Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Aug. 20, 2010 | 11:25 a.m.
Sun archives
- 2 lawsuits over R-J copyrights lift total to 100 (8-19-2010)
- Website operators use new defenses to fight R-J copyright suits (8-18-2010)
- Righthaven reaches settlements in 2 cases over R-J copyrights (8-12-2010)
- 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)
One of the bloggers being sued for posting a Las Vegas Review-Journal story online without authorization is asking that the copyright infringement lawsuit against him be closed and that he pay minimal damages of $200.
Kevin Kelleher in Apex, N.C., near Raleigh, who operates a blog about public address announcers, was sued last month in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas by Righthaven LLC, which detects infringements of Review-Journal stories, obtains copyrights to those stories from the Review-Journal's owner and then sues the alleged infringers on a retroactive basis.
Through Wednesday, 100 Righthaven suits had been filed in that court since March against defendants throughout North America, with Righthaven typically demanding $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain name.
Kelleher was accused of posting on the site pa-announcer.blogspot.com a Review-Journal story about UNLV announcer Dick Calvert being named to the Southern Nevada Sports Hall of Fame. That post credited the Review-Journal, records show.
Kelleher said in his response he's representing himself without an attorney.
He wrote in the filing that the story was posted "with the belief that such display was protected under the fair use" provision in the copyright law.
"Defendant was not aware that his blog, a passive, noncommercial information/news portal, would be subject to a lawsuit given the fact that the origin and writer credit were displayed," Kelleher wrote.
Kelleher added that immediately after he learned of the lawsuit from the Las Vegas Sun, he removed the story in question.
Most Righthaven defendants say they were sued without warning, or any notice from the Review-Journal or Righthaven that there was a concern about their posting of Review-Journal material. Many of the defendants learn of the lawsuits from the Las Vegas Sun, which finds them during routine court checks before the defendants are served.
Saying his site typically averages less than 10 visits per day, and it carries no advertising, Kelleher disputed Righthaven's claim that the alleged copyright infringement caused it "irreparable harm."
Kelleher was referring to boilerplate language in the Righthaven lawsuit saying: "Mr. Kelleher’s acts as alleged herein, and the ongoing direct results of those acts, have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Righthaven in an amount Righthaven cannot ascertain, leaving Righthaven with no adequate remedy at law."
Kelleher called that "specious in nature and not worthy of the court's time and trouble."
"Defendant asserts that plaintiff's inability to ascertain what exactly 'irreparable harm' is, and what it constitutes, is merely a 'fishing expedition' with a protracted 'what if' scenario," Kelleher wrote.
Kelleher wrote in his filing he "stipulates that judgment be had in plaintiff's favor against defendant for non-willful copyright infringement of the single article at issue ... and that plaintiff be awarded $200 in statutory damages."
Kelleher cited a provision in the copyright law saying "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
Righthaven has not yet responded to Kelleher's filing. If Kelleher's "stipulation" is accepted by the court, the case would be a money loser for Righthaven since Righthaven pays $350 in court filing fees per suit and $35 to register each copyright, or $795 to register copyrights on an expedited basis.
Righthaven hasn't disclosed how much money it pays the Review-Journal's owner, Stephens Media LLC, for copyrights and whether Stephens Media shares in lawsuit revenue, though defense attorneys may explore those issues through discovery and depositions as the contested cases move forward.
Another defendant, in the meantime, has created a website to fight Righthaven and to seek donations through Paypal and Amazon.com for his defense costs.
That site, www.bottomfeeder.org, says supporters are needed to: "Help preserve the free exchange of information and opinion on the Internet" and to "help fight the Righthaven lawsuit mill."
That site was created by defendant Fred Pruitt, who has a blog called rantburg.com covering terrorism, international relations, government and politics. Pruitt was sued Aug. 9 after a message board user, "Beavis," allegedly posted on the rantburg site a July 9 Review-Journal editorial about President Obama visiting Las Vegas called "Welcome back, Mr. President. Your economic policies suck."
Pruitt wrote on his site the lawsuit was filed "despite active steps I and the moderators have taken to prevent anything emanating from the Las Vegas Review-Journal being posted here."
