Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Aug. 12, 2010 | 9:30 a.m.
Beyond the Sun
Sun archives
- Righthaven sues Democratic Underground website over R-J posting (8-11-2010)
- 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)
Righthaven LLC, the company suing website owners over copyrights to Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, has reached confidential settlements with two more defendants.
Court records show 20 of the 98 Righthaven lawsuits in federal court in Las Vegas have now been closed. Defendants in some of the other cases say they're in settlement talks as well.
Righthaven finds online infringements of Review-Journal stories in the form of website owners and managers posting all or portions of those stories, or in some cases third-party message board users posting the material. It then obtains copyrights to those stories and sues the alleged infringers.
While Righthaven typically demands $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names, publicly-disclosed settlement amounts have ranged from $2,185 to $5,000 and the defendants have been allowed to keep their domain names.
Among the latest defendants to settle are John (Jack) D. Wooden and Pennwell Corp.
Before settling, Wooden had argued the lawsuit was worth only $85.55. Wooden, of Columbus, Ind., runs the madjacksports.com website. He was sued by Righthaven on May 13 because R-J stories involving UNLV sports and hunting and fishing were posted on the madjacksports site.
Wooden came up with the $85.55 figure by saying Righthaven had obtained a copyright to one story posted by a third party on his site and that it was viewed there just 29 times. Since the R-J sells the story from its website archive for $2.95, the potential damages totaled $2.95 times 29 or $85.55, he had argued.
Pennwell Corp., an Oklahoma company that runs an energy industry news site called www.pennenergy.com, also settled Righthaven's suit against it over a May 18 R-J story posted on its website involving plans by NV Energy to install electronic meters.
Pennwell never publicly responded to the copyright allegation, but legal insiders say the company likely paid thousands of dollars to settle the case.
Attorneys for two of the Righthaven defendants, in the meantime, have filed responses asking the court to dismiss those lawsuits.
Sergio Salzano, attorney for Las Vegas real estate agent Michael J. Nelson, said in court papers that Nelson's posting of an R-J story about real estate on his blog amounted to fair use of the material under the copyright law.
Among other things, that's because Nelson posted less than 28 percent of the story in question, argued Salzano, of the law firm Lynch, Hopper & Salzano LLP.
Salzano also complained about Righthaven's legal tactics.
"Plaintiff brings these claims with unclean hands, which mandates dismissal of this action," Salzano wrote in court papers.
"The actions of plaintiff Righthaven in pursuing the instant action for copyright infringement smack of barratry," he wrote.
"Barratry" is defined by one dictionary as "the persistent incitement of litigation."
"Righthaven was created by its counsel, Steven Gibson, apparently to pursue violations of the copyrights it purchased from the Review-Journal. Righthaven is not the author of the work that was alleged to have been copied. In fact, neither the Review-Journal, nor Righthaven, sent a cease and desist letter, nor any other request to discontinue the alleged infringement, prior to initiating this action. Instead, Righthaven has brought this lawsuit (and others) against alleged infringers, further adding to this court's overloaded docket. Righthaven’s motivation for avoiding the simple act of sending a letter requesting that Mr. Nelson cease and desist is simple, it is using these lawsuits as a source of revenue. Such abuse of legal process should be rejected," Salzano wrote.
Other attorneys have described the Righthaven litigation campaign as a "shakedown" effort aimed at coercing settlements from defendants. Righthaven has denied these charges, saying it has a legitimate business model of detecting copyright infringements and then suing the infringers -- and that such efforts are needed to help the newspaper industry survive the rampant online piracy of news.
Another case being contested is against Las Vegas public relations executive Steve Stern, who for years has been a source for Review-Journal business reporters.
His attorney, Thomas Grace of the law firm Black & Lobello, argued in court papers that Stern too was protected by the fair use doctrine.
Grace also wrote in his response: "The plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands."
I hope bloggers and message board operators around the nation take notice of these ambulance chaser tactics and blacklist R-J stories and links, and any other Stephens Media outlets that join in this blackmailing campaign.
Thanks to the Sun for continuing to report on this, surprisingly there is nothing about it in the the R-J-B (Review-Journal-Blackmailing) at all.
Good one Bobby G. We need to start a website something to the effect of "Headlines the Way they Should Read." And another that properly reveals the true intent of most of those stupid federal legislation titles like "Screwing People Who Pay Their Healthcare Premiums Act" and "Sticking it to the Bankers Act."
@ Bubba; I run a forum and we are in the process of doing JUST that!!
@ BobbyG: That's about the sad truth of the matter. RightHaven's lawyers were Chicago trained by the same law firm that Michelle Obama belong to.
wow, 85.55, is that a "frivolous" amount, making this a frivolous lawsuit.
I think these lawsuits are bad and righthaven is strong-arming these web-site owners. I hope righthaven gets at taste of it's own medicine one day.
