Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble5 more websites sued over R-J story copyrights
Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2010 | 10:14 a.m.
Sun archives
- Websites, bloggers make moves to avoid Righthaven lawsuits (8-9-2010)
- 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)
Las Vegas Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick likens copyright infringement of his newspaper's online content to the hypothetical theft of a classic Corvette from his front yard.
But in the real world, Frederick and his copyright enforcement partner don't appear to be making many friends among Corvette enthusiasts.
On Monday, the R-J's copyright enforcement partner, Righthaven LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the owner of the www.corvetteforum.com website.
That suit, one of five federal cases filed by Righthaven on Monday in Las Vegas, listed as defendants Internet Brands Inc. of Los Angeles and Internet Brands Chief Marketing Officer Chuck Hoover.
The suit says an R-J story from June 20 called "Reid machine dwarfs Angle" was posted on the Corvette website without authorization.
The story on Nevada's U.S. Senate race appears to have been posted by a website user named "71stang99." Full credit was given to the R-J in the post, which included a link to the story on the R-J's website.
A message for comment on the lawsuit was left with Internet Brands, a publicly-traded company that posted $28.1 million in second-quarter revenue and that runs more than 100 websites.
Another Corvette website operator, Ashur Conrad, editor of the Corvette Mafia News Blog, told the Las Vegas Sun last week that he was upset about Frederick comparing copyright infringement to the theft of 1967 Corvette.
"It runs much deeper than Corvettes," said Conrad, who has not been sued by Righthaven. "As a blogger I will blackball them. We (bloggers) generate a ton of back links to sites and generate traffic to their websites that normally would not happen. I have a great big sticky on my computer screen to remind me not to go anywhere near the Las Vegas Review-Journal website. Frankly, we don't need them. There are plenty of news sites that understand the reciprocal relationship that benefits both parties. We as bloggers can cause someone from New Jersey to go to the Las Vegas Review-Journal website to see about a story that they otherwise would not have (seen). Obviously the Las Vegas Review-Journal just doesn't get it in their shortsightedness. Hopefully dwindling traffic to the Las Vegas Review-Journal website will in turn reduce their ad revenue and maybe they will abandon this course of action."
Righthaven, which has now filed 96 copyright infringement lawsuits since March, also sued on Monday:
--Fred Pruitt, who has a website called www.rantburg.com. That site allegedly displayed a July 9 R-J editorial about President Obama visiting Las Vegas called "Welcome back, Mr. President. Your economic policies suck."
Court records show a website user, "Beavis," posted the editorial at www.rantburg.com.
--Dan Cirucci, a Pennsylvania and New Jersey public relations executive, was sued for posting the same "Welcome back, Mr. President" editorial. Cirucci on his website says he's the former president of the Philadelphia Public Relations Association.
Court records indicate that in posting the editorial to his website, Cirucci commended the Review-Journal, writing: "If only newspapers in places like Philadelphia and Boston would have the good, decent, common sense to run an editorial like this. Still, it's nice to discover that newspapers in some big cities know how to hit the mark, editorially speaking."
--Stephen Meenehan, whom Righthaven says is the registrant of the Internet domain name www.informationliberation.com. That website allegedly displayed under its "tyranny/police state" category a June 14 R-J story and an R-J photo about a man who was shot and killed by a Las Vegas police detective serving a drug warrant. The R-J was credited as the source of the story and photo, court records show.
--Thomas DiBiase, whom Righthaven says is the owner of the www.nobodycases.com website. That site allegedly displayed a June 11 R-J story about a retired teacher receiving the death penalty for killing his wife. The victim's body was never recovered, but her DNA was found in a Las Vegas hotel room, the story says. Records indicate the story posted on DiBiase's website credited the R-J.
DiBiase, on his website, says he prosecuted homicide cases for more than 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia and that in 2006 he prosecuted a "no body" murder case and has been interested in "no body" cases ever since.
Messages for comment were left with those four defendants as well.
In some of the lawsuits alleging third-party message board users posted R-J stories to the websites, Righthaven says the defendants: "Knew, or reasonably should have known, that the websites ... are ... the habitual subject of postings by others of copyright-infringing content."
Righthaven says such websites " did not institute any proactive policy of precluding or attempting to preclude the posting by others of copyright-infringing content" and "did not institute any proactive policy of monitoring or attempting to monitor the posting by others of copyright-infringing content" and "did not institute any proactive policy of deleting or attempting to delete the posting by others of copyright-infringing content."
