Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Oct. 8, 2010 | 1:50 a.m.
Sun archives
- Two more website operators sued for copyright infringement (10-7-2010)
- 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)
Defense attorneys are complaining that Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC is trying to force defendants into settling by running up legal bills with its aggressive litigation tactics.
These cases pit Righthaven, which sues over online infringements of Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, against the Las Vegas office of the law firm Lewis and Roca LLP.
Lewis and Roca, with at least five attorneys working on Righthaven cases, appears to be the busiest law firm when it comes to defending Righthaven defendants in litigation and settlements.
Lewis and Roca has been aggressive in its defense, accusing Righthaven of running a settlement shakedown operation involving frivolous no-warning lawsuits.
Lewis and Roca also won an important ruling giving defendants hope that they didn't infringe on Review-Journal copyrights because the Review-Journal encourages online sharing of its stories.
The latest dispute between Righthaven and Lewis and Roca is over whether discovery should get under way before judges rule on Lewis and Roca motions to dismiss in at least three cases.
In these cases, Righthaven attorneys say they want to proceed with "Rule 26(f)" conferences -- but Lewis and Roca attorneys want the conferences delayed until judges rule on their motions for dismissal.
Such conferences are required in federal lawsuits to plan for discovery, or the collection of information and evidence, and so the parties "can consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case."
In the case of Canadian defendant MajorWager, Lewis and Roca attorneys Nikkya Williams, Michael McCue and Jonathan Fountain wrote in a recent filing: "Notwithstanding the likelihood that the court will soon rule on MajorWager's motion to dismiss, Righthaven is insisting that the parties proceed with a Rule 26(f) conference, which, of course, would trigger the deadline for making initial disclosures and commencing discovery."
"Righthaven is apparently attempting to put pressure on MajorWager, a foreign defendant, to incur potentially unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs in an effort to compel MajorWager to accede to Righthaven's settlement demands," the attorneys wrote in asking the court to delay the conference.
Similar requests for judges to delay the Rule 26(f) conferences were made by Lewis and Roca in at least two other cases involving EMTCity.com in New Hampshire and the Vote For the Worst LLC website in Utah.
In all these cases, Lewis and Roca noted there's no hurry to proceed with litigation since Righthaven isn't seeking temporary or preliminary injunctions to have material removed from websites. Righthaven's lawsuits focus on past infringements and the Lewis and Roca attorneys noted that in these cases the material has already been removed from the websites.
Lewis and Roca also said there's ample legal precedent to dismiss the three cases involving out-of-state defendants. They're arguing the Nevada court doesn't have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendants given the trivial nature of the infringements in two of the cases, the fact the infringing material was posted by third parties in all three cases and the lack of contacts all three defendants have with Nevada.
Righthaven, however, says there's no need to delay the discovery process since Lewis and Roca stands little chance of succeeding with its motions to dismiss.
"MajorWager's unwillingness to agree to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference has prolonged the limited discovery required in this case and displayed a nonchalant attitude, if not blatant disregard, for the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," Righthaven attorneys J. Charles Coons and Joseph Chu wrote in a filing this week.
"MajorWager's assumptions that Righthaven's Rule 26(f) requests have been unreasonable and an attempt to ratchet up attorney's fees are the exact opposite of Righthaven's actual intentions," they wrote.
The issues of liability and damages appear to lend themselves to settlement by way of a Rule 26(f) conference, they wrote in the MajorWager case.
"If a Rule 26(f) conference was held in good faith and both parties respected the intention of the Rule 26(f) conference to provide a forum for settlement discussions, it would limit both attorneys' fees and judicial resources," the Righthaven filing said.
Righthaven, which has sued at least 146 website operators since March, separately reached settlements with four more defendants. These bring to at least 47 the number of settlements Righthaven has reached, the terms of which are confidential in most cases.
The latest publicly-disclosed settlements involve defendants:
--Swadeep Nigam
--Rawguru Inc.
--Dan Cirucci
--The Above Network
I find this article hilarous.
Lewis and Roca is the law firm that the Sun uses for copyright and other intellectual property work.
Funny....that does not get a burb in the article.
There own copyright lawyers say......."Lewis and Roca also won an important ruling giving defendants hope that they didn't infringe on Review-Journal copyrights because the Review-Journal encourages online sharing of its stories."
The Sun also encourages online sharing of its stories.
The Sun own's lawyers are saying that the Sun does not have copyright protection.
Interesting......
Chunky says:
Three cheers and hats off to Lewis & Roca for mounting strong and aggressive defenses against the heavy-handed tactics of Righthaven. It's about time a decent law firm made them work for the money they're shaking out of these defendants who can't afford to defend themselves.
Chunky's enterprises rarely if ever require much in the way of legal counsel but in the event they do, Chunky will be calling on Lewis & Roca.
You've got Chunky on your side!
That's what Chunky thinks!
SgtRock,
I agree that it does seem a bit odd that they are using that defense, but when I go back to the original story it looks like the judge wants this case to go to trial. This is one of the third party poster cases involving a non-profit site.
Some of these cases will be important for establishing guidelines if they actually go to verdict.
They very last sentence in the original story is key:
"The judge's findings on these issues are not final and Righthaven will have plenty of opportunities to contest Klerks' contentions should the lawsuit proceed and not be settled."
I don't think much of there defenses will hold any water.
That was not my point.
My point was that the Sun quotes this law firm. That law firm preforms copyright law work for them. They don't disclose that fact in their stories. The Sun then quotes defenses from this law firm that esstentially when applied to the Sun's site means the Sun does not have copyright protection.
It just shows the hatred that they have for the LVRJ.
That is the real reason why they have run some 100 stories on this topic.
