Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010 | 9:26 a.m.
Updated Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010 | 3:07 p.m.
Sun archives
- Righthaven CEO’s law firm in merger (8-24-2010)
- R-J accused of entrapment over copyright enforcement (8-23-2010)
- 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)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an influential group that works to promote freedom of speech and consumer rights on the Internet nationwide, announced Wednesday it will try to help some of the defendants that have been sued by Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas for posting material online from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The EFF, based in San Francisco, since 1990 has intervened in lawsuits and Congress to protect consumer privacy rights and online freedom of speech in the digital age.
For instance, it recently teamed with the ACLU in successfully arguing federal agents don't have unlimited rights to install Global Positioning System location-tracking devices in vehicles without a warrant, and the EFF has assisted individuals targeted in mass lawsuits over the unauthorized downloading of movies and music.
The EFF called a recent series of lawsuits filed by the U.S. Copyright Group over movie downloads, implicating more than 14,000 people, "predatory copyright infringement lawsuits" aimed at shaking out "settlements from ordinary people with few resources to defend themselves."
Wednesday, the EFF said it is seeking to assist defendants in the "Righthaven copyright troll lawsuits."
"Righthaven, founded in March of 2010, files hundreds of copyright infringement lawsuits on behalf of newspaper publishers against bloggers who make use of news content without permission. To that end, Righthaven searches the Internet for stories and parts of stories from the newspapers that they represent. Once they find content that has been re-published, Righthaven purchases the copyright to the article and sues the owner of the blog," the EFF said.
"Just like the U.S. Copyright Group shakedowns, and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) shakedowns of the recent past, Righthaven relies on the threat of enormous statutory damages associated with the Copyright Act to scare defendants, often individual bloggers operating non-commercial websites, into a quick settlement, reportedly ranging from two to five thousand dollars. The Righthaven lawsuits are of particular concern because they sometimes target the operators of political websites who re-publish newspaper stories, chilling political speech. Righthaven has also targeted the newspaper's source for the very articles allegedly infringed," the statement said.
The EFF said it doesn't have the resources to defend everyone who asks for help in dealing with Righthaven.
"However, if we cannot represent you directly, we will make every effort to put you in touch with attorneys who can," the group said in a note posted for Righthaven defendants.
A request for comment on the EFF announcement was placed Wednesday with Righthaven CEO Steven Gibson, an attorney who also heads the Las Vegas office of the Detroit law firm Dickinson Wright PLLC.
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, said the organization has been monitoring the Righthaven lawsuits for some time.
"For the newspaper industry, this (Righthaven) is a new twist" in copyright enforcement, he said.
The usual procedure in the newspaper industry has been that when copyright infringements are detected online, newspapers contact the offending website and ask that the material be taken down and replaced with a link.
Opsahl said the EFF has been concerned that the Righthaven initiative may be deterring freedom of speech on the Internet because people who have the right to post some material online under the fair use doctrine may not be doing so, for fear of being sued.
Eric Goldman, associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California and director of the High Tech Law Institute there, suggested EFF will be a formidable opponent for Righthaven.
"I think the EFF's involvement reinforces that Righthaven's lawsuits jeopardize free speech online," Goldman said. "The EFF's involvement also ensures that more Righthaven defendants will be represented by top-notch lawyers. Righthaven's business model partially depends on being able to get defendants to settle quickly. It becomes a lot more expensive to litigate; and even more to litigate against knowledgeable and skilled attorneys.
"The EFF attorneys are among the best in the business -- they are all rock star litigators -- so Righthaven's costs have just gone way up. Plus, the EFF attorneys know how to litigate cases like these, so Righthaven's probability of winning its lawsuits just went down," Goldman said.
The EFF announcement may offer some encouragement to Righthaven defendants who haven't been able to afford to hire an attorney. In many of the cases, attorneys say, Righthaven's settlement offers make the cases cheaper to settle than to fight.
Ryan Gile, an intellectual property attorney with the Las Vegas law firm Weide & Miller LTD, which has been in contact with some of the Righthaven defendants, said the effectiveness of the EFF's involvement may hinge on how many defendants it's able to help and what criteria it uses to decide which cases to become involved in.
