Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 9:29 a.m.
Updated Tuesday, July 27, 2010 | 5:05 p.m.
Sun archives
- More copyright lawsuits filed over Review-Journal stories (7-20-2010)
- 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)
Former mob enforcer turned government witness Anthony Fiato over the years has been the subject of a book by Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith and a source for Smith's news columns.
Now Fiato is being sued for copyright infringement after Review-Journal reports about the mob in Las Vegas allegedly were posted online on Fiato's personal blog site.
Fiato was sued in federal court in Las Vegas on Monday by Righthaven LLC, a company that has been purchasing copyrights to R-J stories from the R-J's owner, Stephens Media LLC, and then suing alleged infringers of those rights.
Fiato said he was surprised to learn of the lawsuit, since he had been unaware of any concern about him posting R-J stories on his website. Fiato learned about the suit because he was contacted for comment by the Las Vegas Sun.
"I’m not concerned about it. It sounds like someone made a mistake,’’ he said, noting his assistance with Smith’s book and in providing information to the Review-Journal.
Fiato said he lives at an undisclosed location as a relocated government witness.
Since March, Righthaven has filed at least 81 copyright lawsuits.
The complaint against Fiato alleges he is the registrant of a blog at the address af11.wordpress.com.
That blog, called "Hollywood goodfella'' and focusing on mob activity around the country, allegedly included posts of an R-J column by Jane Ann Morrison and an R-J story by Jeff German from May, both involving mafia activity in Las Vegas. Records indicate that on the blog posts, the R-J and Morrison were credited for the column, but only German was credited for the story.
Fiato, who goes by Anthony "Tony the Animal'' Fiato, was the subject of Smith's 1998 book "The Animal in Hollywood.''
Righthaven is seeking $75,000 in damages from Fiato. The demand for $75,000 is for statutory damages, or damages where plaintiffs don't have to show economic harm from copyright infringement.
"Righthaven is the owner of the copyright in the literary work (the column) entitled: `It’s not your dad’s Cosa Nostra in Las Vegas anymore,''' the lawsuit says.
"Mr. Fiato willfully copied, on an unauthorized basis, the Cosa Nostra work,'' Righthaven charged.
"The subject matter, at least in part, of the Cosa Nostra work ... is Las Vegas, Nevada-based mafia activity,'' the lawsuit alleges.
"Mr. Fiato knew that the ... infringement was and is of specific interest to Nevada residents,'' Righthaven alleged.
"Mr. Fiato knew that the Cosa Nostra work was originally published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal,'' Righthaven asserts.
This wasn't the only court action involving Righthaven in recent days.
Righthaven on Monday also sued Paula Bliss, identified as the registrant of the www.gamblingmojo.com website. A June 3 R-J story on Nevada regulators warning casinos not to do business with Internet gambling companies was posted on that site without authorization, the lawsuit says. Records show the R-J was credited as the source of the story.
"I have been using `AGA SmartBrief' articles and I always link back to the source. It was my understanding that articles could be used provided there was a link back,'' Bliss said Monday, adding she closed the blog portion of the website after learning of the lawsuit. "Apologies for my misunderstanding.''
The AGA SmartBrief is a daily collection of gaming industry news summaries issued by a company called SmartBrief in cooperation with the American Gaming Association. These news summaries include links to the sources of the news summaries, typically the R-J, the Las Vegas Sun, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, the Associated Press and other news organizations that cover gaming.
Also, a company running a website covering the horse and harness racing industry has agreed to settle a Righthaven copyright infringement lawsuit over its alleged unauthorized online posting of an R-J column.
In court papers filed last week, attorneys for Crete, Ill.-based Odds on Racing with the Reno office of the law firm Holland & Hart LLP denied the allegations of infringement and wrote the defendants' use of the column constituted fair use under the Copyright Act.
But court records also show the Odds On Racing attorneys offered to settle the case for $5,000, including costs and attorneys' fees, an offer accepted by Righthaven.
A request for comment was left with Odds On Racing's attorneys.
Steven Gibson, a Las Vegas attorney and Righthaven's CEO, said the $5,000 ``is not insignificant.''
He didn't disclose whether that amount is within the usual range of settlements being negotiated by Righthaven. The only other publicly disclosed settlement of a Righthaven lawsuit involved the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which agreed to pay $2,185.
