Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Aug. 9, 2010 | 1:50 a.m.
Sun archives
- Righthaven continues suits over R-J copyrights; 91 total (8-6-2010)
- 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)
As word spreads around the country about the copyright infringement lawsuits filed over online Las Vegas-Review Journal stories, some bloggers and attorneys are advising website operators to immediately take steps to protect themselves from such suits.
Las Vegas company Righthaven LLC, headed by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson, through Friday had acquired a portfolio of 119 copyrights to individual stories from Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC -- and since March has filed 91 lawsuits against website owners throughout North America over the unauthorized re-postings of many of those stories.
Beyond the obvious procedure of not displaying unauthorized Review-Journal stories on their websites, and instead posting a link, some website operators recently learning of Righthaven have been scurrying to remove R-J stories from their archives that in some cases may extend back for several years.
And there's a legal point that is being stressed. Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), website owners to avoid liability in some instances must designate a contact and register their contact information with the U.S. Copyright Office.
This point apparently hasn't been well known among bloggers and website operators.
A website called beforeitsnews.com, which says it's a community of individuals reporting on what's going on around them, said in a recent post:
"People around the Internet have been perplexed at the actions of Righthaven, which has been outright filing lawsuits against hundreds of blogs and forums.
"Most webmasters wish to obey copyright laws and the 'norm' around the Internet has been for people who have a copyright problem to first file a DMCA takedown notice giving the webmaster time to remove the infringing material.
"Then if the webmaster refuses they can sue them.
"In fact we all thought that was a requirement and were shocked that these guys are actually suing people with no prior notice at all.
"We've been wondering how they can get away with that legally and it turns out an obscure section of the DMCA concerning the 'safe harbor' noticing procedures requires -- in order for a website to qualify for 'safe harbor' and thus require a copyright complainant to first give the webmaster notice and time to take down the material before suing them -- (amongst other things) that each website register their contact information with the United States Copyright office," the post said.
Ryan Gile, a Las Vegas intellectual property attorney with the firm Weide & Miller Ltd., made the same point Friday on his blog vegastrademarkattorney.com.
Gile also wrote:
"Many people who post content online may be under the impression that they can lawfully post all or part of an article originally published in the R-J so long as appropriate credit to the R-J is given (as well as possibly a link back to where the article appeared on the R-J’s website). In actuality, such actions may constitute copyright infringement.
"The R-J just accepted this type of copyright infringement for the longest time as an unfortunate byproduct of the Internet. However, earlier this year, the R-J apparently had a change of heart and is now aggressively going after anybody who posts any of its copyrighted content online," Gile wrote.
The Las Vegas office of the law firm Lewis and Roca LLP, which is representing some of the Rigthhaven defendants, says on its website:
"Lewis and Roca has represented defendants in a substantial number of the cases filed by Righthaven to date in settlement negotiations and litigation. Lewis and Roca has formed a team to handle these cases in an efficient and effective manner. In addition to representation against Righthaven, Lewis and Roca can provide advice on steps individuals and companies can take to minimize the risk of liability for copyright infringement, including protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
Some of the Righthaven defendants, in the meantime, are trying to organize so they can share in the legal costs of fighting the lawsuits against them. This effort is being led by David Burnett and Clayton Cramer, officials with the Idaho-based ArmedCitizen.com website that was sued by Righthaven.
The ArmedCitizen site, which posted stories about citizens using weapons in self defense, said it shut down after it was sued by Righthaven in order to avoid more legal trouble.
In a letter to some Righthaven defendants, Burnett writes:
"I understand you have been sued by Righthaven. Me too. So have roughly 90 other bloggers and websites. Basically, Righthaven is finding websites and bloggers who don't have enough money to afford quality legal representation and is trying to score quick settlements.
"We don't have to lie day down and take it.
"... I am in touch with attorneys who are willing to represent not just me or us, but a collective of Righthaven victims. We may even be able to motion to consolidate the cases. There are also some strong arguments we're exploring to raise against Righthaven's suits, which may mean they don't just win by default. ... We will be better off standing together than standing alone."
And at least three websites have been created to offer information on Righthaven. These are in addition to a Facebook page called "stop the LVRJ/RIGHTHAVEN witch hunt!"
The websites are righthavenlawsuits.com, www.scribd.com/righthavenlawsuits and righthavenvictims.blogspot.com.
Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick explained the Righthaven initiative in a May 28 blog.
Safe harbor provisions can only protect websites when casual users of a website violates copyright laws.