"If you think Rantburg performs an important service to the blogosphere please kick in to the defense fund and have your friends kick in as well. I'm not a lawyer and I don't have an awful lot of money to spend on lawyers. What's in Paypal at the moment is enough for the next three or four months of (website) hosting," Pruitt wrote on his blog.
"I always hate to ask for money. I don't run the Burg to make a profit. I especially hate to ask for contributions for such a stupid reason. But you can't ignore malevolence. If you do it'll eat you up, in this case to the tune of more thousands of dollars than I have," he wrote.
Yet another group of Righthaven critics is promoting a boycott of the Review-Journal and its sister newspapers in the Stephens Media group. They're boycotting with a plug-in they say works with the Firefox web browser and that blocks access to Stephens Media newspaper websites.
Stephen E. Wright, a writer in Denver, discussed the boycott effort in a post called "An online boycott of a vengeful, weasel media group (aka Stephens Media)."
"Righthaven is a predator group picking on the little guys who don’t have huge legal resources," Wright wrote, pointing to a Righthaven lawsuit that caused the operators of the Idaho-based thearmedcitizen.com website to remove all news from the site.
"As an author I’m not against any group defending their work, but there is such a thing as accepted use for legitimate commentary AND there is an etiquette for dealing with someone whom you believe has used too much of your content that respects the rights of others to do commentary. Before you sue you contact the entity you have a problem with and ask for the content to be taken down," Wright wrote on his website.
Other web and blogsites that have been critical recently of Righthaven include onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com and snowflakesinhell.com.
The Review-Journal and Righthaven, however, say the lawsuits are necessary to stop the online theft of R-J material and to generally protect the newspaper industry from online infringement. Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick explained the suits in his blog.
Righthaven, in the meantime, is asking a federal judge in Las Vegas to impose sanctions against one of the defendants that it says has failed to amend its legal response to comply with Righthaven's view of the copyright law.
In a filing against the Dr. Shezad Malik Law Firm P.C. in Texas, Righthaven attorneys argued they have shown the copyrights they obtain from Stephens Media give them the right to sue for past infringements, and that attorneys in three other cases have conceded this point, yet Malik Law firm has refused to stop arguing Righthaven lacks standing to sue for past infringements.
"Malik Firm's grossly premature and unfounded assertion that Righthaven lacks standing to sue for copyright infringement is fundamentally frivolous, entirely unsupported by law or fact and gives rise to the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," Righthaven argued in a filing this week. "Malik Firm's standing argument, and the erroneous citation of law purportedly in support thereof, was asserted without any reasonable prefiling inquiry as required ... and represents nothing more than a flagrant and egregious attempt to mislead the court. Ultimately, Malik Firm's conduct constitutes an abuse of the litigation process and should not be tolerated."
Among the Righthaven cases, the Malik lawsuit is among those where it appeared entire Review-Journal stories were posted without authorization and without any credit for the information given to the Review-Journal. Those stories were posted at the Dallas-Fort Worth Injury Lawyer Blog published by doctor-lawyer Dr. Shezad Malik's firm in Southlake, Texas, court records show.
The Malik firm, in court papers, has denied the copyright infringement allegations, also arguing the Nevada court lacks jurisdiction over the Texas firm and that it is entitled to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s "safe harbor" protection because it had "insufficient notice, under the DMCA, of the particular infringements in suit."
The DMCA safe harbor provision typically covers third-party message board postings on websites. In this case, Righthaven argues it was Dr. Malik himself who posted the stories.
Righthaven also insists the Nevada court has jurisdiction since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found "willful copyright infringers who reproduce content from a source known to exist in the forum purposefully avail themselves of said forum."
The Malik firm has not yet responded to the motion for sanctions.
Keep going Gibson, you'll be equally reviled in all 57 states.
After reading this article I wanted to vomit all over a copy of the Review Journal. It seems like they are doing all they can to stifle free speech, merely the reposting of information from the Review Journal. One would think they would be pleased with the recognition of their work, but I guess it's more about screwing with people. I am ashamed to say that I subscribe to this disgusting hateful newspaper, but that is something I may soon correct. RJ, open a branch office in Communist China, I suspect you will feel right at home there.
Just another reason why everyone should boycott Review Journal. What a bunch of crooks!
