Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 | 11 a.m.
Sun archives
- 5 more websites sued over R-J story copyrights (8-10-2010)
- 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)
The Democratic Underground, which operates a big political website from Washington, D.C., is the latest website owner to be sued for copyright infringement after a portion of a Las Vegas Review-Journal story was posted on its website.
The Democratic Underground was hit with a federal lawsuit in Las Vegas on Tuesday by Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company that obtains copyrights to Review-Journal stories and then retroactively sues over alleged infringements.
Court records show the Review-Journal posted a 34-paragraph story on its website May 13 about Republican Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle titled "Tea Party power fuels Angle."
The records show that on the same day, Democratic Underground website user "pampango" posted the first four paragraphs of that story, crediting it to the Review-Journal, and included a link to the rest of the story on the Review-Journal website.
Righthaven on July 9 obtained the copyright to that story from the Review-Journal's owner, Stephens Media LLC, and then sued the Democratic Underground on Tuesday. Righthaven says its arrangement with Stephens gives it the right to sue for infringements occurring before it obtains the copyrights.
By doing a Google search, the story at issue in the lawsuit can be found and read for free on the R-J website.
The Democratic Underground carries "Friends for Sharron Angle" advertising as well as anti-Angle advertising posted by "Friends for Harry Reid" -- a group supporting the Democratic Senate majority leader's re-election.
Because Review-Journal editorials are generally critical of Reid and Democrats, some critics have charged Righthaven may have a political agenda and among its lawsuit targets is the Democratic Party of Nevada. But Righthaven has also sued several conservative websites and bloggers.
The Democratic Underground says on its website that it has 161,372 user registrations and that more than 51 million posts have been made on the site since 2001.
Righthaven, as in most of its lawsuits, demands $75,000 in damages from the Democratic Underground as well as forfeiture to Righthaven of the Democratic Underground's website domain name.
"Righthaven is the owner of the copyright in the literary work entitled: 'Tea Party power fuels Angle,'" Righthaven's lawsuit says. "The defendants willfully copied, on an unauthorized basis, a substantial and significant portion of the work."
Righthaven, as in other lawsuits, also complained the Democratic Underground was aware that websites like the Democratic Underground's are "the habitual subject of postings by others of copyright-infringing content."
Yet the Democratic Underground didn't prevent such postings, monitor for such postings or remove such postings, Righthaven alleged.
"The defendants’ failure to institute any proactive policies intended to address the posting by others of copyright-infringing content on the website constituted and constitutes the defendants’ willful blindness to copyright infringements occurring on the website," the suit charged.
A spokesman for the Democratic Underground said the group had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.
Also sued by Righthaven on Tuesday were Roman Sohor and Wayne Bellinger, whom Righthaven says are associated with the website www.losetheradio.net. Righthaven alleges a May 23 Review-Journal story about Las Vegas kiosk operators being extorted was posted on that website without authorization.
A message seeking comment was left with Sohor and Bellinger.
These bring to 98 the number of copyright infringement lawsuits Righthaven has filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas since March.
Remember when Sherman Frederick III was outraged by all the frivolous lawsuits that were clogging up our courts while enriching the sleezy ambulance chasers? Whatever happened to that guy?
I don't know about this one. 4 paragraphs out of 34 paragraphs sounds like fair use to me. Also, since it was posted by a user and not the staff of DU, doesn't this fall under the DMCA's safe harbor provision?
Interesting. Check this out at DU:
"5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/for...
I wonder where they got this legal advice from. Still, it sounds totally kosher to me. I think this is fair use.
LastThroes,
Where did Shermy go? He went to thank the state legislature for providing the RJ with a sales tax exemption for all ink and paper used for his statewide rag-then decided to deride anyone whose salary is paid for by taxpayer dollars as being leeches.
King Shermy and Prince Thommy of the LVRJ kingdom are the greatest hypocrites and their paper the greatest beneficiary of public tax benefits in this state.
The R-J website should just be taken down. That way the content of the paper will remain intact.
I mean before the Internet, the R-J just relied on paper sales and they survived. If they really want to protect their content, then they should go back to that business model.
Then they will have put an end to the people outside of Vegas who want to read their articles without paying for the same.
Or, the R-J should, before every article that they post online, put a disclaimer that if the article is re-posted anywhere on the Internet then the poster will be sued. That way the R-J can say that they warned people of what they would do.
The warning could also be for people that mention an article from the R-J in a verbal conversation. That way, the R-J could stem the flow of information and keep it strictly to the paper subscribers and buyers.
