Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, July 9, 2010 | 4:50 p.m.
Sun Coverage
- 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 Democratic Party of Nevada was sued for copyright infringement Friday after Las Vegas Review-Journal stories allegedly were posted on its website without authorization this spring.
The party was sued in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas by Righthaven LLC, a company that has partnered with the R-J to sue website owners over what the R-J calls copyright theft.
The suit against the party was one of at least three suits filed Friday by Righthaven, which since March has sued at least 64 website operators.
A request for comment was placed with the Democrats, who have been busy the past two days with President Barack Obama in town.
Friday’s lawsuit cited five R-J stories and columns that allegedly were posted on the party website since April covering February’s Nevada gaming revenue numbers, Nevada U.S. Senate candidates touting their support for gun rights, a federal program to help residents keep their homes, a federal financial overhaul bill and the opening of a mortgage modification center.
The R-J was credited as the source for these stories on the party website, court records show.
The lawsuit charges: "Righthaven is the owner of the copyright in and to the literary work entitled: 'Statewide numbers: Gaming revenues jump 13.9 percent.' The defendant willfully copied, on an unauthorized basis, the work."
"Democratic Party of Nevada did not seek permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display or otherwise exploit the work," charged the suit, which seeks $75,000 in damages and an order requiring the Democrats to stop infringing on Righthaven’s copyright.
The lawsuit focuses on the gaming win story because that’s the story, in this case, that Righthaven obtained a copyright for.
The story was published by the R-J on April 8 and was posted on the party website the same day, the suit charges.
Righthaven obtained the copyright to the story on June 23, the lawsuit says.
While everything a newspaper publishes is subject to copyright protection, attorneys say that by copyrighting individual stories, the copyright owner can then sue for statutory damages and attorneys fees.
Also sued Friday by Righthaven were:
--Pennwell Corp., an Oklahoma company that runs an energy industry news site called www.pennenergy.com. A May 18 R-J story involving plans by NV Energy to install electronic meters was posted on the pennenergy site, with the story credited to the R-J, court records show.
--A Las Vegas-area company called CollegeStarters, which offers academic and career advising services for students. The company website posted a May 3 R-J story involving a shortfall in the state's Millennium Scholarship fund, with the R-J credited for the story, court records show. Also sued in that case was David Williams-Pinkney, whom Righthaven says is the registrant of the collegestarters.com Internet domain name.
Messages for comment were left with those defendants as well.
Were getting sued by slanderers and Demogogues oh well !!!
Come on; don't have the country laughing at us like some one horse town.
Wasn't that drug company settlement embarrassing enough ?
This, and the other lawsuits by Righthaven, LLC is nothing more than a last-gasp desperate attempt by Stephens Media to generate income for a failing newspaper.
Many large city metro newspapers in the U. S. are failing and have filed for bankruptcy.
Now's the time for the Democratic party and other large, deep-pocket defendants to vigorously defend, counter-sue, and put this bird cage liner out of business.
The Sun should be printed on toilet tissue. Maybe they would sell more copies
"Now's the time for the Democratic party and other large, deep-pocket defendants to vigorously defend, counter-sue, "
What would be their defense? Eh....judge my client stole the material and published it without permission. Our defense is that my client is an idiot.
What would be their grounds to counter sue?
If you think it is ethical and legal to steal then can I come over to your house?
Damn! "The Paper That Shall Not Be Named" has devolved into the realm of the tragic... Or is that tragicomic? So now they're suing the Democratic Party? And some OK company that runs an energy news blog? And a web site for college students?
And they wonder why I won't even link to them any more? What's the point? Most of the "news" there is copied and pasted from the AP wire or some other wire service, and otherwise they're just a GOP mouthpiece.
The Republicans have the jobs and the trust funds; the Dems, except for Nelson, Landreiu, Lincoln and Baucus, don't even have pockets.
I find it interesting that the Las Vegas Review Journal isn't writing about all their frivolous lawsuits - guess they don't want that publicized.
"Most of the "news" there is copied and pasted from the AP wire or some other wire service"
Yes, they pay for the service.