Of the 81 lawsuits, about 30 have been resolved, Gibson said Monday.
RJ going bankrupt so they have to sue everyone?
Wow - that "Wired" article shows this to be "legalized" shake downs. And the stupidest thing they're doing is going after a mob guy. On how many levels is that stupid? First you use the guy's story to make money and then you sue him for showing the story they wrote about him? These lawyers better be watching their backs.
And the day will come when there will be a class action suit against Righthaven for frivilous lawsuits that a jury will no doubt be seen as shake downs. Settling for $5,000 in a $75,000 case. AND THEY ADMIT THIS!! Scum of the Earth as they know people don't have the money to defend themselves. Let's see them go after the L.A. or NY Times and see what happens.
The RJ deserves to be put out of business for such practices. People should switch their advertising from them and Stevens Media to radio or Greenspun folks. When a local media powerhouse controls all the major media the city or town in which people reside are screwed. This behavior by RJ shows they don't give a crap because they feel they are the only game in town. They need to be shown they are not. And when I move out there I know I'm going to start an alternative news organization that has some integrity with its audience and clients.
chediski-right on! these are real bottom feeders
Just wondering are the paying a finders fee if someone finds a web page doing this. does anyone know? If they do its probable like $50.00 bucks another insult they get $75,000 and will only give a small finders fee lol
Sooner or later the EFF (http://www.eff.org/) or ACLU will get involved and then Righthaven will have a real fight on its hands.
They picked on the wrong dude. He's gonna call a hit on them!
I guess anyone with a story to tell, should go to the wonderful SUN, with their information. That way they won't find themselves being stabbed in the back, when they want to elaborate on their story in their own venue.
I think most shocking is KXNT radio, who uses RJ for their bias "NEWS" casts (essentially Republican talking points) and then fails to report the story of RJ's continued lawsuits against "fair use" references to their stories.
Also, why doesn't MATT Drudge cover this story? Doesn't he reference RJ story's from time to time?
Hopefully, "SIXTY MINUTES" will cover this story of the RJ being sue happy.
It sort of reminds me of Adolf Hitler's Germany in the 30's, suing Alan Cranston (future California Senator) for printing a comic book version of "Mien Kampf."
Uh oh, it looks like the LVRJ might have gone too far. Someone's gonna get whacked! LOL
Maybe not sending a cease and desist letter isn't required per the copyright infringement law but it would be the right thing to do. If they don't comply, then issue your frivolous shake down.
There is the letter of the law and then there is the spirit of the law. Next time Mr. Gibson or his wife (or whatever his preferred partner's title is) gets pulled over by Metro or NHP for some traffic infraction, I hope the officer goes by the letter of the law and issue a $$$ citation instead of applying the spirit of the law and giving him a warning as would be their discretion.
I thought that the R-J was opposed to frivolous lawsuits.
Almost all of these cases filed by Righthaven are slam dunks.
Almost all their cases are resulting in a settlement where the defendant is coughing up cash to close the case.
The main defense against copyright infringment claim is Fair Use.
Copying and pasting all or a significant part of news article is a direct violation of Fair Use.
That is stealing.
I believe the governing body of law is The Digital Millennium Copright Act of 1998 (DMCA)
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmc...
Here is an example of copyright infringement.
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php...
Here someone copied and pasted a story on copyright infringement. The story that they copied and pasted probably lifted parts of its story from Las Vegas Sun stories.
Oh....the irony.....
There is zero defense in a copyright case if a staff member of a web site copies and pastes a story from another site. That is a slam dunk.
There is a defense against copyright infringemenet by users who comment on websites.
For instance, if I pasted a story from the LVRJ here in this comment. The Sun might have a defense against that copyright infringement.
But there is a catch.
In DCMA, there is a notification defense. Because a web site has little control over users posting comments then the copyright accuser must send you a notification of a user's violation.
But that defense only works if the offending website is following DCMA rules which are the following:
1) The owner of the web site must register contact information with the US Copyright Office and pay a fee to the US Copyright Office
2) Must not have reasonable knowledge that infringement was occuring (hence your staff can't be violating copyright laws)
3) The owner of the web site can't be earning money from the copyright infringment.