"On the one hand, I think it’s a great development that a well-funded group like EFF is getting involved to help individuals who cannot afford legal representation. On the other hand, barring some kind of legal victory on Righhaven’s legal right to enforce the copyright rights it acquires, the unfortunate fact is that most of these defendants probably did commit copyright infringement under copyright law -- however unintentional and innocent such infringement may have been. Even unintentional infringement can bring a statutory damage award of $200.
"Hopefully, EFF’s efforts can help bring about quick, expedient settlements on behalf of the parties they choose to represent – a settlement amount that such parties can afford to pay if they don’t have to pay any amount to attorneys in legal fees. And for those parties whose use is indeed protected as fair use or by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with the EFF’s involvement they will be able to strongly fight back against Righthaven," Gile said.
Las Vegas attorney Michael McCue of the law firm Lewis and Roca LLP, which is representing several Righthaven defendants in settlement talks and litigation, has said options for defendants who can't afford legal assistance include seeking "pro bono," or free, legal assistance from a law firm or public interest group; or they could represent themselves if they are not a corporation.
Other options are to try to negotiate a settlement with Righthaven on their own or they can do nothing and risk a default judgment.
The default judgment option is "very risky," McCue said.
"The default judgment could include an award of damages and attorneys' fees. Righthaven might then record the judgment where the defendant resides and may seek to enforce the judgment by attaching assets and garnishing wages," he said.
McCue reminded website operators that to reduce the potential liability for copyright infringement, they should avoid posting material written by others unless they have written permission.
"Merely providing attribution to the source is not sufficient," he said, adding website operators can also be liable for third-party postings -- the subject of many of the Righthaven lawsuits.
Online service providers to avoid liability must comply with detailed provisions of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These provisions include designating an agent to receive notifications of alleged infringements and registering that designation with the U.S. Copyright Office, McCue said.
"The online service provider cannot have knowledge of the infringement and cannot be aware of facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity is apparent. The online service provider cannot receive direct financial benefit from the infringing activity. In addition, when receiving notice of an infringement, the online service provider must act expeditiously to take down or block access to the allegedly infringing work," McCue said.
Separately, a group working to control the spread of infections is being sued for copyright infringement by Righthaven after a Review-Journal story was posted on its website.
Righthaven on Tuesday filed suit in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas against the Hepatitis C Support Project of San Francisco and its founder, Alan Franciscus.
Righthaven detects online infringements of Review-Journal stories, obtains copyrights to those stories from the Review-Journal's owner, Stephens Media LLC, and then files suit over the retroactive infringements.
The Hepatitis C Support Project and Franciscus are accused of posting to the group's website, www.hcvadvocate.org, an April 30 Review-Journal story about a woman who lost her lawsuit claiming she was infected with hepatitis C at a Las Vegas hospital.
The suit says the website also allegedly displayed without authorization a June 4 Review-Journal story about the hepatitis outbreak linked to the clinics of Dr. Dipak Desai, though Righthaven isn't seeking damages for that alleged infringement.
Franciscus couldn't immediately be reached for comment on the allegation.
The Hepatitis C Support Project says it was founded by Franciscus in 1997 to address the lack of education, support and services available at that time for people affected by hepatitis c.
"The Hepatitis C Support Project's mission is to provide unbiased information, support and advocacy to all communities affected by HCV (hepatitis c) and HIV/HCV coinfection, including medical providers," the website says.
This is at least the second Righthaven lawsuit over the Review-Journal story about the woman's unsuccessful lawsuit against the Las Vegas hospital.
On June 30, Righthaven sued Fremont, Neb., non-profit Honor Inc., which is associated with the website www.oneandonlycampaign.org. That site educates medical professionals about the One & Only Campaign, promoting "One Syringe Only One Time" to prevent the spread of diseases among patients.
The One & Only Campaign is an initiative led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Safe Injection Practices Coalition.
The suit against Honor was settled under undisclosed terms, Righthaven said in court papers Aug. 3.
In both lawsuits, Righthaven demanded $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' domain names. Publicly-disclosed settlements in other cases, though, show two defendants paid $2,185 and $5,000, respectively, and were able to keep their website names.