All of the new lawsuits, like most Righthaven lawsuits, demand damages of $75,000 apiece and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names to Righthaven.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Money grabbing whore. This Righthaven guy is going to end up pissing the wrong people off and have his license revoked, or worse.
I second that guys statement, I've removed Review Journal from my bookmarks, no more visiting that site.
Hey Sun this could be a opportunity to get the advertiser of the RJ to drop them and climb on board with the sun how about the Sun marketing team start contacting those that advertise in the RJ and cut them a deal to come over to you if they don't continue to advertise with the RJ.
I wonder if the RJ would think that was news worthy. LOL
How surprised would anyone be if these rightaven slime balls were creating fake accounts on message boards and copying whole RJ stories to them?
At $75K a pop it sounds like easy money.
The SUN seems to be upset the Journal wants to protect their copyrights under the law. I assume the SUN wishes people would copy and quotes its stories as its circulation is so much lower?
neiman1 - its the method RJ is doing it. Go back to your RJ cubical now.
How is the Sun's circulation LOWER than the RJ's? How is that even possible?
The owner of the LvRj is a real piece of sh*t! LOL
Why would anyone repost an R-J editorial except for a journalism class being taught how not to write an editorial, or a critical thinking class being taught what critical thinking is not?
Chunky says:
So much for lawyers policing their own!
Greedy cash grabbers!
That's what Chunky thinks!
Sherman Frederick III was against frivolous lawsuits before he was for them.
I wonder what would happen if people started posting RJ articles on websites of companies with really large legal teams, like Fox News or ESPN?
Then they had better be prepared to sue WalMart:
http://walmartcommunityvotes.com/electio...
http://walmartcommunityvotes.com/electio...
http://walmartcommunityvotes.com/electio...
http://walmartcommunityvotes.com/electio...
Maybe it's just the nut in me, but given that the entire point of these lawsuits is not to litigate but to settle, what is to stop Frederick or one of his lackeys from spending days posting RJ content on various sites with the specific intent of filing suit the next day? Because they're looking to settle, the case likely never gets to discovery where it would be learned that the IP address of these various "users" traces back to a big red building on Bonanza. If someone doesn't settle, just harass them through legal means to drive up their legal costs hoping to force their hand... if they don't quit, drop the suit immediately before discovery.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to contact Righthaven and Frederick about a possible business idea...
"I wonder what would happen if people started posting RJ articles on websites of companies with really large legal teams, like Fox News or ESPN?"
If they adhere to the rules and regulations of DMCA then there is a safe habor when users post material that is an instance of copyright infringement.
The bigger sites like ESPN and Foxnews need to register contact information with the US Copyright Office and post on their own sites that contact information.
That then requires a take-down notice by the accuser of copy infringement when a off-the-street user posts copy right material.
That safe harbor does not extend to instances where a staff member or owner post copy right material.
As for small sites, all they need to do really is to monitor and remove instances of copyright infringement. They can resigter and get the same safe habor treatment, too. But if they quickly remove instances of copyright infringement then it is a moot point.
edgewise - that's funny. Walmart's legal force would bury this clown in the desert.
edgewise is funny.
He has posted links to a news section of website.
If you want to see the news feed for Nevada on that website go here: http://walmartcommunityvotes.com/electio...
The section is fed by a news service that pays money to LVRJ to provide content to other websites. Walmart is paying money to the new service to get the news feed. The news service is paying LVRJ to fed their copyright material to the world.
Yes, edgewise is hilarous.
He has demostrated the correct process for one website to purchase and display copyright property generated by another website.
Thanks, edgewise.
Keep up the good work.
edgewise- good research
...OK Sherm, Bettonville is waiting....put up or shut up...
"The section is fed by a news service that pays money to LVRJ to provide content to other websites. Walmart is paying money to the new service to get the news feed. The news service is paying LVRJ to fed their copyright material to the world."
Really? Where on the site does it say it pays money to the R-J? On what are you basing your assumption? Kindly? Prove it.
Those articles are syndicated through Newstex, which presumably provides royalties, though that arrangement is probably confidential. I'd imagine they aren't even paid a penny for each time their content is viewed.
"Those articles are syndicated through Newstex, which presumably provides royalties, though that arrangement is probably confidential. I'd imagine they aren't even paid a penny for each time their content is viewed."