Ill never read them again.
f*k the lvrj
Understandable, the RJ has to protect its material. Hopefully, a reasonable agreement can be reached.
Ip: Understandable? The blogger credited RJ for its use. What more do you want. If every publicasion did what the RJ is doing, there would be civil war, or we'd be another communist country afraid to say anything.
Get real. Karma's a bitch, and I'm sure RJ with their lawyer monkey will be bankrupt soon. (crossing fingers)
How Low Can You Go???
Suing this guy for his "transgressions" is akin to suing your gramma because she poked you with her knitting needle because she don't see to well anymore...
The RJ ran out of shame a long time ago, but this...truly unconscionable.
As I'm reminiscing here, I take a moment to dredge up one of the saddest moments in recent local Journalistic History;
Sherman Frederick, claiming to have been heretofore a LIFELONG DEMOCRAT, "swings right"...
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/48721992.htm...
You just can't make this stuff up!!!
i dislike the RJ and do not read it but they are right to go after those who steal their stories. I don't think they need to use the courts, but just citing the RJ is not enough. When their stories are posted on other sites it takes away advertising revenue they would have received if the person read it on the RJ site.
They are not stifling free speech, they are protecting their material, which was PAID FOR by the RJ by paying an actual reporter to cover stories. We wouldn't have ANY reporters without the revenue generated via stories and we would become communist china. Deplore their tatics but not the actual protection of material.
gmag39: Reading Sherm's (SgtRock's) blog and editorials does little more than to exhibit that he may well be the least politically astute and most politically unaware, and I use this next term very loosely, "newspaperman" in history.
LP: "Understandable, the RJ has to protect its material." Of course it does. I don't think anyone here would dispute that. What's at issue, I think, is the manner in which it's doing it: Litigation first. As I've said before, all of this, most likely, could have been resolved with "cease and desist" letters and old Sherm (SgtRock) has yet to answer why the RJ didn't take this route first. It's pretty reasonable and likely would have been quite effective.
Sevenhills: "Just another reason why everyone should boycott Review Journal." I think there's been a continuing boycott of the RJ. The last I saw is that it's circulation is about 175,000 and actually up some. However, it's somewhat crafty the way the RJ reports its ABC circulation. See: http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editoria....
"The DMCA safe harbor provision typically covers third-party message board postings on websites."
That is only true if the website owner follows the DMCA including registering contact information with the US Copyright Office and pay the fee to do that.
As for Kelleher's defense....one can't plea ignorance of the law as as defense. He can't say that he did not know about copyright law and therefore can break it will.
It was something complex then he might have a chance.
But the copyright infringement that occurred on his site was pretty straight foward. He has to be ethcially tone deaf not to understand that copying and pasting material from another site is wrong.
He should offer more money like an $1,000 or something and also say that he was wrong and give the preventive measures to show that it will not happen again.
SgtRock (Sherm): "He should offer more money like an $1,000 or something and also say that he was wrong and give the preventive measures to show that it will not happen again."
I don't think he should offer a dime. I think most, if not all of the Righthaven targets deserve an apology from the RJ and Gibson's bunch. You know as well as just about everyone here that, yes, I'll say it again, these "violations" most likely would have been remedied with a "cease and desist" letter.
As many times as I've said this to you SgtRock (Sherm), you've never answered why these actions were taken, rather than approaching the matter like most mature businesses, with the initiation of a discussion.
Beyond that, why don't you disclose your financial arrangements with Righthaven? Or, for that matter, write story about these lawsuits.
It's kind of silly for "the biggest newspaper in Nevada" to be scooped almost daily by its "insert" and competition.
Righthaven is going to lose money on most cases they try to go after. They are a joke and the bottomfeeder of an attorney has one foot of of Nevada. What a joke.
This defendant shouldn't even have to pay $200.
Sarge says: "As for Kelleher's defense....one can't plea ignorance of the law as as defense."
Actually, if you read the story:
"In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."
That's the whole entire point of the story, Sarge. If there was no willful infringement of copyright, and the accused earned no income from the infringement, then there are no damages and no intent.
See, intent is a huge part of the law. I thought you knew that.