Safe harbor can never be used when a owner or a staff person of a website violates copyright laws.
There is no legal defense when an owner or a staff person performs copyright infringement.
So if you own a website then make sure that you or your staff never do dumb and unethical actions like copy and paste articles from another site.
If you own a website and allow people from the street to freely post on your site without any review then you should pay the fee and register with US Copyright Office and maintain a system where somebody can make offical contact and send you take-down notices and then one must quickly respond to those take-down notices
Every eco-system has bottom feeders lower than whale spit. Some just have lower bottom feeders.
There is a major exclusion to copyright for fair use. 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 the "fair use" clause.
In fact, fair use is widely defined as, "criticism, comment, scholarship, research, news reporting or teaching."
If I cut out an R-J article and post it in the lunchroom at work, am I violating the R-J's copyright? I doubt any judge would find in their favor.
Unfortunately for the R-J, it will also be nearly impossible for the R-J to claim damages, as their website and articles are not behind a paywall. What monetary damage did they suffer if their freely-available content is reprinted, with attribution, elsewhere?
It seems that the over-arching problem that Sherm and company are trying to solve for is readership. Suing your readers is a good start--with any luck, there soon will be no RJ readers left to steal their content.
Carry on.
I know SgtRock. The owner of the cat blog -- which is now offline I believe -- was so "dumb" and "unethical," much like the Wind group and others. What we need is a top notch 1st Amendment attorney to blow some massive holes into the Righthaven racket.
SgtRock is more than modestly correct in the copyright law. The question I have is why he's so passionate in his defense of the RJ? Certainly the paper isn't terribly popular given its low and non-increasing circulation; and while it has some pretty good stories, it's a lazy paper, made up mostly of AP material. I always thought newspapers should provide a service to the community; the RJ certainly doesn't and it appears as if its publisher could care less; and its editor seems to go along with it all.
But, SgtRock apparently doesn't give a damn for the community either; just the "law." So, again I wonder if he's a "shill" for the RJ; or just another one of those over the top right wingers out there.
I've heard from attorneys, by the way, that there is case law supporting "ignorance of the law" as a defense and there have been a number of successful cases to this end, statutory damages or not. While I am a bit of cynic, I can imagine that there are a few who posted stories and knew they were violating copyright laws, but my guess would be very few. And as I've written before, a cease and desist letter to the offenders would probably have done the trick.
Also, I've seen many posts on blogs from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and others. But I haven't seen a Sherman (no pun intended) on Georgia tear like Righthaven coming from those papers.
Perhaps Mr. Frederick is just coming to realize that he's been an utter failure as a publisher and is looking to make a name for himself in other ways.
It's interesting, again, that the published settlements have been relatively small, so where's the profit motive for the RJ? In fact, what IS the paper's motive for this sort of activity.
Rock clings to the law; it's probably more helpful for our community to support these victims and show that we are a community and not just the night and strip club center of the nation.
LisaMM, so you are saying that it is a Constitutional right to steal other people's work. Can I swing by your place? I need a few things.
Jeremybrooks, they are not suing readers unless those readers are also websites owners that steal material and therefore web traffic from the LVRJ.
Edgewise, There are four factors when considering "Fair Use" and yes eductional use can be one of those factors. But all FOUR factors must come out positive. Copying all or a significant portion of copyright material fails one of the four the "Fair Use" tests.
Show me one offical educational site where as offical policy it says one can copy and paste all or a significant portion of copyright material without permission. When hell freezes over then get back to me.
So, I'm wondering if SgtRock isn't really Sherm Frederick: "websites owners that steal material and therefore web traffic from the LVRJ." "Steal" sounds like Frederick; and my guess is that if the stories were posted with links, traffic wasn't diverted from the RJ site, in fact, it probably was increased.
Murrayburns, you make no sense.
So, I go to a website that has copied and pasted a story from the New York Times. Why would I want to click on a link to re-read the same story?
SgtRock: You might click on the link to read the rest of the paper, or other stories, or given the speed that online stories are updated, seeing an update. Increasingly, your lack of compassion and arguments sound like Mr. Frederick or Mr. Gibson.
It's really a simple question Sarge: Why do you seem to be in favor of this litigation, and why do you not see the reasonableness of first sending some sort of "cease and desist" letter?
What you're saying here, very basically, is that the "targets" broke the law and should be punished to the max. I can't even comprehend that there are still human beings out there that give no one the benefit of the doubt, or an ounce of support when, in this case, as I said before, I would bet that few, if any thought they were breaking the law.