That's what I've never understood about the lawsuits. Doesn't it presume that the R-J's content is worth something?
Sarge scores a point today! The first one he's scored in his valiant attempt to defend the R-J's bottom-feeding lawyer brigade.
The Sun is very much dependent on the LVRJ to stay alive (I am sure that it has been years since the last time the Sun turned an actual real profit.)
Obviously, they have a hard-on for the LVRJ and it seems like every week they are doing their best to sling mud at the LVRJ which is their 1st admenment right to do so.
I am confident that the Greenspuns have given the marching orders to staff to be pro-Democratic party, pro-Reid, pro-lib and pro-local big business friends ( good-ole boy network) and anti-LVRJ and like nice lib little boys and girls they are happy to comply.
It just hilarous to see an insert to the LVRJ bark and bite at the hand that helps feed them.
Keep doing it.
Tiny little dogs look so cute when they are barking and jumping.
I'm wondering if anyone here is a target of the RJ suits?
Sarge, what does it matter if the Sun is an "insert" to the RJ? And why do you seem to feel this has to be a political issue?
The RJ has every right in the world to protect its assets (such as they are considering the level of reporting there), I just question the newspaper's jump right to litigation.
Can you seriously and intellectually think that the first shot should have been lawsuits rather than "cease and desist" letter? And if so, why and to what end? You must believe that the paper's chances of doing much more than breaking even on this rampage are slim.
Again it takes money to do what you want the LVRJ to do. With their deal with Righthaven it probably cost them zero dollars or even they might make a few dollars.
Are you going to donate money to them to fund your idea?
If you're comment is directed at me, I'm happy to contribute postage to the RJ to send out the letters. And, as I understand it, your apparent hero, Mr. Gibson, was "asked to leave" a prominent law firm here in town.
It is going to take more than postage, buddy.
You will need to pony some cash to pay staff to search the interent for violations and then research to see who owns the websites and get the contact information.
Please make a ATM withdraw and fund your brillant idea for the LVRJ.
It is clear that you have never ran a business.
I will do an Ralston and imagine that you own a 7/11.
Everyday about 20 or so people will shoplift items.
In your world, you will hire staff to hunt them down.
Then your staff will ask them in a very nice way to return the item and then beg them not to steal again.
Good business plan.....
See, it's just that sort of anger that I don't understand. There's little question in my mind at this point, Sarge, that you're either Sherm, or you work for him. And, do yourself a favor, the theft of intellectual property's a bit more complex than shoplifting. Stop playing lawyer, or speak with one who went to school somewhere other than through correspondence and for goodness sake, take some anger management and logic classes.
And, if indeed you are Sherm himself, run your newspaper like newspaper instead of a fiefdom; if you work for Sherm, tell him to try to emulate the Sun; get good reporters and editors, and learn to write editorials that are meant to convince instead of tossing simple invective.
When people avoid answering a question, it usually means that they concede the point.
So thanks for conceding the point that it would cost LVRJ money to execute your advice and they would be spending money just to be nice to people who are stealing their property.
Sun and LVRJ editorials are pretty predictable.
One comes from the left and one comes from the right.
At least, the LVRJ owners don't walk into the news room and ask the staff reporters to write articles according to the owners wishes.
This is why people hate lawyers.
The RJ "grubstaked" the law firm, Sherm, you said so yourself.
I'm firing up some microwave popcorn for this doozy, When is Righthaven and the LVRJ going to sue the United States Air Force?
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2009/Ma...
ShawnF: Great find. Doesn't even include a link back.
This brings up two questions: 1.) Will Righthaven sue the USAF or are they really trying to shake down smaller, safer, mom and pop outlets; and, 2.) SgtRock, using your shoplifting analogy and everyone who posts content from another site is a criminal analogous to a thief, does this make the USAF a thief and a criminal organization?
I hope it backfires and people stop reading the RJ entirely - and all their advertisers stop using them.
I think this is a load of hogwash, and this lawyer really typifies why people don't have respect for the profession anymore.
It's no longer about what is "right" it is about GREED.
geezelouise: Well, many of us would hope the same thing, but realistically, I think the RJ has a miserably small (in number) group of subscribers and who knows how many read it online. An advertiser boycott's a great idea, but there are so few left there, it's hardly worth it.
My hope is a longshot as well: Some major chain buys either the RJ by itself, or all the Stephens Media papers (why this hasn't happened before is beyond me, save the possibility that before the newspaper business was in such trouble, no one wanted and now, no one can afford it).