"Saying his site typically averages less than 10 visits per day, and it carries no advertising, Kelleher disputed Righthaven's claim that the alleged copyright infringement caused it "irreparable harm.""
I almost spit my drink when I read this...FUNNY!
Less than 10 visits per day and no advertising...he gained nothing, not even traffic to his site from the RJ article but yet they want 75k for it? It wasn't good enough to even to boost this mans traffic, so 75 cents should be more like the payout they should get. $200 is toooooo much!!
Edgewise: Nice catch.
Lovebug: I agree.
SgtRock (Sherm): Answer the question about the letters.
edgewise......he could have a plea of ignorance in some complex usage of copyright material but he can't plea that he is total moron when it comes to copyright law.
When one's copy and pastes material form another site then there is not one judge in the country that is going allow total unethical behavior along with total ignorance as a reason for reduction in penalty.
This is how murrayburns wants LVRJ to run their business.
Spend 10,000's of dollars hiring staff and purchasing software to police the Internet. Once they find people who have zero moral ethics who are stealing their copyright material to then send a nice letter asking not to steal.
Murrayburns, if you want the LVRJ to do that then please go call Sherm and tell him that you want to donate $50,000 to fund LVRJ's effort to police the Internet looking for theives.
Go put your money where your mouth is.
What we need is some debtor's prisons to put these people in, or maybe we can revive indentured servitude and these people can become slaves for the RJ, til they pay off their debt.
Sarge/Sherm: You're getting a little testy here. As I asked before, why not just send a letter out first, then litigate if necessary. And, oh my, your last post smacks of the language of your blog regarding this a while back.
To say these people have "zero moral ethics" is ridiculous. You know full well that most of those who posted these articles didn't think twice about the copyright law and, as we've read in articles, didn't know it was against the law to post full articles if there was attribution and a link.
I'd like to see the RJ run its business like a real newspaper, instead of your fiefdom. All those reporters over there and so few great or impactful stories. It must be awful to see the l'il ole Sun win a Pulitzer, which a much smaller staff.
As for your logic about spending "10,000s of dollars hiring staff and purchasing software to police the Internet," whoaaa...sounding a bit Facistic. I wonder if the Sun is doing, or the New York Times or LA Times or any of the "real" newspapers in the nation.
It seems Sherm, you now have a new revenue stream, but I'm not certain it's enough to make your profitable.
And, again, why hasn't the RJ written a story on this? And why has it dropped a couple of these suits and not others? A descrimination issue?
And, yes, Sarge/Sherm, most would agree letters first. And how do know how much how much was spent on staff and software? Oh, you made the decision to do so.
It's going to interesting when we start to see the court's ruling on various issues in these suits, but more interesting will be counter claims. And, why was the Curtis suit dropped, or the cat lady's, at least from what we've read here.
I suppose that's the RJ's way, well, it's way of most who don't think rationally. There's a very basic question here: What kind of business sues its readers and sources?
When the Sun wins another Pulitzer and the RJ's left holding a bag of lawsuits, what will you think then? Probably that you're right, because the Review-Journal is the "biggest paper in Nevada," and must be.
The Sun still exists only because of the federal law covering the Joint Operating Agreement.
Btw, I'm no fan of the copyright suits. Just wanted to remind how much that Pulitzer meant in dollars and cents....Zilch.
You are wrong logic_should_rule because Murryburns says so.
According to Murryburns, the Sun is one of the biggest money making news organizations in the Las Vegas Valley.
They are so big and successful that they forced the LVRJ to insert the Sun into its daily paper.
Murryburns is smart......real smart.
$200 is probably too low, but $75,000 also seems excessive. I would think an offer something closer to $850 would be more reasonable. Maybe $1,400. They'll eventually get it done I'm sure.
Righthaven's pathetic lawyers graduated with a degree in bottom feeding. Sick, sick, sick. I quit reading the LVRJ the minute this started happening, but I think I will go over there now and see who their advertisers are so I can boycott them as well and maybe even put out a flyer exposing them.