4) The website has to provide contact information for people to report copyright infringement claims
Almost all websites do not do any of the above and therefore are liable for copyright infringement that occurs in its users' comment sections.
I doubt that the Sun is following these rules and therefore are exposing themselves to copyright infringement from its users.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u...
We don't read the RJ. It's for redneck hillbillies.
The LVRJ is a right wing rag. I thought they hated frivolous lawsuits? They must be in financial trouble.
Caroll...right on the mark!
I knew the RJ was ethically challenged, but this...
The modus operendi of the RJ and their proxy Righthaven is beyond dispicable, despite what our pal sgtrock will tell you.
Hey rock, how's Shermy???
Oh...I get it.
You are OK with stealing property.
Can I come over and visit your house?
Laws were made to be broken. You break them, you go through the legal process. Found guilty? You get punished.
Pretty clear to me.
"Copying and pasting all or a significant part of news article is a direct violation of Fair Use.
"That is stealing."
Uh, no. Fair Use law is considerably more confusing than that. For commercial use, yes. But for noncommercial use, the situation is much more confusing. For example, read Stanford University's discussion of Fair Use at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_an... .
See Williams & Wilkins Company v. United States, 487 F. 2d 1345, 1353 (Court of Claims 1973)
"It has sometimes been suggested that the copying of an entire copyrighted work, any such work, cannot ever be "fair use," but this is an overbroad generalization, unsupported by the decisions[12] and rejected by years of accepted practice.... We cannot believe, for instance, that a judge who makes and gives to a colleague a photocopy of a law review article, in one of the smaller or less available journals, which bears directly on a problem both judges are then considering in a case before them is infringing the copyright, rather than making "fair use" of his issue of that journal. Similarly with the photocopies of particular newspaper items and articles which are frequently given or sent by one friend to another.[13] There is, in short, no inflexible rule excluding an entire copyrighted work from the area of "fair use." Instead, the extent of the copying is one important factor, but only one, to be taken into account, along with several others."
Id at 1354:
"1. We start by emphasizing that (a) NIH and NLM are non-profit institutions, devoted solely to the advancement and dissemination of medical knowledge which they seek to further by the challenged practices, and are not attempting to profit or gain financially by the photocopying; ... On both sides-library and requester-scientific progress, untainted by any commercial gain from the reproduction, is the hallmark of the whole enterprise of duplication. There has been no attempt to misappropriate the work of earlier scientific writers for forbidden ends, but rather an effort to gain easier access to the material for study and research. This is important because it is settled that, in general, the law gives copying for scientific purposes a wide scope."
"Laws were made to be broken. You break them, you go through the legal process. Found guilty? You get punished.
Pretty clear to me."
You might want to actually read the details of these suits before being so certain. There are serious problems of personal jurisdiction, most notably on a number of the suits against persons not resident in Nevada. (The replies from some of these defendants come to the same conclusions that I have from my research into existing jurisdiction case law.)
Furthermore, the Draconian aspects of DMCA were intended primarily to deal with the problem of audio and video file sharing, and similar schemes that substantially reduced the income of the entertainment industry. Now, it may well be the case that making the latest piece of rap trash available free of charge causes some coked-out liberal to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue, and thus not be able to continue funding the Democratic Party. The same is not the case with R-J news stories.
So, the LVRJ can fade into into obscurity like the fish wrapping it is.
If you can't quote them, or link to their articles, or share the information you get from them, what use are they as a news source?
And one more time, the LVwhat'sit is taking actions very typical of periodicals that are in serious financial trouble.
There are other things such periodicals do ~ they start to cheat on their postage, or misrepresent their circulation (Hey, Audit Bureau of Circulation, you might want to check these guys out REAL CLOSE if you know what I mean).
The Tribune Group, before it went under and was sold off at a vast loss to a whole bunch of others saw their Long Island publication, their Chicago publication and their Los Angeles publication cheat on postage through misrepresentation of circulation!
They also cheated advertisers!
Really, this approach seems to unethical it leads one naturally to imagine yet other unethical stuff people in financial trouble do.
I would imagine future "buy out" investors are going to read my post here and the offer is going to drop near to the price just paid for Newsweek ~ $1.00!