Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Aug. 23, 2010 | 1:45 a.m.
Sun archives
- Blogger asks to pay $200 to close R-J copyright suit (8-20-2010)
- 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)
A website operator is accusing the Las Vegas Review-Journal of entrapment for inviting readers to share its stories online -- and then participating in lawsuits against readers who post that material online.
The allegation was made in court papers filed last week by Ryan Burrage, a Louisiana man who is a defendant in one of the 100 lawsuits filed since March alleging copyrights to Review-Journal stories were infringed on when stories, or portions of stories, were displayed on websites throughout North America without authorization.
Like most defendants sued by Righthaven LLC, the Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner, Burrage said in his response that neither the Review-Journal nor Righthaven sent him a cease and desist letter before suing him.
In its July 30 lawsuit against Burrage, filed in federal court in Las Vegas, Righthaven complained he "willfully copied" and displayed part of a May 25 column by Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick about a watch list of "peeved travelers" maintained by the federal Transportation Security Administration.
As in most of the Righthaven lawsuits, the lawsuit demanded $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of Burrage's website domain name, www.jerryryburg.com.
Burrage, in his response, acknowledged republishing Frederick's column. He said the portion of the six-paragraph column that was displayed on his website -- four paragraphs with credit to and a link to the R-J -- was provided automatically through a syndication arrangement through Real Simple Syndication (RSS).
Burrage said the sources of the RSS feed were the websites www.infowars.com and prisonplanet.com.
Those websites are run by Austin, Texas, radio talk show host Alex Jones, who separately has been sued by Righthaven over the same Frederick TSA watch list column.
A least five Righthaven lawsuits have been filed over that column.
In responding to the suit against him, Burrage argued:
• "At no time was it the intent of the defendant to defraud, cause harm, misrepresent, intercept website traffic, profit or exploit the Las Vegas Review-Journal ... or its related stories."
• "Use of the article fell under the 'fair use' clause of copyright law."
• "Contrary to the plaintiff's claim (of harm), linking back to the original source is a form of promotion for the original source which improves, not harms, a website's ranking in search engines."
• The alleged infringement is "the equivalent of a passer-by stopping in front of a newsstand and reading the front page of the newspaper, without actually buying the newspaper."
• "Even if a defendant was to republish an article from the LVRJ.com website directly, he is not only within his rights to do so, but all users of LVRJ.com are encouraged to do just that. The LVRJ.com website offers and invites its users to 'Save and Share' all of its articles no less than 19 times per article. In addition, the LVRJ.com website encourages and invites its users to 'Email This,' 'Save This,' 'Print This' and subscribe to its 'RSS Feeds.' This not only puts the users of LVRJ.com in a quagmire, but it is the opinion of the defendant that LVRJ.com is guilty of entrapment, or at least setting up the users of LVRJ.com for a potential lawsuit. While the LVRJ.com encourages and invites its users to 'Share and Save' articles a total of 23 times per article, LVRJ.com will file a frivolous copyright infringement lawsuit against its users, if they follow LVRJ's directions and invitations to 'Share and Save' articles published on the website."
• "This lawsuit is entirely predatory, frivolous and an abuse of the United States justice system. While the defendant acknowledges that the plaintiff is not bound by law to issue a cease and desist letter when an alleged infringement is found, it is the common legal etiquette and process to begin with a cease and desist letter. Had such a cease and desist order been offered, the defendant would have cooperated and obliged accordingly. The opinion of the defendant is that in not issuing a cease and desist order prior to filing this lawsuit, the plaintiff's sudden filing of a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement is unethical, immoral, improper and indicates a suspicious motivation to do so. In addition ... the actions of the plaintiff are exactly what gives 'trial lawyers' a bad name."