So if these other bozo's what to copy, and paste LVRJ stories then they should pay LVRJ for the story.
Of course, they could just link to the LVJR story and say what the story is about. They can legally do that and that is not stealing.
Oh yeah....I guess you are one of those who think it is OK to steal, too. Can I come to your house?
GOP/RJ/Teabaggers/Wingnuts pretend to hate lawyers but love to sue anyone or anything into financial oblivion (i.e. Sheldon Adelson) or have the SCOTUS overturn decisions made by a state (Florida) Supreme Court (i.e. Bush v. Gore).
Tort reform, states rights and all that other phony right wing BS.
The RJ will be history by the end of next year.
It's like a dying small town with a speed trap and crooked sheriff writing bogus traffic tickets.
I am so glad I never signed up for the RJ newspaper. What a bunch of babies!
Lastthroes your so right Vegas is such a hick town !
How do you get the Sun without buying the R-J?
the r-j will be history?
haha.
they could print that paper on $100 bills if they wanted to and still have money left over.
Guess they will have to sue Mat Drudge for linking to the stinking.
They don't exactly have a lot of advertisers do they?
They should have put the RJ in the Sun.
"Of course, they could just link to the LVJR story and say what the story is about. They can legally do that and that is not stealing."
Ah, may I suggest you follow the story. The RJ and their ambulance chasers have sued websites that do as you say others should do.
Its not about what the website legally did or did not do, its about getting them to cough up some cash or face court time and serious expense from a frivolous lawsuit.
> they could print that paper on $100 bills if they wanted to and still have money left over.
whatever you say, Sherm.
who says denial doesn't run down Bonanza?
as to the RJ and it's body of work ---- LOL!
well didn't know they had anything worth copyrighting - for someone else to use their content is a complement
It's not copyright infringement if you credit your source. I love the comment about the RJ being birdcage liners. I don't have a bird, so I dropped my subscription. More fun reading it online, where I can comment and not pay a dime.
"Ah, may I suggest you follow the story. The RJ and their ambulance chasers have sued websites that do as you say others should do."
I think you need to follow your own advice.
One can't copy and paste all or a significant portion of the story without permission from the person who owns the copyright.
You may link to the story if you want too.
But you can't copy and paste the story even if you link or cite it.
That is stealing.
"It's not copyright infringement if you credit your source."
Sorry Charlie....but one can't copy and paste the whole story or a significant portion of the story unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright.
You may quote the story and cite the source.
You may provide a link to the story and do a blurb about what it is all about.
But one can't copy and paste the story without permission.
That is stealing.
It seems you guys are OK with stealing.
Can I come by your house?
Is this the RJ's way to try to make themselves newsworthy? Note to Sherm: manufacturing news to defend your supposed honor isn't very honorable. But then, honor isn't something your shameless, self-promoting opinion rag really cares about, is it?
Wow, and the story was about something that is in the public domain, gaming stats. That info is used by the state legislature 5o make budget decisions.
The RJ is nothing more than a low level paste and copy newspaper, with the editorial brainpower of a high school paper.
Screw the RJ.
This must be the RJ's new business model since tey can't do it with circulation or ad revenues.
I'll be the first to say that there are many people and companies out there that believe they can simply take stories, info and photos from websites without permission. The RJ being an absolute rag notwithstanding, they have the right to protect their work.
That being said, I wonder if this is new precedence where a major publication (think of it what you want) has sued so many in such a short period of time.
This is obviously a calculated business decision and it does betray a certain anxiety about falling subscription rates and ad revenue.
Grow up RJ your behavior is juvenile and disgusting.
> The RJ being an absolute rag notwithstanding, they have the right to protect their work.
that's right.... and most normal people will send the offending party a "cease and desist" and request the material be removed. Even the dingbat Angle took this approach with "therealsharronangle.com". But Sherm is so far from normal he's using this little tactic as a political weapon, which is why he'll end up eating it in the long run. (think about how he's established a $75k value of service and how he doesn't sue everyone and you'll get the thinking)
I can also tell you that there is a party looking at the RJ in regards to lifting their content. This entity would normally send a cease and desist, but in Sherm's case they're probably going to make an exception. The publishing company in question is so much larger than Sherm's little hometown hoe-down that I just know it'll get his attention. lol
Many of Sherm's suits simply won't pass "fair use" statutes and those will end up hurting him as well.