It is like some crazy women in the neighborhood that just complains and complains and says goofy stuff about some neighbor.
I just find the whole thing very entertaining.
The Sun does not actively protect their copyright anyway. Just once in a blue moon, somebody gives them a 411 and they might send a letter or not.
So they really don't care if people copy and paste their stories.
But if anybody wanted to use the "implied license" defense against the Sun then they would have a stronger argument because the Sun is promoting that the "implied license" as a valid defense in their stories and they are quoting their own lawyers when doing so.
So heck....that sounds to me like a big green light for anybody to copy and paste Sun's articles to their hearts desire. But not really, I think the own "implied license" defense in these cases is pure nonsense...from a law perspective.
It is possible that the judge wants to see if there is an "implied license" for "fair use". Sounds like a tautology, but maybe not. The argument would be that "fair use" implies that there is a license for that use.
It will be more clear if this defense is deemed meritorious or not in the cases where it is the site owner copying a full article, especially if the site has advertising such as Google ads.
Chunky says:
Accusing Righthaven of settlement shakedowns is like accusing McDonalds of making hamburgers.
As far as Chunky can tell the sole purpose of Righthaven's existence is to shakedown individuals and companies for settlements. Was that not what they were formed to do?
Chunky still likes the term Barratry as it relates to Righthaven's business model.
That's what Chunky thinks!
For SgtRock:
Thanks for your comments. To clarify a couple points:
We've reported that since the Sun & Greenspun Media Group are not involved in the Righthaven litigation, it's not necessary for us to disclose whether law firms involved in Righthaven cases have also done work for the Greenspun companies.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep...
You say: ``The Sun's own lawyers are saying that the Sun does not have copyright protection.''
I am unaware of anyone saying anything like that.
In the Righthaven cases, the ``implied license'' argument has been made only in relation to the Review-Journal and its terms of use and in the context of websites being sued without the Review-Journal first asking that the material be taken down. I am unaware of any other newspaper's terms of use coming up in the Righthaven litigation.
The ``implied license'' defense likely would not be used if there was a case of a website that refused to remove infringing material upon demand or request -- because that website would have received notice that the material was posted without authorization.
The Sun's reader agreement spells out how Sun material can be used and I can assure you those not in compliance have been hearing from us.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/about/useragr...
As for the extent of our coverage of Righthaven, it seems to be a story not going away with new suits filed regularly and defendants either settling or litigating -- all newsworthy in our view.
You may disagree, I'd just refer you to national coverage the past month or so by the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Wired, Editor & Publisher, Poynter, the Washington Post & others.
Thanks again for your comments.
Steve, I have read the Sun's user agreement a few times now and think highly of it. But I have not read the RJ's agreement, assuming it was very similar to the Sun's.
However, given that the RJ's agreement is a subject of lawsuits and is presumably included in court records, and also given that many of us refuse to give the RJ traffic, is there any legal way for the Sun to make a copy of the RJ's user agreement publicly available?
botfx, Fair Use means that you don't have to a license to use it.
Implied License means that the material is licensed and the owner has inferred that the user of the material has received permission to use the licensed material. There are big hurdles for one to successfully use Implied License as a defense.
The lame reasons that Sun's lawyers has said that Implied License is inferred is because people can right click and copy and paste. Also they say that if a website just uses the word "share" anywhere on the websitte then at also infers Implied license.
The Sun allows right click to copy and paste.
The Sun uses the word "Share" above every single web article.
According to the Sun's own lawyers, the Sun are giving an everybody an Implied License to freely use Sun material at will.
It even gets worse.
The Sun quotes their lawyers in news article affirming the same Implied License.
Finally, I have not see AP, Bloomberg, Wired, Editor & Publisher, Poynter, Washington and others write 100's stories on the same topic over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with very little difference in content.
The Las Vegas Sun is doing an outstanding job in their continued coverage of the Righthaven copyright lawsuits. There's a lot to learn for the average reader about this issue and you have been explaining it very well. This is what a great newspaper does!
botfx, here is the LVRJ legal statements. One can get to it by clicking on link that is right next to the copyright symbol at the bottom of every page.
http://www.stephensmedia.com/copyright/
Please note the "2. Copyright Infringement Claims" contact information section. That is part of the means to create a Safe Haven for when casual users post copyright material.
I don't see that Safe Haven contact information on the Sun site.
Perhaps, the Sun's lawyers instead of working on means to weaken or strip the Sun of its copyright protection then they should be working on creating a Safe Haven for the Sun site.
I would have loved to have seen that copyright page before Righthaven entered the picture.
But that is not the user agreement comparable to the Sun's, and I'm sure the RJ has one. And again, it would be useful to see it from the time before Righthaven was active.
And the doctrine of "fair use" means you DO have a right to use the material in the way you did. The trick is in determining if the use was in fact covered by "fair use".
This is a juicy article on a old Sun lawsuit.
http://openjurist.org/610/f2d/614/las-ve...
Let's see....if a newspaper printed all the allegations in that article whould Greenspun be mad and might even call that yellow journalism.
Here is an old article on LVRJ and Sun joining forces.
The Sun use to have 80 employees. I wonder how many they have now after the last Christmas layoffs.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2...
Las Vegas Sun casino:
http://www.lasvegas-sun.com/
Here is a article that is an example of a violation of the Sun's fair usage rules and probably is copyright infringement.
It is 161 words and the Sun only allows to copy and paste 100 words. Plus the original story was 815 words. So 161 words is 20% of the story which violates the Sun's 10% policy.
http://asternglance.com/2010/10/05/las-v...
It is a story by Mr. Green on Righthaven.
How ironic.............
Send him a letter. He will ignore it but you can't sue because your own lawyers say that the dude has an implied license to copy and paste.