• "Plaintiff is engaged in a shakedown or extortion operation, with the express purpose of abusing the legal system to extort or shake down webmasters and bloggers who republish content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal in accordance with 'fair use' and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In the majority of cases, including that of the defendant, victims of the plaintiff's witch hunt are bloggers and webmasters who generate very little revenue, if any, from their sites. ... The plaintiff is operating with expectation that the victims of his `copyright trolling' operation will settle out of court rather than absorb the costs of fighting this matter. "
Like many Righthaven defendants, Burrage denies his site targeted Nevada viewers. Burrage, who lives in Kenner, La., near New Orleans, asked that if the case proceeds it be transferred to New Orleans.
Burrage also offered to settle the dispute "without admitting any improper activities or malicious intent." He offered to settle for $10.87, his Google Adsense revenue during the nine-day period he says Righthaven may be able to assert its claim of infringement for.
Righthaven has not yet responded to the settlement offer or to Burrage's allegations about its lawsuit initiative.
Righthaven has denied it's running a shakedown campaign.
And while many defendants have complained that Righthaven failed to contact them before suing, Righthaven notes in court papers that those same defendants failed to call or e-mail the Review-Journal to seek permission to post the Review-Journal's content.
Righthaven, which says it was established to deter infringement and to profit by collecting damages for copyright infringement, also says it's not feasible to contact the thousands of alleged infringers of Review-Journal material.
Burrage is one of at least two defendants arguing recently that by encouraging users to share stories online, the Review-Journal is giving them consent to post their material online.
Attorneys for Jan Klerks of Chicago last week filed court papers saying that since the Review-Journal offered the story in Klerks' case to the world for free, encouraged people to save and send links to the story at no cost and without restriction and enabled readers to right click and copy the text of articles, it provided an "implied license."
"Accordingly, based on this implied license, the allegedly infringing copy was, in fact, authorized by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and therefore is not an infringement," attorneys Michael McCue and Nikkya Williams of the Las Vegas office of the law firm Lewis and Roca LLP wrote in their filing.
An attorney for another Righthaven defendant, in the meantime, is seeking dismissal of a Righthaven suit based on the defendant's contention that the Nevada court doesn't have jurisdiction of the dispute since the defendant doesn't live in or do business in Nevada.
Southern California businessman Jeffrey L. Nelson has, since 2007, intermittently published news stories about the mortgage and real estate industries on his website, Nelson's response to the Righthaven lawsuit says.
"The intent of the website was to inform individuals and entities in the real estate/residential lending occupations of occurrences pertinent to those lines of work," Nelson's filing said. "Nelson did not solicit business through the website, nor did Nelson derive a profit from maintaining the website."
Nelson's filing says that on May 3, he posted part of a Review-Journal story about real estate on his site, but that co-defendants in the case had nothing to do with that posting.
He said that's because he went to work as a real estate agent for the co-defendants, South Coast Partners Inc. doing business as Keller Williams OC Coastal Realty in San Clemente, Calif.; and Keller Williams supervisor Robert Walter Hunt, after the story was posted.
"Defendants do not reside in Nevada, they hold no licenses in Nevada, they pay no taxes in Nevada, they conduct no business with Nevada residents or businesses and they do not actively solicit business from native Nevadans," said the filing by Nelson's attorney, Jason Wiley of the Henderson law firm Woods Erickson Whitaker & Maurice LLP.
Wiley also argued the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found "passive" websites don't create sufficient contacts with particular states to warrant jurisdiction by those states.
He said Nelson's website was passive as it didn't transact business over the Internet and there was no exchange of information involved -- it simply displayed information.
But Righthaven, in arguing for Nevada jurisdiction in a case involving a Texas defendant, has said the 9th Circuit has found "willful copyright infringers who reproduce content from a source known to exist in the forum purposefully avail themselves of said forum."
"This lawsuit is entirely predatory, frivolous and an abuse of the United States justice system."
"Plaintiff is engaged in a shakedown or extortion operation, with the express purpose of abusing the legal system to extort or shake down webmasters and bloggers"
"Even if a defendant was to republish an article from the LVRJ.com website directly, he is not only within his rights to do so, but all users of LVRJ.com are encouraged to do just that. The LVRJ.com website offers and invites its users to 'Save and Share' all of its articles no less than 19 times per article.