To quote Mr. Reid --- "I hope (they -- the RJ) goes out of business."
The RJ should use any money they are awarded to hire a proofreader or two.
"and most normal people will send the offending party a "cease and desist" and request the material be removed"
They moved to a strategy that encourages people not to steal from them and it is self-funded. The LVRJ does not have to spend to money to protect their property. This company probably gets all or most of the proceeds from the lawsuits. Plus it sends out a message so that people who have a habit of stealing copyright material will not steal LVRJ in the first place.
The robbers should feel free to steal the Sun's work at will.
Which means in effect that the Sun does not have copyright material for they have abandoned their rights to copyright material.
But heck....if you want LVRJ to the pursue this other strategy where they have to hire staff or a company to research who is stealing their property and that staff or company then begs the robbers nicely to stop stealing then you should call up LVRJ and offer them a donation to help pay for this other strategy.
Go for it!!!!
This has nothing to do with copyright law as it's meant to be, and everything to do with Righthaven's little money making scheme. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
>They moved to a strategy that encourages people not to steal from them and it is self-funded.
look Sarg -- as hard as you try to stretch your lips over here you'll never get to Sherm's johnson so knock off the lovefest. we don't care.
> The robbers should feel free to steal the Sun's work at will.
take a look at any Sun page and they'll show you "who is linking here". Some folks don't have copy envy.
one last thing? you only know what Sherm tells you --- and he's been known to fib to get to a desired position. so cover up that butt of yours before we really start laughing at you.
SgtRock, in theory, in a very cut and dry scenario, which life rarely is, you make some great points.
But think of all of the events that they aren't thinking about. The very fact that people deem their articles "steal worthy" should be looked at in another perspective. If I(lvrj) can garner that viewership and force it to my website, isn't that better than totally alienating the defendant's website owner and having him not post another RJ.com article ever again? What do you care about here? Viewership and readers enjoying articles or strictly a last ditch effort for money?
There are many things they could have done if it was strictly about protecting a copyright.
I can't get over the fact that the majority of these articles would never have been seen or read by these blog viewers if it wasnt for that person posting it. So how is that a loss to LVRJ if the views are 100% unique? To me it builds a mindset where all of these readers will now go straight to the source for their FUTURE news after reading that one "stolen" article. Instead you cut off the one source that seemed to care. All it would've taken was a little guidance and these blogs websites would start to correctly post LVRJ articles. What's the logic in their move? I hope advertisers are aware of these actions and are cashing in on the lawsuit $$$.
It's like the book smarts/street smarts analogy. The big picture of it all here is that
Boycott the RJ and all those who advertise in it.
We are.
And we are letting the advertisers know it.
We can live just fine without the RJ in our daily lives. The world will still continue to spin. In fact, it will spin less slanted to the ugly and moronic right without the RJ.
LVRJ is so focused on the "law" book smarts side of the argument that they are forgetting all the other intangible street/reality situations that are out there. Thing of all the situations in life that one could sue over? Now realize that RH is basically doing that very same thing? If this was an average citizen suing random neighbors for frivolous lawsuits, it would be all over the news, but I guess it's different here
"I can't get over the fact that the majority of these articles would never have been seen or read by these blog viewers if it wasnt for that person posting it. "
I think you are just not understanding some things.
These other websites are copying and pasting the whole LVRJ story or a good chunck of it.
That is stealing...plain and simple.
It does not help LVRJ one penny when people do this. If a person is reading a copy of the LVRJ story then there is no need for that reader to go go the LVRJ to read the same story again.
On the other hand if these other websites want to do the legal thing and quote a sentence from the story or do a blurb on the article and provide a link back to the LVRJ then that would help LVRJ in turns of money for it increases their traffic foot print.
That is legal and what these other websites are suppose to do.
If you are OK with people stealing your stuff then can I come by your house?
What you are saying makes zero sense in turns of making money.
