Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.
Sun archives
- Copyright lawsuits pile up over Vdara ‘death ray’ illustration (12-14-2010)
- Drudge Report owner sued by Righthaven (12-9-2010)
- Ties between Stephens Media, Righthaven copyright lawsuit at issue (12-8-2010)
- New Review-Journal publisher stands behind copyright lawsuits (12-8-2010)
- Righthaven pressing for right to seize website domain names (12-3-2010)
- Illustration at issue in latest Righthaven copyright lawsuits (11-26-2010)
- Union challenges Righthaven’s demand for legal fees in copyright suit (11-24-2010)
- Judge to Righthaven: Show why lawsuit shouldn’t be dismissed (11-22-2010)
- Philadelphia man sued twice over alleged copyright infringements (11-19-2010)
- Two more website operators face Righthaven copyright lawsuits (11-18-2010)
- Righthaven settles with Sharron Angle over R-J story posting (11-17-2010)
- Righthaven seeks to dismiss suit over posting of R-J story (11-16-2010)
- Free speech group files counterclaim against copyright enforcement firm (10-30-2010)
- Righthaven gets legal win in copyright lawsuit campaign (10-28-2010)
- Righthaven files 2 copyright lawsuits, settles 3 (10-27-2010)
- Six more website operators facing Righthaven copyright lawsuits (10-21-2010)
- Righthaven defendant wins first lawsuit dismissal motion (10-20-2010)
- Righthaven files, settles more copyright lawsuits (10-13-2010)
Critics of copyright infringement lawsuits over Las Vegas Review-Journal stories keep coming back to one simple argument: There can be no online copyright infringements because the Review-Journal encourages readers to save, e-mail and print stories on its website.
That argument, sometimes referred to as an “implied license” to copy, is disputed by the Review-Journal’s copyright enforcement partner, Righthaven LLC.
But it was reinforced Tuesday by a University of California law professor and attorneys for an Oregon nonprofit that was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit in August by Righthaven.
Everyone involved in the case agrees the nonprofit Center for Intercultural Organizing (CIO) of Portland posted without authorization on its website an entire 33-paragraph Review-Journal story from June 28 about Las Vegas immigrants and their relationship with the police. The post for the group that works with Portland immigrants credited the Review-Journal.
In a surprise development, U.S. District Judge James Mahan in Las Vegas ordered Righthaven to show cause why its no-warning lawsuit against the CIO should not be dismissed on fair use grounds.
This was a surprise because CIO’s attorneys had initially focused their defense on jurisdictional issues, rather than fair use issues.
Righthaven responded Nov. 29, saying, among other things, that the CIO use of the story hurt the Review-Journal because readers of the story on the CIO website would have no reason to go to the advertiser-supported Review-Journal website to read it.
In a “friend of the court” filing Tuesday, Jason Schultz, an assistant clinical professor of law and the co-director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California’s Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, had a different take on how people posting Review-Journal stories on their websites affect the Review-Journal.
“Readers of CIO’s ‘Immigrant and Refugee Issues in the News’ blog are most likely Oregon residents interested in the non-profit’s mission,” Schultz wrote. “In contrast, the Las Vegas Review-Journal published the (immigrant) article to provide timely, generalized information to Las Vegas residents about events in their local community. It is highly improbable that anyone who would have otherwise purchased a paper copy of the Las Vegas Review-Journal or visited its website chose not to because of CIO’s blog post.
“CIO’s use of the article expanded public knowledge about immigration enforcement without cannibalizing the market for the original work,” Schultz wrote.
“In fact, there is no market for the work at all because it is owned by Righthaven, a company that does not publish news stories, but files copyright infringement lawsuits based on assigned copyrights as its exclusive business model,” he wrote
“And even before the Las Vegas Review-Journal assigned the copyright to Righthaven, CIO did not harm the market for the work. The Las Vegas Review-Journal elected to give the article away for free on the Internet and continues to do so to this day. It is difficult to fathom a scenario in which the Las Vegas Review-Journal could have been harmed by CIO’s use. At most, the Las Vegas Review-Journal might have been deprived of a few pennies, but the law does not concern itself with such trifles,” he wrote.
Righthaven seems to be obtaining copyrights simply for litigation, he reiterated.
“The article has been removed from its usual habitat. It is not owned by a newspaper, but has been assigned to a company that does not publish news stories, but uses them exclusively to file infringement lawsuits. That practice has a chilling effect on potential fair uses of Righthaven-owned articles, diminishes public access to the facts contained in them and does nothing to advance the Copyright Act’s purpose of promoting artistic creation. When a copyrighted work is simply an instrumentality for litigation, it is properly granted the lowest possible amount of protection against a fair-use claim,” the brief said.