The lawyer's right, Shermy... this little foray of the RJ's
into the world of EXTORTION is about as low as you can go...
The RJ's "arrangement" with Righthaven is a Deal with the Devil... I would be very interested to know if any LEGITIMATE newspaper has a similar arrangement with a Devil of their own choosing...
Squirm Frederick and his sleazy lawyers are taking frivolous lawsuits to whole new level.
This scheme is the equivalent of a police speed trap.
Just like Righthaven, you can use technology to prevent accidental visits to the anything Stephens media related by using the firefox browser with an easy to use add-on. please see...
http://tinyurl.com/24h5afh
There's no better way to prevent issues with the RJ than by entirely steering clear of their array of web sites.
"Like most defendants sued by Righthaven LLC, the Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner, Burrage said in his response that neither the Review-Journal nor Righthaven sent him a cease and desist letter before suing him."
Most? Name ONE...
vegas_tom: Thanks for that link. Is there anything like it for Internet Explorer?
logic_should_rule: I'd guess that the reporter couldn't call every defendant, so he had to "hedge" a little.
I think this thing gets more interesting with every story Green writes. It looks like there are a lot of different defenses coming from defendants' lawyers and I don't think Righthaven or the RJ was prepared for that.
If I understand the law (and I'm not a lawyer), everytime an answer to one of these suits is filed, Righthaven has file more paper and unlike the original suits that were files, those guys are going to actually have to do some work instead of using cookie cutter documents.
It's also interesting that not one of the settlements has been anywhere close to the $75,000 statutory damages. I wonder what that means.
And, of course, I'm happy to see the "cease and desist" letter thing mentioned in this response. Even though it's not required, I think it would have done the trick, even though Sarge babbles on about the cost of doing it.
>> Is there anything like it for Internet Explorer?
probably not --- but you'll have fewer issues on the internet sticking with firefox due to higher security and options anyway.
I've seen some folks who would get viruses on a monthly basis to none in over a year simply by changing their browser to firefox.
.02
I hope the LvRj goes out of business! LOL
vegas_tom: Thank you.
BushDepression: I'd rather see a great newspaper company buy it, then watch Sherm and friends scramble.
Can you smell it on me? I just got back from the RJ site.
I can smell it on you. I use Firefox and no longer can act on temptation: http://tinyurl.com/24h5afh
Finally, a defendant fighting back against the predatory Righthaven and the R-J's twisted new business "model." I hope more people under fire from Righthaven follow suit. Good luck!
RJ is going out of business. Good bye, nobody reads your paper and nobody visits your website. Goons!
Again, thanks to Steve Green for continuing to write about this issue and to the Sun for publishing the stories. I think, if I haven't said it before, that if Green wins an award for this series, oh my, the irony of it all. And the RJ still hasn't covered it own lawsuit.
press the share button to share the story and your bank account . i hope that someone sues the r-j for setting them up . ok creative lv attorneys with nuthin to do . go gettum bite ritehaven and the rj . play the pay to go away game.
"press the share button to share the story and your bank account "
You probably got confused by reading the poorly written story which is just basically re-printing crap from a lawsuit.
LVRJ does not have a "share" button.
It has a email button which allows one to send the headline and link to a friend. That is not copyright infringement.
You can hit the RSS feed button and get notified of LVRJ stories. It will give you a headline, short sentence on the story and a link. That is not copyright infringement either.
Your chain is being yanked by the Sun. They have an agenda. You are dancing to their tune.
Grow a brain and stop being a Sun puppet.
A lot of posters here have mentioned the Share, Email and Print options on the RJ stories. That's what makes this case, I think, so complex. The law is clear, but the RJ encourages readers to "Print" articles, or "Share" articles. I think those two words have different meanings these days. You can print to paper, but how many copies? 100? 1000? And then, can you mail them to friends? Print also means you can "Print" to the web, I would guess. It does elsewhere. But even though there's a copyright notice all over the place on the RJ site, what does it really mean if the paper's encouraging readers to print and share.
