Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Oct. 7, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.
Sun archives
- Seven more defendants settle Righthaven copyright lawsuits (10-6-2010)
- Group plans to sue over right to sell insurance to nonprofits (10-6-2010)
- Nevada Democratic Party settles copyright lawsuit (10-2-2010)
- Righthaven reaches another copyright settlement over R-J website content (9-30-2010)
- Amid new criticism, Righthaven sues additional website operators (9-29-2010)
- R-J owner faces counterclaim in copyright lawsuit campaign (9-28-2010)
- 5 more website operators sued over R-J copyrights (9-28-2010)
- Attorneys attack Review-Journal copyright suit arrangement (9-27-2010)
- Executive says suing over R-J copyrights worth the negative publicity (9-26-2010)
- Lawyers argue R-J stories on Web aren’t protected by copyright (9-25-2010)
- Attorney: Righthaven copyright suits a free speech threat (9-23-2010)
- Observers note uncertainty over future of Righthaven/R-J copyright suits (9-21-2010)
- Righthaven judge: Review-Journal ‘implied license’ defense may have merit (9-20-2010)
- Defendants fight back against Righthaven copyright lawsuits (9-20-2010)
- Copyright lawsuit filed against group fighting Pahrump prison (9-15-2010)
- Righthaven settles 2 lawsuits over R-J story copyrights (9-13-2010)
- Another company fights back against copyright lawsuit (9-11-2010)
- Quick settlement reached in copyright lawsuit against PR company (9-10-2010)
- Texas woman emerges as vocal critic of copyright lawsuit firm (9-9-2010)
- Righthaven CEO defends company during roundtable discussion (9-9-2010)
- Copyright lawsuits filed against U.S. Marijuana Party, dating website (9-9-2010)
- Righthaven’s suit against Sharron Angle draws increased attention (9-8-2010)
- Defendant accuses Righthaven of misusing legal system (9-5-2010)
- Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit (9-3-2010)
- Righthaven wins key ruling as new criticism leveled over suits (9-3-2010)
- Righthaven sues D.C.-based group over R-J editorial posting (9-2-2010)
- PR firm Kirvin Doak sued by Righthaven over Celine Dion story it promoted (9-1-2010)
Righthaven LLC sued two more website operators for copyright infringement Wednesday, charging they displayed Las Vegas Review-Journal stories without authorization.
The latest suits filed in U.S. District Court for Nevada name as defendants:
• An entity called Mr News Breaker and Ian Howells, whom Righthaven says have a website called mrnewsbreaker.com. An Aug. 2 Review-Journal story about a PBS pledge drive allegedly was displayed on that website without authorization.
• Bill Hyatt, whom Righthaven says is the registrant of the website 1ce.org, which is called “News for Everyone.” Hyatt allegedly copied and displayed — without gaining permission to do so — a Sept. 5 Review-Journal column called “FX’s manly man shows hold outsider appeal.”
Howells couldn’t be located for comment on the lawsuit. A message for comment was left with Hyatt.
These bring to at least 146 the number of lawsuits Righthaven has filed since it started its copyright litigation campaign in March.
Righthaven, as usual in its latest cases, seeks $150,000 apiece in damages from the defendants and asks the court to transfer control of their website domain names to Righthaven.
The Review-Journal and Righthaven say Righthaven is a technology company working to protect the copyrights of Stephens Media LLC, the owner of the Review-Journal.
Righthaven detects online infringements of Review-Journal stories, gains copyrights to those stories and then sues over the retroactive infringements.
An entity associated with the parent company of Stephens Media has invested in Righthaven and Stephens Media participates in the lawsuits by providing the copyrights upon which the lawsuits are based.
Defense attorneys and critics say Righthaven is running a shakedown operation involving frivolous, no-warning lawsuits and that uses the steep potential damages under copyright law, as well as the threat to seize website domain names, to prod defendants into settling.
The settlements are believed to be far less than Righthaven’s $75,000 and $150,000 damage claims. Many defendants say the settlements, which total at least 43, involved dollar amounts lower than what it would have cost them to have attorneys fight Righthaven.