"But all FOUR factors must come out positive. Copying all or a significant portion of copyright material fails one of the four the "Fair Use" tests."
Not if the use is non-profit. Only a commercial use of a whole work would weigh significantly against fair use.
Furthermore, not all four factors must come out positive; the balance must be in favor of fair use.
You obviously don't understand fair use, Sarge.
Edgewise, let's play a game.
You first find one single legit site that says a non-profit can do copyright infringement as in copying and pasting material from another site.
I then will find a legit site that says the oppposite.
You go first. After hell freezes over (you will not find one single site that says that a non-profit site can legally copy and paste articles from another site), I will post my article.
I will plenty of articles that will say that one has to past all four test for Fair Use and one of those test is that one can't copy and paste all or a significant portion of copyright material.
Go for it!!!!!!!! Perhaps hell will freeze over.
murrybruns......it cost money to do what you are asking the LVRJ to do. They have to pay money for labor and software to monitor for copyright infringement and to send letters to the thieves and to see if the thieves do as requested. Are you willing to give thousands of dollars to LVRJ to fund that effort? Why does a person have to spend money and be nice to thief?
So if I came by your house and stole your food then would you then spend money to hunt me down and then send me a nice letter to please beg me to return the food. That sounds silly, right.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who steal. Some are stealing because they are dumb and ethically challenge. Their little brain can't comprehend that heck it just might be wrong to copy and paste an article from another site and post it on their own site.
"But all FOUR factors must come out positive."
Utterly false. The courts use a balancing approach. NYU Law Professor Alan B. Morrison, Fundamentals of American Law (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 525, makes the point that Williams & Wilkins v. U.S. makes: "In general, it is easiest to make out a claim for fair use if the use is non-commercial and for such purposes as news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. The idea here is that these are important activists aimed at expanding the knowledge base. If no profit is earned, the user will not have funds to pay the copyright holder for permission. Rather than require the public to forgo the use, the statute permits unauthorized use....
"Works in which copyright is thin--factual works such as histories are examples--are more likely to be considered fair-used than other works because of the importance of assuring public access to that part of the work that is not suitable for copyright protection."
News articles that are primarily factual in nature seem a lot closer to this description than "literary work" as many of the complaints describe these news articles.
See also the discussion in Stephen E. Fienberg, Margaret E. Martin, Miron L. Straf, National Research Council Committee on National Statistics, Sharing Research Data (1985), pp. 154-5, taking generally the line of argument: "Scholarly and educational uses of copyright material have received great deference in determining if a use is to be permitted: courts have permitted liberal use of copyrighted material is science and the arts are furthered. One case noted that the doctrine of fair use will be given broader scope when a 'field of learning' is concerned, and a narrower scope when the use is solely for commercial purposes."
"LisaMM, so you are saying that it is a Constitutional right to steal other people's work."
You probably should read the case law on this subject. The courts have repeatedly held that the copyright holder's economic interest is secondary to the interests of the society. That's part of why fair use is far broader for noncommercial purposes, especially those of a public nature, than commercial purposes.
Copyright is a monopoly granted by Congress, and for a very specific purpose. Look in Art. I, sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution to see what that purpose is. That is also the position the courts have repeatedly taken. Copyright isn't a property right in the same sense as ownership of your beloved Corvette.
"It's interesting, again, that the published settlements have been relatively small, so where's the profit motive for the RJ? In fact, what IS the paper's motive for this sort of activity."
I've talked to people who can't afford an attorney to defend themselves. They have nothing, and soon, Righthaven will have a worthless judgment that they can use to make the lives of ordinary people into grinding misery for many years.
The psychic income of driving some people into bankruptcy who either out of ignorance of lack foresight, copied an article, must be quite valuable to Shermy and Righthaven.
"Why do you seem to be in favor of this litigation, and why do you not see the reasonableness of first sending some sort of "cease and desist" letter?"
SgtRock obviously sees the value of frivolous lawsuits. I expect that he will be joining the Democratic Party next.
"Righthaven has a genius legal extortion racket going on. Its one of those things tha make you think "Why didn't I think of that?"."
Your parents raised you right?
"It has sometimes been suggested that the copying of an entire copyrighted work, any such work, cannot ever be "fair use," but this is an overbroad generalization, unsupported by the decisions[12] and rejected by years of accepted practice." Williams & Wilkins Company v. United States, 487 F. 2d 1345 - Court of Claims 1973
In this case, the noncommercial use involved copying of entire magazine articles. SgtRock, you might want to actually study the subject.