This may sound far out, well, it is far out. What happens if someone decides to have story reproduced as a tattoo? Does the tattoo artist get sued for copyright violation? Or the person who gets tattoo'd?
What's next,sueing somebody in the comment section because their opinion might have a negative effect on the publisher who ran the story...kinda puts a damper on this free speech thingy here.Just in case,I better watch what I say... wait a minute why am I saying anything?
"LVRJ does not have a "share" button."
The Review-Journal VERY CLEARLY has a share button, with links to share the article on:
Newsvine
Digg
Fark
Technorati
Reddit
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Slashdot
Propeller
Mixx
Furl
Twitter
Myspace
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Windows Live Favorites
Ask.com
myAOLfavorites
Here's a handy screencap:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2cqxysy.jpg
from TODAY's Jeff German article:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-pleads-not-...
The R-J is clearly inviting people to share their content all over the web, and then they sue them for doing so.
The R-J's apologists stoop into the gutter, lying about what's clearly obvious on the R-J's own site.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2cqxysy.jpg
You are again gettings confused with LVRJ site and other sites.
You can share a link to the story. That is not copyright infringement.
You can share a paragraph from the story along with a link. That is not copyright infringement.
The Sun is starting to look silly writting this stories.
You guys are being played.
Sherm (SgtRock): The RJ does list several sites on which one can share, but nowhere does it say you can just "share" a line or a paragraph. You might say that people should "know this." But as I've said before, obviously many didn't and I'll bet there are many who still don't know.
I think the RJ and Righthaven are going to have a few dollars come in from these lawsuits. Considering that the RJ is in the "right," so to speak on these suits, that people did post full articles, why is it accepting "settlements" that are a fraction of the "statutory damages," and dropping some suits and not others? And, why hasn't the RJ written a single story about this "leadership" position it's taken?
And, why are you so strongly in favor of lawsuits and do not seem to have an ounce of sympathy for those who were just plain ignorant of the law. Don't you think there might have been another way to handle this?
F Righthaven, and F the RJ. I'll never again post LVRJ links, click on LVRJ links, or buy the stinking paper. I'll actively encourage others to do the same.
Sarge, you said the "LVRJ does not have a "share" button." It does, and I did a handy screen-shot to prove it.
Further, on some of those sites, you can quote the article in the description of the link. (Digg frequently does this) The R-J has sued someone for using two or three paragraphs out of a 20+ paragraph story.
"You can share a paragraph from the story along with a link. That is not copyright infringement."
They are suing someone for sharing a paragraph along with a link. It's clear you either don't understand their lawsuits, or are oblivious to the facts of some of these cases.
"The R-J has sued someone for using two or three paragraphs out of a 20+ paragraph story"
The R-J has not sued anyone. It is Righthaven that is suing.
Righthaven have not sued anybody for using two paragraghs.
SgtRock: "The R-J has sued someone for using two or three paragraphs out of a 20+ paragraph story." That's right, the R-J hasn't - Righthaven, who you "grubstaked," has. But I think I read also that Righthave is dropping that one. Gives you an idea of Gibson's "pull the trigger first" mentality, but we all make mistakes, don't we?
"The R-J has not sued anyone." Oh please, there'd be no Righthaven without the RJ and the RJ, according to the media, does have some sort of deal with Righthaven.
I still don't know why your heroic paper hasn't written an article on this. How humiliating to be "scooped" on almost a daily basis by your competition. Oh, and don't come back with that irrelevant line about the Sun being enclosed in the RJ.
casinokid@8:24am...
You REEK, DUDE!!!
Wow, I use to read the R-J, but now I am afraid to even click on their sight. I can't aford to be sued for telling someone else what the R-J said, last week. Think I'll just stick to the Sun for information.
SargCrock Wrote:
> Your chain is being yanked by the Sun.
lol --- and yours isn't by Sherm and the RJ? Just how naive' are you? Never mind --- you show it with every post.
> They have an agenda. You are dancing to their tune.
pot. kettle. black.
> Grow a brain and stop being a Sun puppet.
hey -- at least this place is a Pultizer winning paper. What you got over at the RJ? Sherman Frederick and Thomas Mitchel ----- lol. Oh pahleez. All the got is cheap cowboy hats.