Boycott the bottom feeders:
I encourage everyone to call these RJ advertisers and tell them that we will not patronize businesses that advertise with bottom feeders RJ and Righthaven:
Henderson Hyundai - 877-532-5933
LV Surgical Associates - 702-258-7788
KB Home - 888-KBhomes
Costa del Sur Spa and hotel - 702-797-8030, 702-796-7111
Fighting this unamerican scum sucking by hitting them where it hurts is the only thing that will stop RJ and Righthaven, criminal enterprises.
Oh, please, Sarge/Sherm, you're writing about as accurately as your reporters. I never stated, or even suggested that the "Sun is one of the biggest money making news organizations in the Las Vegas Valley." And, to continue to harp back to the "insert" issue is just more evidence of exactly who you are in reality.
I personally don't care that it's inserted in the RJ, as I don't buy the RJ, though I do read it free online, though I read the Sun first. Were both to charge for online subscriptions, I'd pay for the Sun as to me it just seems to have better reporters and writers.
But, Sarge/Sherm, you still haven't answered the question about writing letters first. You toss around software and staff numbers, but I'm sure you guys over at the RJ have known this has been going on for years and if you so concerned, why didn't just send a letter, at a buck or so apiece, it probably would have been cheaper and probably more effective than the way you're going.
And, is the RJ that cowardly that it won't cover its own story?
SweetScience, really, most of these people, I'm sure, didn't know they were violating the law, as I said before. In the worst economy since the depression, you think they can affort even $200 on this matter. Newspapers should serve the public, not rape it.
LogicShouldRule: While a Pulitzer means little in dollars and cents, there are some in this city who are proud that our newspaper won a Pulitzer, something that apparently the RJ can't seem to do. If you don't know what this award means to a newspaper, and consider only financial issues, then read a little history.
I hope the Greenspun family one day is able to bring the Sun back as an independent paper and publish it in the morning.
despicable
"why didn't just send a letter, at a buck or so apiece, it probably would have been cheaper and probably more effective than the way you're going."
OK...I do it very slowly.
Your way: Spend $10,000's of dollars to beg people not steal copyright material.
LVRJ way: Spend 0's dollars and sue the unethical scum that steal copyright material. It is Righthaven that is carrying the load of the lawsuits and it is Righthaven that gets paid on the settlements. Their actions are also preventing copyright infringement for I am sure that word is spreading not to steal from the LVRJ.
Which one do you think cost more money to do. Did you take math in school??????
You probably think it is the 0's dollars route that cost more.
" Newspapers should serve the public, not rape it."
Who is stealing the LVRJ copyright material??? Who is doing the raping??? I see your argument is that these people are so dumb and so unethical that they do not realize that copying and pasting all or a significant portion of other people's work is wrong.
Can I come by your house can take some stuff? You can send me letter and nicely ask me to return it.
"I hope the Greenspun family one day is able to bring the Sun back as an independent paper and publish it in the morning."
The current Greenpun generation has ran this paper into the ground. You probably are clueless that they laid off many of the more expensive and senior staff that they had. They became koolaid operation and that destroyed the readership that they once had. Recently they poured millions in the online division and it is not very profitable (I am not sure if it has ever made a profit or ever will). The current Greenspun family seems to have made some other bad investments like Green Valley Ranch Casinos. They are a hurting. I am not really sure on how long they can keep this hobby of a newspaper funded.
Sarge/Sherm: Uh oh, you're getting angry now. "Spend 0's dollars and sue the unethical scum that steal copyright material." You "grubstaked" the grubs at Righthaven, so don't say your paper's spent nothing. And, the recovery hasn't been terribly spectacular, has it?
Face it, you got yourself involved with a two-bit attorney who will have many days in court that he didn't expect. The question you have to ask yourself, and despite the copyright laws, what exactly do you think the total recovery will be?
Considering who you're suing, I would guess not very much, but what do I know. It's just a guess.
My best guess is that the RJ's reputation will deteriorate further, if that's possible. And, it will be very interesting when this become even more than a national story than it is now. That press hasn't been all that good, has it, Sherm?
And, it seems your attorney has been disqualified on at least one case in Federal Court here. It's not unusual for that sort of thing to happen, but old Gibson, he really crossed a line.
Besides, who hires a lawyer who wears a headset for a photo in a major news story.
As to the Sun, how would you know "Recently they poured millions in the online division and it is not very profitable (I am not sure if it has ever made a profit or ever will)."