In both of the lawsuits over the hepatitis lawsuit story, court records indicate the entire story was re-posted on the defendants' websites with the Review-Journal credited for the information and a link provided to the Review-Journal website.
Also sued by Righthaven on Tuesday were HerbalScience Ltd., the Himalaya Drug Co. and an official Righthaven says is associated with HerbalScience and Himalaya, Nabeel Manal.
They are accused of posting on a blogsite, www.fighthangover.blogspot.com,
a June 5 Review-Journal story about Walgreens deciding to sell alcohol at its Las Vegas stores.
Himalaya says on its website it owns Himalaya Herbal Healthcare, with global headquarters in Bangalore, India, and a U.S. office in Houston.
A message for comment was left with Manal.
These bring to at least 102 the number of lawsuits Righthaven has filed since March.
These guys are killing me. Can't wait for them to go bankrupt. They don't deserve the PR they get, and RJ is loosing customers daily. Good riddance!
Can the RJ be sued for posting AP news articles? And why these articles about righthaven... We know they are scumbags from the first article that was posted. If no one is gonna do anything about them them stop encouraging them with write up about them.
Onerare1: AP articles - It's an AP subscribed newspaper so that's not an issue.
On the other hand: Nonprofit sues Nonprofit.
Finally, suing any nonprofit that's in existance for doing good, helping people just defines egregrious.
I'll be there will come a time when companies start to see that their customers are not happy with this and maybe show some guts and take a stand, either through an ad boycott or some sort of meeting with the paper.
It's time to put it all on the R.J. Boycott the R.J. and make them suffer.......It is purely a $$$$ grab and it's despicable.
@WillieK: I've already begun my own boycott. I won't so much as give their website a look anymore. Doing so raises their ability for ad income. I also wrote some of their advertisers.
RJ is every bit as low as Righthaven.
Hey, its a business -- out to make money any way it can.
It will be rewarding for Righthaven until the home town federal District Court decides that these businesspeople are the source of calendar-clogging lawsuits which, although having a legal basis, are too trivial to be heard, and too similar to extortion to be countenanced. If that happens, the inherent powers of the Court will be invoked to protect the Court from activities perceived as disreputable.
When that happens, profits from the Righthaven business model will come to a screeching halt. And, if things go too far, the attorneys involved may find themselves the objects of disciplinary proceedings at the behest of fed-up federal judges.
That's the way it has happened elsewhere with other plaintiffs who chose to make a business out of enforcing their "important" legal rights with a multiplicity of lawsuits against small targets who could not bear the costs of defense.
But it can be a quite profitable business while it lasts.
"But it can be a quite profitable business while it lasts." Maybe, but the published settlements aren't all that high and Righthaven has offices and nearly a dozen employees. Even it is profitable, what an awful way to make money, a cut below personal injury lawyers.
When will the RJ and Righthaven go after Sharron Angle for all the RJ content she has posted on her campaign site?
Oh, right.
SgtRockMitchell is going to post some drivel about how Slimehaven is doing a fantastic job and service to the nation any moment now.
Good for the EFF to stand up for the little guys, that Slimehaven and LVRJ try to scare into settlements.
I said back at the beginning of this series of stories that sooner or later the EFF would get involved. Righthaven and the RJ are in for real fight now.
Once one public interest group gets involved in a matter like this, it's not unsual for others to follow, if not as attorneys of record, then filing amicus briefs.
It just seems to me like, sure, everyone of the defendants (and yes, I'm repeating myself) violated the copyright laws, but it's going to end badly for Righthaven and the RJ. It's not that they're not "in the right," it's the draconian approach.
It's astounding. Actually, in a way, I'm glad it happened, as I've "met" many interesting people in this discussion, and many with creative opinions. Thanks for that guys/gals. I wish we could all get together for drink one of these days.
John Perry Barlow to the rescue!!
Righthaven just proves the old adage that: "No good deed goes unpunished." A pox on them!
I'm sure Sherm is fearless in this matter. Of course, when it comes to running tough stories, including this one, well, not so much.