Go back for further instruction and then get back to us as soon as you can. we'll be waiting.
;)
Vegas_tom: "at least this place is a Pulitzer winning paper." And that is something this city and state should be very proud of. There are less than 1500 daily newspapers in the U.S. and only about 20 Pulitzers given out each year. Our Las Vegas Sun won one, not the RJ, which has a larger staff and, yes, Sarge/Sherm, encloses the Sun. But sport, your guys didn't win one of these prizes and I think that's rests not only on your reporters, but on your editors and managers too -- Why is that Sarge/Sherm?
Here's another of the RJ's shady business practices (this happened to me):
If you have a subscription and let it expire without formally notifying the RJ they will continue to send you the newspaper. They will then stop sending you the newspaper after a few weeks of sending it to you without your having asked for it.
A few more weeks will go by and you will then receive a notification from the RJ that your overdue account is being sent to a collection agency. When you call their customer service department they will inform you that their renewal notice includes a statement saying that failing to inform them that you no longer wish to pay for the newspaper beyond what you've already paid for constitutes an agreement to continue paying for it.
Of course it constitutes no such thing, but what they count on is that you'd rather pay them a few dollars then see an account sent to collections show up on your credit report. I paid them for that very reason.
Scumbags.
JohnF/BobbyG - "Negative election:" Awful policy for the consumer from any company. Sorry that happened to you.
Here's my question for all who care to answer: Would you pay to subscribe to any newspaper online?
I don't think there's any doubt that this is way that business is going and I would for certain papers, and do now for one.
"Here's my question for all who care to answer: Would you pay to subscribe to any newspaper online?"
1st, you asked this before and nobody cared to answer which should give you a big clue on the answer.
2nd, some newspaper sites, like NY Times, has conducted experiments with this and they all ended in complete and total failure.
There are very few people who want to pay to view regular news stories on a website.
"The R-J has not sued anyone. It is Righthaven that is suing."
You are 100% correct. The Review Journal has and continues to chose to sell the copyright to individual articles with the express intent of seeing Righthaven suing anyone who even cites their text under fair use.
In other words: the R-J is enabling Righthaven.
Thanks for working that out for me.
Sarge/Sherm: "2nd, some newspaper sites, like NY Times, has conducted experiments with this and they all ended in complete and total failure." The NY Times is going back to that model, or so it has discussed publicly. Also, the Wall Street Journal's online subscriptions have worked. And, if this is true: "There are very few people who want to pay to view regular news stories on a website," maybe it's time for the RJ to find managers who can make it work and make the online service compelling enough so that people will pay.
It's the news businesses business to find a way to make that change to survive. Obviously, the RJ hasn't.
And, as to asking that question earlier, sure I did. That there haven't been any answers doesn't mean that they'd all go one way or another. Sarge/Sherm, that sort of conclusion is typical of your editorials, blogs and the way you run your newspaper.
The reason the paper that shall not be named is so familiar with citing, and compensating, others for the right to use their work is because that paper is comprised almost entirely of wire and syndicated stories.
What they do is the height of lazy (although profitable) journalism. That practice works well for them since their readership largely has low expectations/comprehension levels with regard to quality news and analysis. No one can ever say they don't know their audience.
Sarge/Sherm: These questions:
1. If statutory damages are $75,000, why are you settling for so much less?
2. What did Righthaven pay for these copyrights?
3. What is the RJ's cut?
4. Why hasn't the RJ covered this story?
"It's the news businesses business to find a way to make that change to survive. Obviously, the RJ hasn't."
The Sun is surviving by being an insert to the LVRJ.
The Wall Street Journal has an online version that is free and a version that you can sign up for.
Guess what....so does the LVRJ. The Sun does have an pay-for version.
I don't think either the LVRJ version or even if the Sun did a version would make any money.
1. If statutory damages are $75,000, why are you settling for so much less? That is how lawsuits work. Most get settled if they have any merit. To get the $75,000 then they would have to go to trial and that cost a lot of money.
