Thursday, Aug. 26, 2010 | 4:30 p.m.
Sun archives
- Consumer group offers help to defendants over R-J copyright suits (8-25-2010)
- 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)
A federal judge on Thursday questioned Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC about the litigation costs it's expecting defendants to pay.
Righthaven since March has retroactively sued at least 103 website owners around North America after determining copyrights to Las Vegas Review-Journal stories were infringed on, and then obtaining the copyrights to those stories from the Review-Journal's owner Stephens Media LLC.
Righthaven is owned by two limited liability companies, each with 50 percent stakes. One of the LLCs is owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson, the other by members of Arkansas investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens' family. The Stephens family investments include Stephens Media and the Review-Journal.
Righthaven's lawsuits are typically filed against website operators and bloggers without Righthaven first trying to resolve the infringement issues out of court.
Righthaven says the suits are necessary to earn revenue for itself and to deter widespread online copyright infringement of newspaper stories.
But critics say the lawsuit campaign involves frivolous lawsuits and a shakedown campaign aimed at coercing settlements since Righthaven's settlement offers typically are less than the legal costs to fight the suits.
These charges -- denied by Righthaven -- have been made by defense attorneys as well as the freedom of speech advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which entered the fray Wednesday against Righthaven and which observers say is well staffed with expert copyright law attorneys.
A hearing Thursday in federal court in Las Vegas apparently was the first time one of the Nevada judges assigned to the Righthaven cases has commented publicly on them. None of the cases has reached a point where they've gone to trial or a judge has ruled on motions to dismiss.
Thursday's hearing, a telephone conference, was for one of Righthaven's earliest and most controversial cases: A suit against Allegra Wong of Boston, who published a noncommercial blog about cats, written from the point of view of cats. Her mistake was to post on her blog a Review-Journal story about a fire that killed some birds in Las Vegas -- it apparently was posted out of concern for the animals.
Critics, including a Los Angeles Times media writer, have suggested Righthaven went overboard in that case, given the nature of Wong's blog and the lack of any profit she could have earned by posting the Review-Journal story.
Wong, who isn't represented by an attorney, told the court in a letter that she gave the Review-Journal full credit and a link to the Review-Journal website, and that the story was removed from her blog after she learned she was being sued.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Johnston asked Gibson and Wong on Thursday what could be done to settle the case.
Gibson noted media attention about the case and said he would be interested in settling with Wong immediately and in doing so would show "leniency" and "humaneness."
Gibson said Righthaven's costs in the case would likely total up to $1,800 including the court filing fee, an expedited copyright registration, costs to serve Wong, legal work and office overhead.
"That would be a low settlement for us," said Gibson, who typically demands damages of $75,000 and forfeiture of website names but has been known to settle for $5,000 or less and lets settling defendants keep their website names.
"It's a lot for me," Wong, 57, said of the $1,800, adding she's unemployed and receives financial support from a companion.
Upon learning of her situation, and despite "what we feel is clearly copyright infringement," Gibson said he would settle for less, but didn't name an amount. He did amend his statement about Righthaven's costs as likely coming in at $1,300 to $1,500 rather than the $1,800.
Johnston then asked about provisions in the copyright law allowing him to order damages of just $200 for unwillful infringement and for him to use discretion in awarding costs and fees.
"It sounds like this can be a lot less than four figures," Johnston said. But the judge didn't elaborate on whether the "less than four figures" comment referred to potential damages, or costs, or both.
Gibson, though, said he wouldn't concede that Wong's infringement was not willful.
"We don't believe the $200 number is applicable in these circumstances," he said.
Johnston then asked about the costs incurred by Righthaven, wondering if Righthaven could have avoided the $150 costs of service by a Boston constable by simply mailing the suit to Wong and asking her to voluntarily accept service that way.
Gibson acknowledged mailing lawsuits to defendants and asking them to accept service by mail is an option, but said efforts to locate Wong and her co-defendant, her son Emerson Wong, were unsuccessful prior to the filing of the suit.
Wong said she first learned she was being sued when someone from the media tried to communicate with her by placing a comment on her blog. That's how the Las Vegas Sun tried to contact her for comment after she was sued.
Since then, Wong said she has taken the blog down because of unwanted media attention including inquiries from the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Herald and a radio station in New Hampshire.
"I took the blog down several weeks ago because it is not worth it, to be contacted for interviews," she said.
"I received no letters and no phone calls from Righthaven," Wong said.