What surprises me is that it doesn't seem like the RJ's staff is standing up to management, or at least pointing out that this rampage is not the appropriate course of action. So much for old fashioned gutsy reporters. And the reporters there have a great interest in this: I've heard that some have been rebuffed by sources who are either concerned about being party to a suit, or if they wish to be anonymous, they no longer trust the paper to keep them so, or they just don't want to be associated with the paper.
Who knows; everything we post here is pretty much rank speculation. Well, except for the Sarge's stuff, because I am convinced that he's either on Sherm's payroll or is Sherm himself. His language reflects that.
" does this make the USAF a thief and a criminal organization?"
The USAF has some copyright language on its website. So there might be a chance that they are getting permission from the owner of the intellectual property.
If they don't have permission then yes they are stealing and yes they can be sued and yes mostly likely they will settle for there is no legal defense for what they are doing if they don't have permission.
Just a big FYI to everyone, the LVRJ is not the paper that had to get inserted into another paper just to survive.
"Just a big FYI to everyone, the LVRJ is not the paper that had to get inserted into another paper just to survive."
Sherm: Why don't you just post the joint publishing agreement with the Sun so we know exactly what occurred with regard to the insert. And, it's hard to figure how your paper is "surviving" with almost no advertising and for how long Stephens is going to "carry it." In fact, why don't you publish the RJ's financials so we have an idea of its condition. I have to wonder where your vaunted columnists, John L and Jane Ann are on this silly avenue you've taken to raise revenues.
And, finally, why has there be no story in your paper about this matter, just a small, really out of date piece that looked like mistake, in Business Press.
OK, SgtRock. I respect the consistency of your opinion. I don't entirely disagree with you, either. Violating copyright is theft.I think the manner in which the RJ/Righthaven is doing this is a little heavy handed, particularly in regards to going after sources from stories, and the RJ comes across more as a bully than as a pioneer in online copyright protection. (The RJ and Stephens have become the butt of many jokes in the newspaper industry and online publishing community as a result of this, FWIW)
Moreover, I'm not entirely sure that the Sun got the wet end of the stick on that whole fold-in deal. It's been able to avoid delivery fees and the associated salaries, and spend more time focusing on the internet. Just look at the Sun's site than look at the RJ. One looks like a professional website from a major metro and the other looks like the Tumbleweed Trader. The Sun is easier to navigate and is much richer in multimedia content. It's almost as if the Sun is prepared for the future of the industry and the RJ isn't entirely sure this internet fad won't blow over pretty soon.
Want a better example of forward thinking? Try accessing both sites on your phone. One company redirects you to a mobile friendly site while the other doesn't.
Now I know some people prefer the coverage of one paper over the other, I am no exception favoring the Sun. Neither is perfect, but part of my decision is based on how the product is presented. (Having a mind of my own I generally don't read opinion pieces so couldn't care less that the RJ skews right while the Sun goes left).
Guess I got a little OT there, but the point is while RJ/Righthaven are pretending to be online trend setters, they're really just being asses. The Sun, on the other hand, is an industry leader in the online world. Taking industry awards with a grain of salt, look at how the Sun did in the recent Editor&Publisher online awards:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Headli...
Slightly better story about it from, well, the Sun...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jun...
The Greenspuns a few years ago decided to go all-in on the Internet deal.
They lost tons of money on it and ended up with very little economic value from it.
Most websites especially newspaper sites don't make much money.
Just a big FYI, the Suns web traffic is much smaller than LVRJ's.
I too have just removed the R-J from my bookmarks. No more visits there.
"the Suns web traffic is much smaller than LVRJ's"
FYI: Rock is an outright liar!
http://trends.google.com/websites?q=lasv...
Instead of posting RJ stories to other websites, all posters are encouraged to just write "A southwestern newspaper of little consequence ran a story about this topic. They do not want you to read it."
LisaMM....hey missy you pick all years and it made the graphic be so small.
Here is the last 30 days.
http://trends.google.com/websites?q=lasv...
As one can see the LVRJ has much traffic than the Sun.
To bad it does not give the scale.
Anyone that would judge website traffic on a 30-day basis instead of "one full year" is idiotic. I specifically used "one full year" to show relevancy over time!
It is important to call this commenter "Tunnel Rock" as in "Tunnel Vision Rock" in all future comments.