Schultz previously was a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights group that sponsored his brief in the Righthaven/CIO case. The EFF also represents two other Righthaven defendants as a public service.
Also weighing in Tuesday were attorneys for the CIO, James Olson and Michael Stoberski of the Las Vegas law firm Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux.
They noted that because of all the Righthaven copyright infringement lawsuits filed since March in U.S. District Court for Nevada — at least 186 — the court “has an opportunity to establish a standard upon which future Internet fair use lawsuits are analyzed.”
The CIO attorneys argued the Righthaven lawsuits aren’t about protecting copyrights, but are about maximizing Righthaven’s profits by coercing defendants into settlements.
“To this very day, the article is still available for anyone to read on the Review-Journal website. Any viewer can simply right click on the mouse to copy and paste the full text of the article and reproduce it in other media,” the CIO attorneys said in their filing. “The website invites the readers to save copies of its articles onto personal computers and email articles to third parties by simply selecting a tab at the top of the page. Despite its granting website visitors the explicit right to replicate entire articles, Righthaven has brought this lawsuit and many more to achieve a simple purpose, maximization of profits.”
“On the one hand, Righthaven encourages its readers to disseminate its articles to third parties, but considers the posting onto a blog copyright infringement. If CIO would have selected the ‘email this’ icon and sent the article to all of its registered members, Righthaven surely could not complain about the manner in which it was disseminated,” the CIO attorneys wrote.
The attorneys also took a shot at Rightaven’s claim that its lawsuits are necessary to deter copyright infringement.
“While Righthaven may be the current holder of the article, it was created solely to sue third parties in an effort to limit any bad publicity that might accompany a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Review-Journal,” they wrote. “The notion that Righthaven is fighting to preserve intellectual property is a mere ruse.”
Good report. It lays out the arguments clearly and succinctly. Thank you.
The copyright law are straight forward, I would think? Either you have permission to redistribute or repost, or reprint, or you do not? When posting a story from the source or the initial writer, there is unsually a disclaimer at the bottom of the page outlining the legal procedures to use the material. A judge would do harm to current copyright laws by allowing the smallest opening to unauthorized use of material on the internet. This will open the door for several abuse.
The ruling should be for the orginator to have a clear defined legal notice on the use of the material. Eveyone want's their property protected, especially property in the internet.
Hey, we're all reading about the Righthaven suits in the LV Pravda, aren't we? So, if we send a copy to a relative, a friend or a neighbor, are we breaking the copyright law? I think not. The prof makes a good case. The stories or articles are on the Internet for anyone so inclined to read FOR FREE! These lawsuits are specious at best. A "make work" project for ambulance chasers! I say, put Righthaven out of business, judge! Do the right thing and make them pay the full court costs, as well!
Has everyone forgotten that Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web (Web) specifically for the purpose of sharing articles, research and other information?
If newspapers do not want their information shared, in whole or in part, why do they post their works on the Web in the first place?
This is fundamentally at odds with the intent of the Web!
James Olson and Michael Stoberski of the Las Vegas law firm Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux is trying to trick the court and the Sun reporter Green is either tricked himself or also trying to trick the readers.
On the Sun site and on the LVRJ site, it has buttons for readers to Share and Email. When one clicks on those buttons it will enable the clicker to email a link to another person or share via FaceBook (or whatever) a link to the story.
It nevers copies the entire story or a good chunk of the story to another reader. It just sends the link.
Why is not mentioned by Green?
Perhaps he is trying BS his readers.
No way...............so it soooooooooooooooo.
The question any judge should look at is who owned the article when the infringement happened, the next question should be what have the new owner done with the works, that they are suing over.
Then show the judge, all the articles that you have bought, and what you have done with them after you bought them.
The answer to that question would be the same, well your honor we sued 180 infringers and nothing else! Sounds like an ambulance chaser to me, what about the rest of you guys?
I don't need a law degree to see the hand writing on the wall on this one! "ambulance chaser "
Thwe argument by Professor Schultz is just brilliant. Righthaven is absolutely wrong in its legal arguments and I hope they lose their case.
The review journal lied about all the people fired, demoted etc. One guy had medical problems, that was it. The other people were demoted or fired because they know how to dispense right wing crap, but they are boring and can not run a newspaper.
Sherm is dead weight at the paper. He is just kept on so he can keep his medical benefits. He is basically uninsurable. His only hope is government medicare.
The cowboy hat hung up on reporters trying to get the real story, shows what kind of bitter individual he is.
the solution:
fire Sherm, the Hat and the Liberloonitoonian.
Stop the deal with low rated kxnt radio. Has a 2.7 share, Most talk stations have twice that, such as koh in Reno, that has about the same programing.
Rightklaven was established to satisfy a sadistic hate of right wing venom, schadenfreude is a element of right wing movements, there are marked similarities between der Sturmer and the RJ.