The judge also asked Gibson about the legal costs for Wong's suit, wondering what the rate per hour is for Righthaven's in-house attorneys.
Noting 103 suits have been filed in five months, Johnston said: "I would think it's pretty standardized by now" and later saying "they all look about the same to me."
Gibson noted circumstances are different in each case. Some of the cases involve jurisdictional issues for defendants not living in Nevada, and some involve direct postings by website operators like Wong while others involve third-party posters and these include different legal arguments.
Wong said she alone ran the blog, which her son had registered for her, causing Johnston to ask Gibson why her son was also named in the suit.
"So someone didn't research that one very well," Johnston said.
Gibson, though, said Emerson Wong is a valid defendant since he was the registrant, administrative contact, technical contact and billing contact of the Internet domain name allegrawong.com.
The judge asked Gibson about the hourly legal rate he would use in determining costs and Gibson said that's still being determined.
Johnston asked about the hourly rate for one of the Righthaven attorneys, whom the judge said is a 2007 UNLV law school graduate.
Gibson said the hourly rate for such an attorney at a private law firm would be $160 to $190, though in Righthaven's case that would be discounted because the attorney serves as in-house counsel.
In the end, the judge said he would schedule a confidential settlement conference by telephone in hopes that Righthaven can reach an agreement with Wong.
Separately, Righthaven has picked up a new client: WEHCO Media, a privately-owned company in Little Rock, Ark., that has 15 daily newspapers, 13 weekly newspapers and 13 cable television companies in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee.
Its biggest papers include the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock and the Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee.
Paul Smith, president of WEHCO Newspapers Inc., said in a Democrat-Gazette story Thursday: "It's a pretty serious matter when someone takes your copy, information you've spent a lot of money to produce."
He added, according to the story: "I think you'll find many newspapers that [will] use [Righthaven] and other firms like this to try to stop people from pirating their information."
WEHCO says on its website that it has a partnership with Stephens Media in which the operations of their Northwest Arkansas publications were combined last November.
Also, Righthaven filed at least its 103rd copyright infringement lawsuit on Wednesday in federal court in Las Vegas.
The latest defendant is Josephine Franklin, whom Righthaven says has a blog called therightwingwarriors.wordpress.com. That site allegedly displayed without authorization a June 13 column by Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz called "Ask the tyrants why they're opposed." The Review-Journal and its columnist were credited for the information, court records show.
Franklin, whose Twitter account indicates she lives somewhere in California, couldn't immediately be reached for comment on the allegations.








hahahha! The end is near. Righthaven and RJ are going DOWN. Piece of $#@$ low life companies.
Wow....what a scum bag!!!!
The Review Journal has sunk to a new low selling this low life copyrights to stories about birds which were used for non commercial purposes. I have never met an attorney I liked.
I won't read their crappy newspaper anymore or buy it. All of us need to boycott it and put it out of business!
I think it is pretty clear that the judge is going to award something to Righthaven.
So the cat lady might do the smart thing and take Righthaven's new offer.
If the judge asking for the billing rate of Righthaven does not scare her then nothing will.
If she truly has no money then Righthaven should drop the case but that is doubtful.
She had enough money to pay for the domain name and the internet hosting fees.
She has enough to pay up for stealing other's work and posting on her own site.
If can't do/pay the time/award then don't do the crime.
Don't copy and paste copyright material unless it is the Sun's.
They don't care. You can copy and paste their work at will.
Even if they send you a takedown notice. Just throw it in the can. They will never sue.
@SgtRock said, "She had enough money to pay for the domain name and the internet hosting fees." Just for the record, it's about $60 a year at one of the major ones.
If I read the Copyright Office fees correctly (http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html), it's $35 for the copyright filing and $760 for the expedited service. Not sure why they needed to expedite the filing when they could do it online. Also, I always thought the office overhead was part of the legal work. My lawyers have never broken that out on a bill. "Gibson said Righthaven's costs in the case would likely total up to $1,800 including the court filing fee, an expedited copyright registration, costs to serve Wong, legal work and office overhead."
$1,800? Revised to $1,300 - $1,500?!
What a joke.
+++++
The standard copyright fee is $35. How Righthaven justifies the higher $760 expedited filing fee will be interesting to say the least. Of course, it is quite understandable if they are trying to run up the court fees.
If the extra $725 difference for the excessive and unnecessary expedited filing fees are subtracted the overall fees run somewhere between $575 - $1,125.