Two points:
1. The RJ's business model is of its' own choosing. It is a private company and can do as it pleases. If it wants to sue its' sources for daring to post the stories which quote those sources extensively -- the RJ can do so. However, we can see that their news sources will tend to dry up. If the RJ believes that its' value as a going concern is or will soon be nothing, and the only thing that it has of value is its' archives, they are entitled to pursue a strategy which maximizes realization of that value. This leads to point 2, below.
2. The RJ owns and operates the press on which this newspaper is printed. If the RJ goes under, the Sun needs to adopt a new business model of its own. Is the Sun prepared to survive solely on the net? Similarly, if the RJ just limps along losing ads, subscribers, and pages, at some point it will be uneconomic to operate the press -- with the same impact on the Sun. The Sun is a Pulitzer Prize winning paper which continues its history of investigative reporting. Like it or not the two newspapers seem firmly bound. It appears to be a question of sink or swim together or drown together.
"You first find one single legit site that says a non-profit can do copyright infringement as in copying and pasting material from another site."
You should re-read my post, because you obviously don't understand the argument. I didn't say "when a non-profit posts," I said when the use is "non-profit." Maybe "not-for-profit" would clarify it for you, or non-commercial? Either way, you missed the point, and are arguing a straw man.
"I will plenty of articles that will say that one has to past all four test for Fair Use and one of those test is that one can't copy and paste all or a significant portion of copyright material."
It's all dependent on the judge and how that judge views the scenario, but it is simply not true that use has to pass all four tests in order to be seen as fair use. As fairuser points out, there's plenty of case law which contradicts your argument.
Fairuser, you still have failed to provide any citation of any legit source that says copying and pasting copyright material on a website is not copyright infringement even if it is done for educational purposes on a non-profit site.
Williams & Wilkins Company v. United States, 487 F. 2d 1345 - Court of Claims 1973 deals with a very specific instance of Fair Use.
Th court decision said that it is OK for educational institution to provide photocopies of magazine articles to researchers.
It is one thing to photocopy a magazine article.
It is quite another thing to post the same article on the Internet.
You are trying to compare apples to battleships.
Copying and pasting a news article on an Internet site is a blanant violation of Fair Use.
One would be laughed out of court trying to defend that in court.
Please.....please cite a court case or some law that says for educational purposes a non-profit web site can copy and paste copyright material at will.
"It is one thing to photocopy a magazine article.
It is quite another thing to post the same article on the Internet."
It is indeed. But what NIH was doing in 1973 (back before the Internet existed in its current form) was functionally equivalent: making copies of copyrighted magazine articles for a legitimate research activity.
This is called arguing by analogy--and where there is no case law that exactly matches a particular situation, courts often use similar situations to resolve issues.
1) It is a big hurdle to overcome if one wants to claim "Fair Use" by copying and pasting all or a significant of copyright material.
Just your example proves that. Here NIH are just making copies for research purposes. Sounds very innocent. Yet, that case went all to the Supreme Court and it was a split decision.
It is the burden of the defendant to prove their points about Fair Use. They are going to have to expend resources to prove that defense.
All the plantiff has to show is that defendent copied and posted the article.
2) I think you are nuts if you are saying that making a copy at the photocopying machine for a single instance of researching for a limited defined audience is the functional equivalent as posting an article on the Internet for everybody to see and use for whatever purposes as they see fit whenever that they want to.
I think the court system might be using your argument as paper filing for the bottom of a bird cage.
I think you need to find a case where somebody from a college library is standing on the corner of Flamigo and Las Vegas Blvd handing out copies to whoever walks by and waving and shouting "I got free copies of other people's intellectual property. Get your free copies."
Go find a case like and that would be more of a functionally equivalent sample.
lericgoodman: I think it's highly unlikely the "RJ" will "go under." The newspaper business is, as most know, pretty much dying. My guess is that an online model for which we pay is more likely and I'd be willing pay for content online, given it's worth the money. The Sun's site, in my view, is far and way better than the RJ's in terms of design. For me it's just easier to read.
What I do think, in discussing this issue with any number of people, including attorneys, is that first, there's no question that the "targets" violated the law. But there is "some" question as to how the Federal Court will treat the violation. The courts, I understand, are not predisposed to putting the woman who ran that cat site into bankruptcy, or pretty much anyone in this matter.
