptcy...then this story will explode nationally: Newspaper forces readers into bankruptcy.
It's really strange to see so many here "siding with the RJ." Sure, copyright laws were broken, but by the same token, as Axiom said, letters would have probably done the trick. Here's a newspaper (the RJ) with a publisher and editor who wear cowboy hats and act like rednecks. Well, that's not entirely true, the editor does seem to be able to write. Despite that, why make matters worse for for residents of Nevada, which has the nation's highest unemployment and the nation's worst state economy. I guess there's no such thing as a "compassionate Libertarian."
Scumbags begat scumbags.
What else is new?
Remember years ago when right-wingers preached tort reform and the evils of frivolous lawsuits?
Oh wait, that was just yesterday. My bad.
"Remember years ago when right-wingers preached tort reform and the evils of frivolous lawsuits?
Oh wait, that was just yesterday. My bad."
We still do. But greed takes precedence over politics, it appears.
"It's really strange to see so many here "siding with the RJ.""
How many of them are actually a newspaper publisher under multiple identities?
Here's the whole silly nonsense in a nutshell:
"This strongly suggests that these suits were filed, not for the legitimate purpose of enforcing copyrights, but rather, to coerce several settlements as part of a massive cash grab facilitated by judicial process," the Lewis and Roca filing said, adding the stories at issue can be found for free on the R-J website by Googling for them."
EXACTLY.
It's just a way to make a few bucks.
Wow.
What a sad, sad state of journalistic affairs.
There is NO SHAME.
Fairuser: An old trick, eh. The real question is, "Who is a newspaper publisher?" Certainly not Sherm Frederick, he's just a fellow who seems to like publicity and power, without regard to the community, or for that matter, the credibility of his reporters and newspaper. When Don Reynolds ran the show, it was a hell of a newspaper. All you have to do is go to the archives, if you can find them, and see the percentage of the paper under Reynolds media that covered local news...and compare with the paper now.
It doesn't matter, in my view, how many are posting under imaginative identities. What matters is that the core issue is that there seems to be little compassion on the part of this paper, let alone interest in serving the community.
I don't agree with the RJ approach, however in the body of this story, you write:
"In addition, the R-J's website does not impose any terms or conditions on the viewing, copying, or distributing of articles posted on the website. In short, there is nothing to indicate that the articles cannot be freely copied or distributed and, in fact, the R-J's own website encourages users to do exactly that," the Lewis and Roca filing said.
Contrary to that statement, RJ DOES CLEARLY INDICATE IN RED LETTERS, to ASK ABOUT THE USE OF THEIR COPYRIGHT MATERIAL. Anyone can check it out as I have, and get the terms and conditions by which RJ will allow use of their information.
Nevertheless, I by-pass all of this when I not only hear television news-casters repeat these stories; when I read major stories being published on the web in multiple formats and all with the essential information being the same, by publishing companies; newspapers, bloggers, etc.
RJ is making a serious mistake by blowing this up out of proportion and grabbing this money like taking candy from a helpless child. I continue to maintain, it will hurt RJ and their image, in the long-run.
What's so hard to understand, this is not about the copyright infringement!
They are buying the rights to the stories after the fact. At the time that the copy right infringement happened they were not the owners of the stories. Nobody should settle with Righthaven LLC, they all should go to court, they did the same thing in Fla. With the handicap laws, where they would get a handicap person to go into a business, they tell the owner they were going to sue, because they were in violation of the handicap laws!
Everybody should file for discovery, and then tell them to pound sand, telling them we are going to court, and fight this!
Again nobody should do an interview with the R-J! Remembers these words, "No Comment"
Anybody that has a subscription should cancel!
Can anyone tell me if when you copy the article if that is recorded by RJ site and the information is scoured to find alleged violations by web site owners. Or if they are using a plagiarism program to find on the web that matches some sorta algorithm.
Just want to commend Greenspun for its copyright practices.
CasinoKid: Just don't even quote the RJ. Frederick's just a nut at this point and clearly not a newspaperman. If he focused on journalism, perhaps the paper would make a profit from ads and subscriptions. He seems to be seeking other revenue streams, or just publicity.
Chediski: Second that.
oldladyplayspiano
Aug. 6, 2010
4:58 p.m.
"Contrary to that statement, RJ DOES CLEARLY INDICATE IN RED LETTERS, to ASK ABOUT THE USE OF THEIR COPYRIGHT MATERIAL. Anyone can check it out as I have, and get the terms and conditions by which RJ will allow use of their information."
=====
Really? Where exactly is that on the page, b/c it sure doesn't show up on my browser.
====
A lawyer can STEAL more than a hundred men with guns.
boycott the r-j's advertisers. period.
go to the r-j's website...anyone that advertises on that page...BOYCOTT! they advertise in the r-j, which in turn gives the r-j the funds to pursue these stupid lawsuits.
and people, PLEASE get a clue. newspapers really make NO money on subscriptions. it's purely a marketing tool to SELL ADS!
"well, mr. car dealer...people PAY to get our paper, they WILL read it and see YOUR ad."
This kind of cr*p makes Las Vegas look even more pathetic.
> How many of them are actually a newspaper publisher under multiple identities?
lets ask steve m.
> he's just a fellow who seems to like publicity and power, without regard to the community, or for that matter, the credibility of his reporters and newspaper.
lets not forget to add that he's willing to play the victim at the drop of a hat.
Some commenters on this article and past articles about R*ghth*v*n have implied that it is hypocritical of conservatives to file frivolous lawsuits, because they are 'in favor' of tort reform. (Disclaimer: I certainly believe these lawsuits, in most cases, to be frivolous and predatory.)
However, let's look at the history of tort reform in the US in the last couple of decades. At the Federal level, virtually NO reform has been done, with either Democratic or Republican administrations. Because, in part, we have a government run by lawyers, the only real incentive for tort reform comes from the pressure put on by businesses that are fearful of suits, especially ones like this.
The reality, though, is that the screwed up tort system we have, is what it is, and is unlikely to change soon (although these copyright suits may spur some lawmakers to finally do something).
But to suggest that conservatives have no right to sue, or, even worse, should sit by and not sue to somehow 'set an example', is absurd.
More sites and uploads are popping up about this:
http://www.scribd.com/righthavenlawsuits...
http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/wp-conten...
No, we don't need tort reform. What we need is frivolous lawsuit reform.
Q) What is the difference between an Attorney and a catfish?
A) One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.