The costs could probably be reduced further through efficient office procedures. Although the Judge may enjoy having smoke blown up the court's butt with fabricated tales of case complexity.
The Special Handling pamphlet can be found here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ10.pd...
Lastly, if the Review-Journal is concerned about its intellectual property rights, it should work fast to sue Google for listing its works in the results of Google search pages.
Chunky says:
Gibson and Righthaven make him want to puke!
Finally a judge and hopefully other reputable attorneys will put these blood suckers out of business!
These kind of law firms are what give the law profession a bad name.
Chunky honors copyright and the creators of their work but he hates creeps like this who could have simply sent a cease and decist letter first! The harm these unnecessary lawsuits cause for these individuals and companies far outweigh their use of the material.
Chunky is boycotting the RJ and relishes the day Righthaven gets their just deserves!
That's what Chunky thinks!
This just an awful situation for most of the defendants. It's hard to believe that Frederick doesn't understand what he's doing to these people, not only in terms of money, but stress too. Okay, they screwed up, but I'm sure most of them didn't understand the law...but I've said that before.
I think the RJ should run some sort of banner or ad on its home page, very visible warning readers about reposting. Sure, some won't heed it, but I'd bet most would and for the RJ's part, it would at least look it wasn't going to war and was at least trying to act responsibly in avoiding the courts.
Great points (as usual), SgtRock! My favorite line from this story, though, is the Wong Cat Lady claiming she never got a call or a letter from Righthaven. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Don't they ALWAYS say that?!
..."What?! I never got ANY calls! Um, my mailman must have lost it! Er, um...my two hundred cats must have eaten it!... You mean to say there are LAWS to protect the creative works of Americans from theft by lazy, talent-less, and opportunistic criminals?...Gosh, who would have thought?!"
See you, Sarge! Keep up the great work.
RJ is going to eat crow! HA
"Johnston then asked about provisions in the copyright law allowing him to order damages of just $200 for unwillful infringement and for him to use discretion in awarding costs and fees.
"It sounds like this can be a lot less than four figures," Johnston said. But the judge didn't elaborate on whether the "less than four figures" comment referred to potential damages, or costs, or both."
This doesn't sound particularly good for the Righthaven folks. Apparently "statutory damages" aren't so "statutory" if the law allows the judge to use his discretion. I think that's the most interesting part of the story and probably of some concern to Mr. Gibson.
Las Vegas Sun Rocks! on this one!
This is getting to be a very sad situation. I talked to one local business that is scared to even approach a certain newspaper due to this issue since they are currently afraid of being sued over past postings. At a time when everyone should be building relationships to help promote business development creating an atmosphere of fear with those you had a business relationship is really weird.
@local_employee
"Great points (as usual), SgtRock! My favorite line from this story, though, is the Wong Cat Lady claiming she never got a call or a letter from Righthaven. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Don't they ALWAYS say that?!"
+++++
Attitudes like yours tend to screw up a lot of lives by denying innocent people their day in court. Or maybe that is your point?
To see my point, follow this link:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug...
Wait, people still buy newspapers?
SgtRock said, "She had enough money to pay for the domain name and the internet hosting fees.
Maybe you should do some homework, Rocky. I own a domain name, and run a website. My cost: $10.95 a year!!!
I think you are full of crap cmon.
Can you post a link to your hosting company?
You are saying that you will pay $10.95 every year for the next 5 years or so.
I think if you add like about $90 or so dollars to that price then you might be believeable.
"At a time when everyone should be building relationships to help promote business development creating an atmosphere of fear with those you had a business relationship is really weird."
Can I go into business with you?
Here is the deal. Everyday I will come over to your business. Steal something. Put it in my place and sell it. I will make sure I put a sign saying it came from you so you get full "credit" for the product.
When do you want to start?
Every now and then I've received a "free" RJ paper tossed on my driveway. Why? I didn't ask for it. I certainly don't want it. It serves no value. It has no value. It isn't worth the paper it is printed on. It is in fact nothing but trash. So as far as I am concerned, the RJ litters by throwing their worthless junk on my property. The nerve. It's time to sue the RJ.
That's funny, Cog! I'm screwing up the lives of INNOCENT PEOPLE like the Crazy Cat Lady from Boston, who WRITES A BLOG ABOUT CATS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CATS?! I'm STILL laughing about that one! But thanks for the (boring) link anyway; Maybe I really AM denying the "Wong Woman" her day in court...;)
The fact of the matter isn't whether she has the money to pay for a website but rather she and anyone who owns and runs a website has a DUTY to know all the laws pertaining to Internet communications. Nobody forced her to start a website. It is her responsibility (and everyone else who decides to make a website) to learn what is allowed and not allowed to be put on the Internet.