2. What did Righthaven pay for these copyrights? Don't know.
3. What is the RJ's cut? I don't believe they get a cut but the same company that owns the LVRJ also owns a small part Righthaven.
4. Why hasn't the RJ covered this story? Perhaps is it a bunch of nonsense that only the Sun wants to cover over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Sometimes news papers don't cover stories about themselves if a competitor is already doing it.
Recently there was a big scandal about the Nevada state senate majority leader.
The Sun decided not to run any news articles on it.
Why did that do that?
1. "Statutory," Sarge. All of these suits have merit. And, you're right, most suits don't go to court. However, what you're saying here is that Righthaven and the RJ should have sent a letter first.
2. Sure you do Sherm.
3. "small part of Righthaven" Please. What was it, $300k to "grubstake" Righthaven, and how much more since because the settlements Righthaven's getting can't be paying the bills.
4. If it's so much "nonsense," why is the RJ even bothering to sue?
Good newspapers do cover stories about themselves. And now you're saying that because the Sun is already covering a story, the RJ doesn't want to play catch up, or even have the chance to serve the community and tell it why?
And, if you're talking about Horsford, the Sun ran an AP story. I think the Sun should have done more.
I think it is important that we begin calling Righthaven a "land shark." One might ask, "What is a land shark?" Here's the pop culture definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Shark_...
This is an interesting link: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2010081...
In none of the cases by Righthaven does the defendent have a legit defense of implied license.
In the Google cache case the implied license defense only worked because the Google has a mechanism for website owners to block cache of websites. In the case, the owner that sued Google admited that he knew how to block Google caching his site. That he did not try to block Google caching his site. He knew that Google was caching his site. There the court ruled that the website owner was giving Google implied permission to cache his site because he know that it was happening, he knew how to prevent it and did not prevent it.
None of those facts even remotely match the LVRJ cases.
LVJR has explicit statements about copyright on its web pages.
Places where it allows the users to email or RSS feed its stories only headline, links or short descriptions are use.
All the save button does is to save the link.
All the share and save button does is take one to a search section that is pre-fed by stories.
The print button allows a person to print a story to their own printer. Single print of a story for one's own use is not copyright infringement.
No where is it implied that one can copy a story from the LVRJ and post it on another site without permission.
There is nothing remotely that implies that license.
"If you have a subscription and let it expire without formally notifying the RJ they will continue to send you the newspaper."
That is how almost every single newspaper subscription works and almost every single mag subscription.
Also, in all LVRJ's ads it says "Unless you call to cancel after your subscription period your rate will continue at the regular price"
Lastly, the subscription is for both the LVRJ and that crap insert called, the Sun.
So if you think you are getting cheated because you have not yet learned in life to read then you are not only getting "cheated" by the LVRJ but also by the Sun.
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.
@ murrayburns
I think you'll find that steve m is Sherm on here.
And after reading SargCrock I'm thinking he's Mitchel.
I'm sure the IT guys down at the Sun know who's IP resolves to the RJ servers.
What's that old saying about all hat and no cattle?
i wonder if the RJ is familiar with the old saying: there's no such thing as bad publicity, it's all publicity?
why are they throwing away this advantage to put the RJ and Las Vegas in front of the world on the internet? Not all "surfers" read the RJ, not all read various blogs, but surely readership is increased through exposure.
> there's no such thing as bad publicity, it's all publicity?
I wonder if BP believes this old saw? Probably not.
fwiw my research is showing that the RJ web traffic is down considerably since this started. That's probably just what the RJ management had planned.
And before a certain Sarg calls BS --- yes, you can monitor traffic without being on the inside.
Sarge has gotten really defensive. "The print button allows a person to print a story to their own printer. Single print of a story for one's own use is not copyright infringement." Of course, that's what the "Print" button does. But the both the everyday understanding of words and dictionary definitions of them change almost annually. "Print" can mean different things to different readers.
As to the Google case, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say it's definitely meaningful to these copyright issues. I posted it just because it's from a law professors blog and he thought it was something to think about.