So what do all of you supporters of "the little guy" propose as a solution to the massive amount of copyright infringements that occur on the Internet? You all agree that copying someone's work is not alright, so then what? You think a simple take down notice is going to stop the infringement? And keep others from infringing when they know that essentially nothing is going to happen to them? Well think again. It's human nature to try to get away with anything one can get away with. That's why our justice system is based on deterrence. To DETER offenders and others from committing a crime.
kimbernichol: I thought I was cynical. I believe that "take down" notices would work in many, if not most cases. When it doesn't work, then you take the next step. There is something to be said for courtesy in the law and keeping your readers.
Why are people so anxious to sue these days?
Murray, I am not cynical I am a realist.
kimberynichol....you are absolutely right.
The whole reason for the statutory penalities (that is where the $75,000 number comes from) in the copyright law is for preventive purposes.
It is to scare people into not doing copyright infringement in the first place.
These people who are copying and pasting all or a significant part of stories have zero ethics.
It is not their property.
They should not stealing other people's property.
You can steal Sun's property. They will later beg you to take it down. They will say, "Please, please....stop stealing from us." You can blow them off. They will never sue.
How to put Righthaven out of business......
Step 1) Stop having your own website staff copying and posting LVRJ copyright material. You can have a link. You can have the headline. You can have a short description. You can have up to 2 paragraphs. You can't copy and paste 3 or more paragraphs.
Step 2 for small sites: Warn users not to post copyright material. Daily review what users post. If it is copyright material. Delete it from your site.
Step 2 for larger sites: Warn users not to post copyright material. Designate an agent to receive notifications of alleged infringements and registering that designation with the U.S. Copyright Office. This requires Righthaven to send a take down notice on instances where regular users post copyright material.
It is that simple.
Everybody happy?????
Stop your own website staff from stealing copyright material.
If you are small site then monitor what users post.
If you are bigger site then adhere to Digital Millennium Copyright Act rules and register your contact information.
Grow up.
Stop crying.
Stop stealing.
On that day, Righthaven will be out of business.
"It just seems to me like, sure, everyone of the defendants (and yes, I'm repeating myself) violated the copyright laws, but it's going to end badly for Righthaven and the RJ. It's not that they're not "in the right," it's the draconian approach."
Not sure how being on the side of the law is going to result in ending badly for Righthaven.
I am sure that somebody is going to take it trial.
They are going to lose $75,000 and their domain name plus spend another $30,000 to $150,000 on lawyers and court fees.
Thank you, Kimberly, for being one of the very few posters who's actually standing up AGAINST the Sun's slew of indictments against its competitor. It seems EVERY DAY the Sun publishes its advocacy of the ILLEGAL MIS-USE of copyrighted material...why?
Why reward those THEIVES who are too lazy/untalented/inept/indifferent/irresponsible/greedy FOR STEALING??! THEY OUGHT TO BE SUED. In fact, 95 percent of Sun's posters are rabidly advocating the perpetuation of this CRIME; why?
Also, to Steve Green...You are clearly a talented journalist whose work is valuable to your employer (probably worth much more than they bother to pay you, but that's a different matter altogether;), so what's the point in (implicitly) advocating the theft of YOUR work by the lazy and talent-less?
Wait for the first court ruling, then for potential sanctions from the Nevada Bar Association. Just a thought. And, though I decided not to address Sgt. Rock, damn, you have got to be the most uninformed, least logical, unsympathic and unreasonable soul on God's green earth. I don't like to resort to that sort of characterization, but are you simply out of your mind, or just require Prozac. I am actually concerned that I might run into you one night and your anger will cause result in some sort of violence. Your posts are reminiscent of the rhetoric spawned by right wingers in the 50s south, if not the Birchers, and so forth.
In short, you comments are so far off the modestly logical and interesting conversation that goes on here that you should be ignored, or learn to think.
LOL.......you spout pure babbling gargage and personal attacks. Your source is just stuff that comes out our your own personal butt.
I have cited the law.
You never cite the law or court cases and yet you want to have a reasonable logical discussion on lawsuits.
Hmmmmmmm.....I wonder whose prediction on lawsuits will win.