Just as business owners, whether they be small businesses or large corporations, are expected to follow the rules of conduct in operating a business (ie, business licenses, permits, health codes, paying taxes and/or employees, etc) you as a business owner assume all responsibility for informing yourself of the laws and regulations of owning a business. Owning a website is the same situation. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
If, as this story says, a Judge can use his own discretion in these suits, I wonder if Johnston is going to consider what the actual damages were for Righthaven, which owns the copyrights. I don't pretend to understand this, but Righthaven seems to have a business plan that makes money from litigation over copyrights it acquired will after the offenses took place and does not make money from either advertising or selling newspapers.
And it also seems to me that many of the defendants ran websites that were non-profit and not visited very much. And even if they were, what did it cost the RJ? I think that was answered by the NORML settlement. And, again, what's really the cost to Righthaven?
By the way, I have absolutely no answers for those questions.
Non-profit blog, with the RJ being credited and linked - there was not any theft. To say there was theft is to be opposed to free speech and in favor of extortion. Period.
Ridor: I don't think any of those posts were "thefts," but the "free speech" issue is complicated by the copyright law and last year there were about 2100 copyright suits. I read that they were down by a third from the year before when that RIAA suit was going on. I don't think I can explain it, but somehow "stealing" music seems different to me that "stealing" news stories and posting them on a non-profit website. You can pretty much put a price on a tune, 99 cents at iTunes. How much is a single story worth on the RJ's website?
If a Judge can toss statutory damages, that could to be the issue or at least one of them. I keep thinking about this and it just gets more complicated. Did any of the defendants take an AP story from the RJ website? Who owns that story, or copyright? AP? The RJ?
I don't at all agree with Sarge/Sherm that the cost of sending out letters would be extreme. Stephens was willing put $300,000 into Righthaven. Surely that would have more than covered the "software" and personel to send out letters before suing.
Kimberly: "anyone who owns and runs a website has a DUTY to know all the laws pertaining to Internet communications." That's pretty harsh. Blogs have only been around since the 90s, less than 20 years. This is all pretty new stuff. Obviously, people know that you can't make thousands of copies of John Grisham's books and sell them, or even give them away. But they're not available to read for free on the Internet. News stories are. And, again, I think the words "Print" and "Share" on each news story complicates the matter further. These aren't defined and if you're going to have a copyright notice at the bottom of a story and an invitation to do these things at the top, it's pretty close to being an invitation.
Nowhere does it say I can print one copy of a story or how I can share it. This is something, I think, the RJ could have handled in a more civilized manner.
Give these defendants a break here. Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, but it seems like Judge Johnston is thinking about it, at least a little.
The key here is that there was a link. Anyone who read her blog could click on the link and go to the RJ's website. There, not only would they read the original posted article, but they would also see the advertising that helps support the website. The RJ's ad revenue for their site depends on those web clicks. The woman's blog helped drive viewers to the RJ's website, so to say she was stealing is a long reach.
Ridor: Obviously, I agree with you. I haven't seen all the lawsuits, or read them, but I did read a couple online and in those I read the defendants hadn't changed the articles and they had links. Again, I think these people deserve a break. I can't imagine that any of them really causing the RJ to lose any money and even if they were, does anyone really thing those losses were in thousands, let alone hundreds of dollars.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Sarge: They broke the law and they should pay. They were ignorant, stupid, etc. Leave it alone and have a little compassion for them.
murrayburns: As for those people who are ranting about how the law must be followed to the last letter, and that those who infringe even one letter must be punished sternly ... I would hope that they don't live in glass houses.
Ridor, it's okay to live in glass houses if you have a glazier on staff.
Ridor......let's say you start a news paper business.
You pay these 12 guys $90,000 a piece in salary and benefits to research, investigate and then to write one articles each day. That is around $20,000 a week in cost.
To help pay for some of that cost you post their stories on a website. That generates web traffic. People who want to sell stuff pay you money to advertise on your website. You get paid more when your web traffic goes up.
People across the planet start to steal your expensive articles.
So instead of just putting in a link to your website article. They decide to steal your expensive article and post a significant part or all it on their own site. They do this because they want web traffic, too. They don't want to spend the money to generate the material. They just steal it.