"Boycott the RJ and all those who advertise in it."
This is your right.
You do know if that was successful then it would shut down the Sun, too.
If you want to boycott then boycott.
It is as American as apple pie.
It really sounds like the RJ is simply being litigious in obtaining that specific copyright later on. If they were simply worried about losing ad revenues from people reading entire stories on other websites (a fair argument) they could have sent a demand letter instead of setting up an opportunistic lawsuit.
What happened to "tort reform" that right wingers are always squawking about?
> These other websites are copying and pasting the whole LVRJ story or a good chunck of it.
this is not 100% true. One party who was sued used the lede paragraph of an RJ story and linked to the RJ story with an explanation to read the rest of the story on the RJ. This is not a fabrication and will come out in court. The argument is "fair use" by the "alleged" thief. There have been images taken of both stories and the RJ will not will that one. There was ZERO commercial gain.
Just like another poster suggested --- this is not as cut and dried as you believe it to be, despite what Sherman Frederick tells you. I know you think it's a black and white, but its not.
Sherman Frederick is what he is -- a bitter old man with health issues and a paper that is crashing and burning. No magic there, my man. The only shame is your buying his song and dance when he strikes up his one-man band.
> You do know if that was successful then it would shut down the Sun, too.
And in the process expose the RJ to a HUGE lawsuit when they couldn't fulfill the terms of their very long term agreement with the Sun.
Pretty simple, eh?
lol --- it's not so cut and dried is it, my man. Stop listening to Sherman Frederick. You'll be better off in the long run.
I love the way the RJ campaigns for "tort reform." Then they clog the Federal District Court with these frivolous suits filed for an improper purpose and in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Me thinks some fellow lawyers are going to get disciplined . . . and the RJ will have to pay for all the defendants' costs and legal fees. The punitive damages awards against the RJ should be very interesting. Hey, RJ, you gonna sue me for using the same alphabet?
Ok this is fascinating and it's not difficult to see what the people from the Review Journal are attempting to do. Now here's the really interesting part. There are no less than nineteen icons attached to every online R-J piece. Nineteen. Guess what they're for? To post a copy of the article on search engines and your persoanal social networking site i.e. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. So now where do they give up their rights? If you're inviting people to share your pieces, and you even have a tab at the top of the article that says "share" then you can't go and sue someone because you don't like the context in which your article is used. This will soon become a national debacle and yet another embarrassement to Nevada. A member of the press makes a direct assault on Freedom of Speech because they don't like how their stories are used even though they've invited the public at large to "share" their articles in just about any place they want.
Apparently in this world of the dying newspaper the Las Vegas Review Journal wants to committ professional hari kari by suing people for advertising its brand. Oh and parents, be careful if your kids are asked to write a paper (a far fetched joke in and of itself I know) for school and wants to use the Review Journal as a source. You might just get sued if you don't have their blessing first.
In the newspaper business, it aint who is right, it's whose left. right?
Newspapers are folding faster than chinese laundry workers at rush hour.
In 5 years, you won't be able to buy a paper at a stand, unless it's pornoys complaint.
Democrats, listen up no more copying and pasting for you, watch out or you might get shot with a rodenator.
An interesting first amendment question surfaces when the RJ goes after the Democratic party. If a major function of the first amendment is to nourish our form of government through an open exchange of ideas and virtually every word of editorial page content is political in nature as is much of the rest of any paper's content, indeed its entire structure can be seen to tilt toward a given ideology, then one must question the constitutionality of a copyright law used to nefariously obstruct speech by another entity whose sole purpose is to generate political discourse.
This is a different question than purely commercial use of copyrighted material. It makes perfect sense for the RJ to seek compensation for unfair use of it's material in the local market. Going after people in distant markets where actual damages will be difficult or impossible to establish makes no sense for newspapers whose very cornerstone of existence is the first amendment. At some point ideas and words are like seeds scattered on the wind; when they blow far enough from their source they are of little value to the originator.
sportyyetpratical: you are posting links, not actual articles.
As a writer I am so happy to see them go after these people. If you wish to use someone else's material, get permission, don't just steal it.