That is a hard one. It is the person who cites the law and court cases or the one who cites the stuff that comes out his butt.
I say that a signifcant portion, at least 35%, of the original 100 will result in some form of cash settlement or default judgement.
If one does complete the trial process out the of original 100 then I am confident that some cash award will go to Righthaven on that case.
I think your prediction is what?????
What is your prediction? None of the will settle? Nope that can't be because some have already settled (hint..hint...you don't know what you are talking about).
Sarge: Are you an attorney?
Sarge is either from RJ or Slimehaven. Guess RJ is not so proud about their ambulance chasing, since nothing about it is to be found on their website. Comments referring to Slimehaven are being deleted as well.
Some defendants settling for a few hundred bucks is nothing compared to the PR desaster for the RJ. Douches like Sarge blathering about zero ethics make me laugh. Typical loadmouth keyboard commando.
bubbalv: Non-lawyers citing the law and trying to interpret it, to say nothing of putting themselves in the position of a judge and/or jury is generally a mistake. The law itself is complex and to try to predict how a judge might rule, well, this is Vegas; the odds a probably better at a roulette wheel. At least that's been my experience.
The issue of the RJ not running its own story, to me, shows a lack of journalistic integrity. There's no reason it can't run the facts of these lawsuits without damaging their case. And, I think you might be right about the RJ not being "so proud" of these actions, as except for that brief blog of Sherm's it hasn't done an editorial. There's nothing that say a paper can't support its own position editorially.
I think there are some good stories in the RJ, and good reporters also. But it is disappointing, even in this economy, not to see or hear about reporters standing up against this. It's easy to see some of their sources just walking away, not necessarily because they support the defendants, but because of concerns over anonymity or other source-reporter issues.
Chunky says:
He wishes he knew how to help EFF in some way to fight the Righthaven lawsuits. Let's see how Righthaven does with a real adversary who has the resources to hit them in their wallet!
That's what Chunky thinks!
" not to see or hear about reporters standing up against this."
Are you saying that is what Green is doing?
Reporters at the RJ should be standing up and telling their editors that suing readers and souces is not in the best traditions of journalism. I can't see the RJ risking a suit over an anonymous source and given Sherm's apparent management style, telling his fiefs "Sure, hand over your notes" if engaged in libel litigation
Sarge are you an attorney, or do you now or have you ever worked for a newspaper, other than maybe Compressed Air Quarterly?
The EFF has arrived! Easy pickens for Righthaven are OVER!
I agree with you murrayburns.
The Sun reporter, Green, is on crusade and that is high quality journalism there.
Sarge: Presumably you're being facetious. From my side, I think it's a good local story, perhaps not the most important one around, but solid news anyway.
To call people lazy and untalented for cutting and pasting news articles is insane. The Internet was designed to be an open forum where people can access and cross-reference ideas, news, etc. If a free site copies and posts an article for educational purposes it is conforming to the original spirit of the Internet.
The intent is not to steal. If these sites claimed to be the author of the articles, that would be a different story. But what they are doing is actually giving the author and the newspaper wider circulation for free. The RJ and the reporters actually benefit when these sites post their articles.
People who cite "the law" forget that lawyers (most politicians are lawyers) create these laws so other lawyers can exploit people for financial gain.
These kinds of lawsuits will eventually kill the Internet. People will be afraid to post anything on any site out of fear of a lawsuit. That is why you will see many freedom of speech groups coming on board to defend these cases.
"I say that a signifcant portion, at least 35%, of the original 100 will result in some form of cash settlement or default judgement."
Absolutely. Because it will cost $10,000 or more just to get to trial. And defendants get stuck with that bill even if (as is likely the case), the judgment ends up being $750 or $200 per infringement. (For many of the defendants: there is only one infringement.)
It is cheaper to pay the man who suggests that your business might get burned down, rather than hire 24/7 security to protect your business. But that hardly means that the guy running the protection racket is doing something honorable or decent.
There's a reason that John Adams made the observation about our constitution. "Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to a government of any other." ["To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts," October 11, 1798, in John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1854), 9:228-229.] You are doing a fine job of demonstrating what happens when avarice takes precedence over decency.