So people visit these websites. There is no need for the consumer to click on the link for the consumer already has the article before their eyes.
The cat lady had zero ethics.
She cut and pasted an article that somebody else paid cash for to generated.
The cat lady is a thief.
She could have come up with her own ideas. Done research. Typed out her own story. Or she could have paid LVRJ for rights to post their story on her site. Or she could have just posted the LVRJ headline, a short description of it with a link. That is not copyright infringement. The consumer would have clicked on the link and which would redirected them to the LVRJ site and exited her own site.
Instead, she stole the story.
For having zero ethics, she is paying a price.
Don't copy and paste over people's work.
It is unethical.
It is wrong.
It is unlawful.
There is such a concept as "spirit of the law" as well as letter of the law. Equity courts have long held that the parties bring an action to the court with "clean hands". Though this is not officially embodied in US law, the principle is still used.
Righthaven does not have clean hands.
Rigor- The cat lady reposted the entire article thus removing the need (and diminishing the value to its owner) to follow the link to the RJ website. Once you read an article on someone's website, why would you follow the link to the original author? To read it again? That makes no sense. All the cat lady had to do, along with everyone else, is summarize in her own words that there was an article about a fire at an animal habitat in Las Vegas or whatever it was. Then give her two cents about the matter followed by a link to go to the article. Simple as that!! But the cat lady, and others, would rather copy someone's article and have it on her website (adding value-whether monetary or not) to her own website, which takes away the value from its owner. And to clarify non monetary value in the sense of the cat lady not getting any money from her use of the article on her website: The article had some form of value to her or else she wouldn't have posted it in the first place. Also, when I speak of the cat lady, I am not speaking of just her, but all copyright infringers.
Murray-I'm working on a response for you but I'm afraid it will be rather lengthy and I doubt I will have time to finish it tonight.
"Righthaven says the suits are necessary to earn revenue for itself and to deter widespread online copyright infringement of newspaper stories."
Hmmm. Wonder which one of those is the more important of the two. Probably the one mentioned first. So much for journalistic integrity.
@kimberlynichol:
[Business people] are expected to follow the rules of conduct in operating a business (ie, business licenses, permits, health codes, paying taxes and/or employees, etc) you as a business owner assume all responsibility for informing yourself of the laws and regulations of owning a business. Owning a website is the same situation. Ignorance of the law is not a defense."
======
While I agree with the general premise of your post, the devil is in the details.
For the most part, most entrepreneurs don't know EVERY law affecting a business when they start. In fact, I'm not sure if it is possible for anyone, including attorneys, to know every law in our over-litigated society.
More on point, a business is operated to generate a profit. It is quite clear that the cat lady's website is a non-commercial website. It is not a business.
Media copyright is listed in every story and the laws state that it must be. In the RJ articles, it is posted about emial to a friend, post, etc...RJ invites itself to the party by stating that and their CR attorney is just processing paper work for the fees..
Righthaven says the suits are necessary to earn revenue for itself and to deter widespread online copyright infringement of newspaper stories."
I BET RJ PAYS a retainer, so what income do they need>?
"sgtrock, party of one?
sgtrock, party of ONE!"
Time for the Sun to buy the RJ.
"Time for the Sun to buy the RJ."
That would be hard concerning that the Rj is about 10 to 15 times larger than the Sun.
Also, Greenspuns have made very poor investments in recent years like Green Valley Ranch Casinos.
They had to do big layoffs at the Sun just to keep from drowning in an ocean of red ink.
They are still losing tarballs of cash on the Sun.
It is more of a hobby than a business.
This story indicates Righthaven picked up a new client.
STORY QUOTE: "Righthaven has picked up a new client: WEHCO Media, a privately-owned company in Little Rock, Ark., that has 15 daily newspapers, 13 weekly newspapers and 13 cable television companies in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee."
Am I the only one who noticed that WEHCO Media has ties to Stephens Media?
STORY QUOTE: "WEHCO says on its website that it has a partnership with Stephens Media in which the operations of their Northwest Arkansas publications were combined last November."
Maybe someone should research how much money Stephens Media is making on these shakedowns.
Just my own humble opinion...If you don't like it...too bad
"They do this because they want web traffic, too."
Was it a mistake? Absolutely. But most of these websites that Righthaven is suing are not trying to make money--and they are not trying to make money off your articles. (How, exactly, does anyone make more than a couple of pennies from advertising on a page that carries one of your articles?) Shermy, not everyone is as greedy as you.