To even respond to the copyright notices at the bottom of RJ pages is a waste time here, but I'll repeat my statement: Most people aren't lawyers and didn't or don't know that posting a full story with links and attribution violates the law. Still, Sarge, why are you so angry with these defendants? There is no question in my mind that you have a vested interest here or are just the most unsympathetic person ever to walk the earth. People made mistakes that, at least at this point, no one's proven cost the RJ a dime.
As a so-called "newspaperman" you should know that the courts often make surprising rulings. Please, stop harping back to that stuff.
As for the subscription issue, you're probably right, but that doesn't mean that negative election is right for the consumer, only the potential profit of the newspaper.
"The print button allows a person to print a story to their own printer. Single print of a story for one's own use is not copyright infringement." As I said, "Print" could be interpreted as "Printing to the screen," in which case someone could think it's okay to print to a blog that's on the screen. And, one person's "use" could be to "blog" the article.
Who knows what the courts will say? There are lots of issues in this thing and none of know how it will shake out.
CliffHarrison: You're probably right about asking permission, but think about the average Joe out there. It probably didn't cross his mind because this sort thing happened all the time so why would anyone even think of posting on the Internet as a copyright violation?
My point here has always been very simple: I believe that this story and all the negative publicity that goes with it probably wouldn't have seen the light of day if cease and desist letters were written.
A person who copies and pastes someone else's work and post it on their own website to gain traffic has zero ethics.
You don't have to be a genius to know that is wrong.
These people who do this are scum.
Gosh, Sarge, you really are an angry fellow, and one who now ascribes ethical behavior solely to web posts. And you're right, by the way, you don't have to be a genius to know what is wrong, but you give no one the benefit of the doubt in this issue that until now didn't seem complex or confusing at all.
That lack of sympathetic behavior and your generalizations seem to be an awful way to live.
By the way, why did the RJ drop the Curtis suit?
Sarge, you're working for this ambulance chaser, eh ? Nobody believes for a second that this is about "protecting copyrighted material". It's about shaking down small bloggers and message board operators. It's an abuse of the legal system, the damages claimed are beyond ridiculous, and the willingness to quickly settle for a fraction of the claimed damages shows that this is about making some quick bucks, not protecting content that's free to begin with.
Shame on RJ, Stephens Media, Righthaven and their stooges like Sarge.
What it really comes down is economics and protecting their business.
Some of these sites were in clear violation of copyright whether intentional or not. Unfortunately website owners need to do a better job of policing their content.
I do not agree with the tactics by Righthaven and the R-J but because of our current economic condition they are trying their best to stay profitable. It is likely that the newspaper industry is not what it used to be and it's even more imperative that they protect their rights to content.
What Righthaven and the R-J fail to realize is the internet provides and encourages content sharing within reason. With these lawsuits becoming more frequent at some point they may face a backlash which will discourage users from even reading let alone linking to the R-J.
Something to keep in mind. If Google (and other search engine sites) are allowed to "post" a link and a short description, when a search is initiated, one can say that it 'could' be a copyright violation. Google makes money on searches, in addition, Sponsored Links also make money from said search.
This is kind of an extreme example but it also provides us a rule of thumb. The R-J won't sue you if your link and description are similar to what is posted on a search result. And if they do try and sue under these circumstances it would set a precedent that would basically shut down the internet.
"Something to keep in mind. If Google (and other search engine sites) are allowed to "post" a link and a short description, when a search is initiated, one can say that it 'could' be a copyright violation."
Posting a link, the headline of the story, a short description of the story or one or two paragraphs ...none of that is copyright infringement.
Not a single of the lawsuits deal with that.
Most of the lawsuits are where people copy and paste all or a significant part of the news article.
You don't have to have PHD in ethics to realize that is wrong.
> A person who copies and pastes someone else's work and post it on their own website to gain traffic has zero ethics.
hmmmm. so the RJ cutting and pasting AP stories onto their site has zero ethics? I'd agree with that.
lol
> You don't have to have PHD in ethics to realize that is wrong.
fess up Sarg --- you're Mitchel, right?