Separately, the “Open Source/Free Software Community” website Groklaw has weighed in on the Righthaven cases.
Groklaw, which covers legal news related to technology issues and intellectual property issues, commented extensively on a ruling in which one of the federal judges assigned to the Righthaven cases agreed a defendant may have merit in arguing there was no copyright infringement because the Review-Journal encourages readers to share content online, purportedly providing an “implied license” for third parties to display its content without authorization.
“It will now cost Righthaven real money to pursue the litigation, which I gather from what I’ve read is exactly what they’d prefer not to have to do, since I gather from what I’ve read that their business model appears to be to pressure out-of-state defendants to just settle rather than fight, kind of like the RIAA’s (Recording Industry Association of America) strategy,” said the Groklaw post by founder Pamela Jones.
After that post, Righthaven and Stephens Media were hit with a counterclaim in another case — a development that likely will also add to their legal expenses while testing Righthaven’s litigation strategy.
Hey Righthaven, Sue this...You suck...Copyright infringement may still be a legal basis for a lawsuit on the internet, but soon frivolous lawsuits involving the copy of internet articles will be a thing of the past. I hereby give everyone who lives on Earth to copy, publish, and or to do just anything with this article that I have just posted on the internet here in this little box...
Go Ron Futrell. Beat them on this foolish case. I know they are suing Ron and we hope he beats them!
"I hereby give everyone who lives on Earth to copy, publish, and or to do just anything with this article that I have just posted on the internet here in this little box.."
You are both right and wrong.
Normally the Sun could say that they have a copyright claim over your posting and people might have to seek permission to post your comment.
But since the Sun's own copyright lawyers have declared in public that sites like the Sun have no claim to copyright for articles posted on the Internet then you are completely correct.
Screw Righthaven and shame on the laws that let these crooks stay in business.
Chunky says!
Booooo!!!! Righthaven and RJ
Yay! Sun and the defendants standing up to fight Righthaven's heavy handed practice.
That's what Chunky thinks!
SgtRock,
Just a quick note on what the Sun says on its Reader Agreement page under the heading of Submissions ( http://www.lasvegassun.com/about/useragr... ):
"Copyright on materials contributed by The Las Vegas Sun and its affiliate publications readers and/or members is held by the individual creators."
That page is actually an interesting read and is one of the better agreements I have seen.
Can you post a link to where "the Sun's own copyright lawyers have declared in public that sites like the Sun have no claim to copyright for articles posted on the Internet"? That would directly contradict what the Reader's Agreement page says about all content not submitted by others.
"All materials on this site, including, but not limited to, images, illustrations, audio clips, video clips, 360-degree panoramas, photos with audio captions (the "Materials") are protected by copyrights which are owned or licensed by the Company."
An interesting case would be that of Jon Ralston, are some of his works owned by the Sun and others by himself?
You can sue a ham sandwich, but you can't get it to pay. They will fill BK.
The Sun's copyright lawyers have been stating in public the websites like the Sun and LVRJ have no copyright protection because there is an implied license for people to copy and paste at will.
What is funny is that Mr. Green quotes those lawyers in his stories and it might even create a true implied license for people to copy and paste at will.
The Sun's copyright law firm is Lewis and Roca LLP.
Here is Mr. Green quoting them, "The Las Vegas Review-Journal website also enables third parties to 'right click' and copy the text of articles on the site. Accordingly, based on this implied license, the allegedly infringing copy was, in fact, authorized by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and therefore, is not an infringement"
So the Sun also allows people to righ click and copy. So their own copyright law firm is saying that the Sun has no copyright protection and the Sun quotes that crap in their own news article.
LOL>.................
Maybe there'll be a new Soprano's episode out of all this. Guess who'll play Tony?
"You can sue a ham sandwich, but you can't get it to pay. They will fill BK."
BK has a price. People who you owe money to will get to take chunks of your property or business.
It hurts your ability to borrow money for like 10 years.
Also, it does not mean that people who own awards will not get their money. It just means it will be harder to do and they will be at the back of line of people who are demanding payment. If there is enough property then they will get paid, too.