And the lawsuits for FOUR PARAGRAPHS? Stop this pretense of high moral caliber. Was that within fair use? Hard to say for sure--and that's one of the problems with the current state of fair use law. There is NO safe level: no percentage, no number of words, or sentences, or paragraphs, that clearly fits within fair use. (Well, 0% or zero words is safe.)
You don't want anyone copying R-J articles, Shermy? Not a problem. No one sensible is ever going to copy from (or link to) to the R-J again. Count on it.
"But the cat lady, and others, would rather copy someone's article and have it on her website (adding value-whether monetary or not) to her own website, which takes away the value from its owner."
What value does it take away? Conceivably the advertising revenue that the R-J would get from people reading that article on the R-J site. And that advertising revenue from that article amounts to what? $5?
I don't dispute that over time, the losses would add up, and I don't know anyone who argues that the R-J should have done nothing. But one innocent mistake is worth $75,000? It is cheaper to spend $1500 filing suit instead of spending five minutes sending a stern email asking those who have unintentionally exceeded fair use to take it down?
Shermy has managed to do something that I didn't think possible: he has made me regard a libertarian newspaper as something that our society doesn't need. Even the concept of a libertarian newspaper relying on hordes of lawyers and governmental action to protect itself makes me suspect that Shermy is actually a closet Democrat.
"Don't copy and paste copyright material unless it is the Sun's.
They don't care. You can copy and paste their work at will."
Shermy, you really should read a bit. The Sun has posted their policy quite clearly: 100 words or 10% of the article (whichever is less), and link back. There is no clear legal standard for fair use. NONE. It varies depending on commercial vs. noncommercial use, whether the use is "transformative," the literary value of the material being copied, among other factors. I won't claim that every incident that Righthaven is suing over qualifies as fair use--but I can see how people that haven't spent several months studying copyright law might be genuinely unsure how far they can go.
Shermy, if you really want a society where nothing happens without a lawyer giving an opinion first, fine. We call it Democratic Party in control.
"Great points (as usual), SgtRock! My favorite line from this story, though, is the Wong Cat Lady claiming she never got a call or a letter from Righthaven. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Don't they ALWAYS say that?!"
To my knowledge, Righthaven has not contacted any of the alleged infringers before filing suit. Would any rational person, having received a cease and desist letter, have ignored it?
Righthaven is Shermy's way of reminding everyone why frivolous lawsuits should be severely punished.
"It is cheaper to spend $1500 filing suit instead of spending five minutes sending a stern email asking those who have unintentionally exceeded fair use to take it down?"
I make a deal with you.
I will contact Sherm with this arrangement.
You agree to pay for software for LVRJ staff to use to monitor and track copyright infringement on the Internet.
You also agree to pay for the labor cost of LVRJ staff to use the software, print out letters, stuff them in enevlopes. You also agree to pay the labor for LVRJ staff to follow up on the letters to see if the thieves are now in compliance.
Let's set aside around $1,000 for software and computer cost.
The labor is about an 1/2 FTE a year at around $30,000 for wages and benefits.
So when you send a check for $1,000 and then $30,000 every year to fund your brilliant idea of sending take down notices then I will contact Sherm for you.
Thanks for the offer.
Sherm might take you up on it.
Is Squirm having a midlife crisis?
SargCrock --- sorry I'm late to this party but here's a question for you. I've got a piece of software attached to my browser that blocks all ads from a web page. all of them --- and it does it very well. would I be "stealing" RJ content by viewing their pages with this software running thereby not seeing a single ad the RJ wanted me to see? I've cut the advertisers out of the loop completely. I've told this software to show me the Sun presented ads but the RJ? nope.
If the RJ doesn't like this they can, at great expense, keep me from viewing their pages by stopping my entry to the site. Should the RJ do that and lose the traffic and alienate more people? Or should they enjoy the meaningless visit my browser provides them?
I don't think that you get the gravity of technology --- not in the least. Take for example how we have righthaven's IP and can blacklist it so they can't visit sites that wantonly "swipe" RJ material. does that work for you?
Or how about a site that mirrors the RJ content done with an off-shore nameless server and it fed by nameless proxy servers? Gibons / RJ / S Smedia could spend a small fortune and *never* be able to stop it.
I know that you worship at the alter of Sherm --- but take my word for it that Righthaven's technology is nothing compared to those who really want to thwart the effort.
Just sayin'.
oh -- and a web host can be had for less than $30 a year. no problem.