NO ONE who doesn't work for the RJ would care or continue to defend the RJ who isn't intimately involved with the business of the RJ. period.
You're also fibbing with some of your posts as to the scope of the infringed copy... and I don't care how high you jump up and down --- you're factually not correct. period.
"Posting a link, the headline of the story, a short description of the story or one or two paragraphs ...none of that is copyright infringement. Not a single of the lawsuits deal with that."
So you're familiar with every one of the 100 lawsuits ? So you work for RJ or Slimehaven, then, right ? Face it, this ambulance chasing is a PR desaster for RJ. I'd like to see the statistics on link back traffic to RJ as this nonsense progresses.
How do you justify the lawsuit against Anthony Curtis for posting excerpts from an article based on his own research ?
Or Democratic Underground for posting 4 paragraphs of a 34 paragraph article, with proper attribution and link back ?
Say what you want, Sarge, you just make yourself and these scumbags look more ridiculous.
Reposting lisaMM's link:
http://tinyurl.com/24h5afh
Instructions on how to block Stephen's Media owned sites, so you don't accidentally quote something off their sites and get thrown in the slammer.
"hmmmm. so the RJ cutting and pasting AP stories onto their site has zero ethics? I'd agree with that."
Are you a total moron?
AP is a news wire service.
Nearly every newspaper buys into their service which allows them to post their stories.
AP is not a newspaper.
"So you're familiar with every one of the 100 lawsuits ?"
All 100 are documented here at the Sun.
You can see the links to the right on all the Sun's stories.
"How do you justify the lawsuit against Anthony Curtis for posting excerpts from an article based on his own research ?"
They dropped that case.
"Or Democratic Underground for posting 4 paragraphs of a 34 paragraph article, with proper attribution and link back ?"
That probably is one of their weaker cases. It comes done to the what a judge or juror decides if that fact fits the "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" standard.
4 out of 34 is more than 10%. It is a close call.
To be safe, one should not copy no more than two paragraphs.
"To be safe, one should not copy no more than two paragraphs."
To be safe, nobody should post any RJ links or content. To be extra super safe, don't visit lvrj.com or any other Stephens Media sites, period.
seriously, is the RJ losing so much money they need to keep suing people? lets get real here...if i posted a link to my website for the RJ, which has advertising on it, the RJ is getting FREE RECOGNITION AND ADVERTISING POTENTIAL!
every time i hear more about these stupid lawsuits it makes me wanna use an edition of the RJ as toilet paper for my dog.
> Are you a total moron?
no. I can't help it if you're not clear in your writing. You need to be specific and not talk in generalities when slinging RJ positions around. Go look at what you wrote --- I'll sit here and await your apology, Mr. Mitchel.
> They dropped that case.
so the RJ is just firing into the crowd to see who falls? great legal strategy by great minds. no control -- just blast away. great. And you condone that? I guess now we know who the real moron is.
"...if i posted a link to my website for the RJ, which has advertising on it"
The lawsuits are not against people who are just linking.
The lawsuits are against people who copy and paste all or a significant portion of the copyright material.
vegas_tom...I know that you are now embarrassment and now are just babling.
$75,000 for reprinting the crap that Sherm Frederick writes? There ought to be a law against that.
"That is how almost every single newspaper subscription works and almost every single mag subscription."
That is an out and out lie. No magazine subscrtiption works that way. No newspaper I have ever subscribed to has worked that way. Not the Hartford Courant, tha Albuquerque Journal, the Willimantic Chronicle, the Arizona Daily Star, the San Francisco Chronicle, or the Las Vegas Sun (when I was still able to get that without having to buy the RJ). Only the RJ has ever extorted money from me in that fashion. The first notification I received from them that I "owed" them money was when I was told the account was being sent to a collection agency.
These people are slimy.
Buying a product does not constitue an agreement to continue buying said product. There is no contract either explicit or implied. At least that's what my lawyer friends tell me. The RJ's business practices are not ethical.