Everyone here seems to be an expert on the copyright law. Well, despite what the law says, or most any law says, judges and juries have their own opinion and these are supposed to be jury trials, from what I understand.
I don't have a problem with the RJ and its assets and the fact that the paper doesn't want its stories plastered all over the internet. I have a problem with the way those guys went about resolving the issue.
I'm all for newspapers going after "bad guys," but are these "targets" really "bad guys?" I don't know if any of the sites in question are commercial, perhaps some are, but many aren't. Why put people through it?
Can you imagine what a great newspaper the RJ could be if Mr. Frederick put half as much energy into driving journalism, rather than litigation?
"Can you imagine what a great newspaper the RJ could be if Mr. Frederick put half as much energy into driving journalism, rather than litigation?"
I doubt Mr. Frederick or the staff at the LVRJ are putting any energy or very little energy. All the heavy labor is been done by Righthaven.
Most likely LVRJ is getting this service for free or at a small cost or they might be making a few dollars.
Righthaven probably is the most to gain from the effort from the lawsuits and the most to lose too.
You want LVRJ to spend money on policing the Internet. You want them to hire staff to monitor the Internet and then to send letters to the violaters.
Why do that when the can get the service for free?
Why should they spend money to deal with people who are stealing their property?
Using Righthaven, the LVRJ don't have to spend a dime.
Do you get it now?
Do you understand?
Have you ever ran a business?
These people that are stealing LVRJ intellectual property are either extremely dumb or have no ethics or both.
I don't feel sorry for them one bit.
Righthaven would go out of business overnight if people would stop copying and pasting all or a significant part of the LVRJ intellectual property.
It is just that simple.
Don't steal.
Chunky says:
It's a greedy lawyer money-grab going after people who cannot afford to defend themselves. If it were not, they'd have sent some kind of letter first.
Shame on greedy lawyers and judges who allow this kind of legal work to go on!!!
That's what Chunky thinks!
From sgt rock "Most likely LVRJ is getting this service for free or at a small cost or they might be making a few dollars.
Why do that when the can get the service for free?
Why should they spend money to deal with people who are stealing their property?
Using Righthaven, the LVRJ don't have to spend a dime."
I have to object to this. I have been watching for awhile and mr rock has just stepped over the line. Sgt Rock is selling and shilling this company. It adds insult to injury. Sgt Rock just told everyone how wonderful it is to hire this company and it won't cost you, in fact you may make a few bucks! whooo hooo.
Sgt Rock, you keep posting 'Can I come to your house?'. What you don't realize is that if you do come to these lower middle class peoples houses, there is nothing there. Do you want the 8 year old tv set? But I bet they would give you the shirt off their backs if you were in need. So you are trolling for scraps and forcing good people into bankruptcy and treating them like criminals. You have no sympathy, we get it. I just wonder why you don't get it.
You have lost in The Court of Public Opinion. That is something that you nor anyone can control.
Sgt. Rock: Didn't Sherm "grubstake" Righthaven? Oh, maybe he did it himself, rather than with RJ fund, huh? And, if the RJ isn't financially supporting Righthaven, who is? I'm sure it's cost them at least $100k to file some 90 suits and the returns have been minimal from what I've read. Additionally, Righthaven has yet to find itself in Court on one of these cases. At that point the fees are going through the roof.
One has to wonder how much it costs Righthaven per lawsuit filed EXCLUDING 1.) The cost of buying the copyrighted material 2.) Any and all activity once filed? From the initial searching to the boilerplate lawsuit to the court filing fees, the cost cannot be under $500. When one INCLUDES #1 and 2, what is the average upfront cost to Righthaven per complaint filed?
Those "targets" who settle do so on their own. For me, the real question is "Who will be the first to go to court on this matter?" Once that happens, I would guess that Righthaven might have some issues. Judges these days don't like this sort of thing, at least from what I've read and heard.
Sherm (Sarge), first, suing readers is just plain foolish when newspapers are having the problems they're having these days; second, considering your thought process, logic and business capabilities (no increase in circulation for years, or ad line space), why does Stephens keep you around.
The LVRJ has been copying and pasting from other sites with impunity even since they started filing these suits.
I guess if you're a "big time" media empire (even if it's only in your head), this type of behavior is acceptable.
Obviously it must not be such a huge issue if you continue to do what you're suing over. But all the LVRJ people do is bluster and curse and argue when you ask them to explain why it's legal for one entity and not for another.