I hope DU takes this one to court. The only way such a lawsuit could be better for the public is if NPRI could somehow be worked into the litigation :-).
Nothing good can come from getting involved with Steve Gibson. He's bad news.
Sued for only posting four paragraphs with an attribution link? Guess Sarge was wrong about the R-J's barrel-scraping squad of lawyers...
Sarge! You know your "They posted the entire article" argument against fair use? This proves the R-J's squad of goons aren't taking that into account.
This is why people hate lawyers.
edgewise: "Sarge" is Sherm, or his shill at best.
Gibson is exploiting a not so well known fact that forum board operators are not only supposed to supply contact information to report copyright infringements, but must also register this information with the U.S. Copyright Office. This is on par with a police officer issuing you a $75 THOUSAND dollar ticket for doing 10 miles over in zone with no speed limit signs posted. The exploitation is simply massive!
"Sued for only posting four paragraphs with an attribution link?"
You might have a point on this one. The law says it is infringement if "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole "
So I think it is 4 out some 34 paragraphs. That is 12%.
So it comes down to what to legal definitions of the above.
Obviouly copying all the article would be a violation.
Obviously 25% is a "substantiality of a portion".
I am not sure if 12% paragraphs meets the amount test. It could be. It could be not.
There is also the substantiality side of equation. Were the four the most important paragraphs..like the meat to the article?
walmartvotes had a RJ article. When is Sherm going to sue them? We had the "chicken lady" now we have the "chicken paper"
Hmmm....I've done numerous postings(and read even more) with a paragraph or two from a newspaper article and linked to the whole article....
Boy. This smells about as goofy as this copyright infringement suits about downloading music. Except this is even more over the top.
"Were the four the most important paragraphs..like the meat to the article?" Thanks for the insight, Sherm. Isn't that a subjective question? Probably not: The RJ doesn't really print important paragraphs.
What a nasty way to make a living! Google search with paragraphs from the RJ and when you get a hit, THEN buy the copyright and THEN retroactively sue whomever. The worst part is that this parody of copyright infringement won't stop until the loophole is plugged by the courts. What a waste of time and money.
LOL!
"There is also the substantiality side of equation. Were the four the most important paragraphs..like the meat to the article?"
____________
Sarge is hilarious!
He's slicing and dicing all the highly-technical finer points of a frivolous lawsuit because the thugs filing this BS litigation are his heroes over at the right-wing RJ-GOP.
Time to wake up and smell the rotting garbage, Sarge.
paper and other trash from the Bonanza location is blowing down the street and making a mess in front of the homeless shelters, I hope someone sues.
I like the lvrj but seems a little shady. A 75000 fine and take over the domain name? Not cool. You post a link to another web-site comment section like this, advise it's from the lvrj I see nothing wrong.
Sounds like an HOA for newspappers
When even Sarge questions the validity of the lawsuit, you know the R-J is in deep trouble.
"I've done numerous postings(and read even more) with a paragraph or two from a newspaper article and linked to the whole article"
That probably is not copyright infringement.
"walmartvotes had a RJ article. When is Sherm going to sue them? We had the "chicken lady" now we have the "chicken paper"
Walmartvotes buys a new service feed that has an arrangment with LVRJ to feed it stories. This is not copyright infringement.
"Were the four the most important paragraphs..like the meat to the article? Isn't that a subjective question?" That is what juries or judges are for.....to make subjective decisions based on application of the law.
What a complete and total fraud Sherman Frederick is as a journalist. Ehics???
HA!
Remember when he "came out" as a "republican" here awhile back???
WHAT A HOOT!!!
They picked the wrong fight this time, the excerpt is short, with attribution. And it is just possible that the R-J benefited far more from this exposure than they would have otherwise.
I run a conservative forum and we heard of this a while back. I scrubbed our site from ANY & ALL articles that could be linked back to ANY RightHaven owned subsidiary. I don't agree with what RightHaven is doing. RightHaven is NOT abiding by the Fair Use Act in any way!! This is purely a money grab, a revenue maker for their failing media outlets and a way to exert control over website owners and administrators. This is simply extortion at it's finest. Of course, the lawyers were trained under Michelle Obama at a Chicago law firm.
That said, the Democratic Underground (a Liberal/ Progressive discussion forum) was laughing it up pretty well when they discovered that FreeRepublic (another conservative forum) was being sued. I suppose that they're not laughing so much at the moment.
@ BofTX: I wish the DU success. It appears that these thugs are not going to allow the Fair Use Act to come into play or intend to abide by it.
Boycott the RJ.
Demand any companies you do business with take their advertising dollars elsewhere.