Whats the Review Journal?
I blacklisted and removed them from my bookmarks, as should everyone else.
Boycott the RJ.
This is burglary, pure and simple.
If you don't want your news stories to be read by others, don't print them or put them online.
There was a time when being quoted by other news agencies and many people was what newspapers wanted.
Now they don't want to make money from reporting the news, they want to make money by suing the people who quote them.
This is horrible and the RJ should be ashamed.
A quick google search for "review journal tort reform" comes back with 112,000 results. Nothing scientific, but the Review Journal probably wouldn't let that bother them.
The Review Journal's content is largely worthless, thus these lawsuits have no merit.
geezelouise: "Now they don't want to make money from reporting the news, they want to make money by suing the people who quote them." First, the RJ can't possibly be making money from "reporting the news," as it's circulation and ads are so low. Second, bloggers posted entire stories, not just quoted them. Until this event, I really would have thought it's alright to do that if you didn't change a word in the story and gave full attribution.
Obviously, that thought was absolutely wrong. My belief is that the RJ has a right to sue. But most who take that route usually only take it as a last resort -- The paper should have sent letters out requesting the posts be removed.
Doing what it's doing now, to me, is an insult to the newspaper business, which as we all know isn't in the best of shape anyway, but more so, insulting to this community that is so battered by the economy.
I think a newspaper should serve a community, better a community. The RJ is disgraceful in this manner.
Apparently the SUN is against copyright laws and protection. Is that because they realize their own material is of such little value?
From the Concord article:
He said Righthaven is attempting to run up attorney's fees for the lawsuit, which is slated to be heard in Nevada, by expediting copyright filings and paying in-house lawyers handsomely. "I was really taken aback by just the sheer volume of these cases, and they are going after everyone," he said. "If it works here, they can do it for other news services. It's mainly hit-and-runs on smaller people."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ca...
neiman1: "Apparently the SUN is against copyright laws and protection. Is that because they realize their own material is of such little value?"
What makes you think that? Because the Sun's covering the story, that the RJ isn't? I'm not one to case disparaging comments, but that just makes no sense at all.
lisaMM: Running up lawyers fees is one thing, actually collecting them is another. Most of the people Righthaven's suing apparently can't afford an attorney, at least that's what it seems to me.
And, Sherm, why aren't you in on this. Oh, maybe you're trying to boost circulation. That, Sarge, is circulation that's exactly the same as the Sun. Or, maybe you're trying to sell some advertising? Oh, sorry, bad economy and you didn't have much in the first place.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............
Glad you're resting comfortably, Sherm.
I would be interested in knowing what Righthaven pays the RJ for these "copyrights" or are they sharing in the bounty of the lawsuits.
Since Righthaven only buys copyright on articles they can sue over the payment agreements would be interesting.
I am betting long term the RJ is going to lose more in advertising dollars then they ever collect from Righthaven.
These responses are pathetic. It's about time to put a clamp on the internet free-for-all that has been going on. So all you anti-righthaven fanatics think it's okay to copy and post another person's work? Ummm, hello....
We were all taught in grade school: IT IS NOT OKAY TO REPRINT OR REPUBLISH ANOTHER PERSON'S WORK WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.
It is clear as day. And if people can't seem to figure that out then they deserve to be sued.
Sure is nice to slice and dice the First Amendment. See Tommy Mitchell's blog this morning: http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell/Judge...
I just checked the Bill of Rights.
I did not read where it says, "Americans have the right to steal from each other."
Perhaps, I skipped over something.
I have learned new words. Barratry. Champtery. Unclean Hands. Bill of Righthaven.
OOps, spelled champerty. Still alive in Nevada. I agree this is certainly a learning experience.
Looking at Champerty, I found this interesting. Citing a passage from The Works of Jeremy Bentham
"..that a man would buy a weak claim, in hopes that power might convert it into a strong one, and that the sword of a Baron, stalking into court with a rabble of retainers at his heels, might strike terror into the eyes of a judge upon the bench."
Most states have disregarded this law. However, in Nevada it is still active.
No point or legal view here, merely reading up.
Ok, last one I promise.
Adding the reason why most states disregarded the champerty law was due to the "lawyerly code of ethics" or something like that and the fact that judges would not succumb to such tactics.
Champerty was last used in Nevada with the Del Webb case in 2009.
Your vision of "stealing" Mr. Tunnel Vision Rock, is in line with PLAGIARISM, not a member of a forum board copying and correctly attributing an article into a forum for the purposes of discussion or a blogger taking similar actions. You and Righthaven's attempt to call such actions "stealing" is SHAMEFUL. Plagiarism is UNTOLERTATED by everyone and why most copyright infringement laws exist!
archibald: One of these days I'd like to meet you -- I like people who do their research and the your findings are interesting. Jeremy Bentham, that's just great!