It seems as if you want the Sun to fail. That's some position for a so-called newspaper publisher to take when that industry is in such dire straights.
Take a lesson from Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. You may not agree with the Times' politics, but that family knows how to run a newspaper. Even Murdoch did alright when he took over the Wall Street Journal.
In fact, take a lesson from most business people: The last thing you want to do is offend your "customers," in your case, readers, let alone sue them.
By the time Stephens Media gets around to selling the RJ, I'd bet it's value will be considerably less, all things being equal, than it was when Reynolds owned it.
And you still haven't adequately answered the question about sending letters first. Just toss out 10,000s of dollars. Please. Any imaginative, business savvy publisher would have done that realizing it is less expensive.
Even more than that, Sherm, you encourage readers to repost stories: The "Print" option above each story can be interpreted as printing to the web. I'd be that's going to be a big piece of this whole thing, but you could never see it that way because apparently English is your second language and you don't understand that interpretations change over the years, as does the law, and Judge's interpretation of it.
Show us your numbers, Sherm, show us your numbers.
And so the rest of you can put it together, Sarge/Sherm's statement: "Can I come by your house can take some stuff? You can send me letter and nicely ask me to return it," sounds a lot his Corvette argument.
Sherm, talk to your lawyers. Well, talk to some good lawyers, you might find that there have been cases where "ignorance of the law" has stood as defense.
To make a statement about "stealing your stuff," articles, shows the dislike, well, disdain you have for your readers. Ordinarily I would have thought it impossible for anyone to think that bloggers posted articles fully, or in many cases, even partially knowing they were violating copyright laws.
It's not as if they robbed a 7-11, it's a new world Sherm and you seem to believe that everyone should either be a lawyer, have one on retainer or consult a law book before taking an action as simple as reposting an article from a newspaper.
Again, why hasn't your paper run a story on this and why haven't you been available for comment to other publications.
xie: Thanks for the numbers. I think that's a great idea, but I'm not sure how many advertisers the RJ has left, or any newspaper these days for that matter.
Here's a question for everyone: If the Sun, or the RJ, or whatever your favorite newspaper is started charging for online content, daily content, would you pay?
I believe some papers require subscriptions in order to be able to log in and view the online version. It is part of the service. Yes, I would support a paper I admired by subscribing.
For the RJ, it is a bit underhanded in the fact that there seems to be a more sinister plan afoot. 100 suits in 5/6 months hardly equates to thousands/millions. At this rate, it will take 100 years. Righthaven is not going to make a lot of money on this. What is the real purpose? Didn't I read somewhere that it is possible to file 10,000's suits at a time? Instead we are getting trickles.
Funny to note the porn site was saved for the '100th'. Luckily no one cares. It's not the point. Nice try.
Meanwhile grandmothers and cat ladies are sued. People with no money. I read somewhere that someone just may snap. My thought is that someone just may be having a hard enough time that suicide may be an answer. For what??? A lousy newspaper article? Infuriating. $75k? Puhleeeze. Sgt Rock/Righthaven employee, can I come to your house and destroy your life? I need some things.
But the cat lady suit was dropped? Why? Isn't the poor cat lady just as guilty as all the other heinous criminals that copy/pasted? It is descrimination on every level to dismiss this suit!
Don't get me wrong. I am happy that she was spared this agony. It is apparent the Righthaven hasn't a clue on who/what they are suing or in what context these articles were used. Even admitting that there are some kinks to work out. What a poor, evil, despicable plan. What's even worse is that Las Vegas is a wonderful town and you are causing even more agony to your community.
Lvrj and Righthaven, be careful not to sue your own mother. I bet your families are sooo proud.
Sarge doesn't questions like that.
There's an easier way to solve all of this grief. And that is not to get into this mess in the first place.
Most of these bloggers probably don't have $200 let alone $75,000.
So what's a poor blogger to do? Ask permission from the publisher to use material that has a copyright on it.
The publisher might say yes.
The solution is to blacklist RJ, and not post or follow any links.
Sue your sources, thats how to run a local news organization. Sue the people you turn to for news and wonder why you are losing readers...
Take them to court for giving you something write about.