Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Sept. 3, 2010 | 7:50 p.m.
Sharron Angle
Related Documents (.pdf)
Sun archives
- 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)
- Why we are writing about the R-J copyright lawsuits (9-1-2010)
- Settlement reached after judge refuses to dismiss copyright suit (8-31-2010)
- Judge questions Righthaven over R-J copyright suit costs (8-26-2010)
- Consumer group offers help to defendants over R-J copyright suits (8-25-2010)
- Righthaven CEO’s law firm in merger (8-24-2010)
- R-J accused of entrapment over copyright enforcement (8-23-2010)
- Blogger asks to pay $200 to close R-J copyright suit (8-20-2010)
- 2 lawsuits over R-J copyrights lift total to 100 (8-19-2010)
- Website operators use new defenses to fight R-J copyright suits (8-18-2010)
- Righthaven reaches settlements in 2 cases over R-J copyrights (8-12-2010)
- Righthaven sues Democratic Underground website over R-J posting (8-11-2010)
- 5 more websites sued over R-J story copyrights (8-10-2010)
The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s copyright infringement lawsuit partner on Friday sued U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle over R-J material posted on her website, allegedly without authorization.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas by Righthaven LLC, seeks damages of $150,000 against Angle personally and forfeiture of her website domain name sharronangle.com.
The Democratic Party of Nevada, which has also been sued by Righthaven, charged in an Aug. 23 press release that the Review-Journal had a double standard to “hold Angle harmless while suing the Democratic Party and progressive organizations.”
Steve Friess, a Las Vegas freelancer writer and columnist for Las Vegas Weekly, a sister newspaper to the Las Vegas Sun, has been supportive of Righthaven because Friess has seen material owned by him and other freelancers infringed on.
In a blog post last month, Friess said Righthaven had to sue Angle. Friess posted several screenshots of R-J stories on Angle’s website and wrote that “thousands of readers have seen these stories on SharronAngle.Com and not ReviewJournal.Com; that’s a clear loss of the eyeballs that translate into advertising revenue.”
“Righthaven must sue. It took effort to find the cat blogger (a notorious Righthaven case), but this one was on a major candidate’s site, there in plain sight. If they don’t sue Angle, they provide dozens of infringers with a clear example of the company’s inconsistency in defending its copyright. And there goes the whole enterprise, right there,” Friess wrote at his blog site.
In its suit, Righthaven charged, “Ms. Angle did not seek permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display, or otherwise exploit the Works (stories)...Ms. Angle was not granted permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display, or otherwise exploit the works.”
In most of its suits, Righthaven detects the infringement, then obtains a copyright and sues the infringer on a retroactive basis. The suits usually seek damages of $75,000 for a single copyright.
The Angle suit, however, included two copyrights for material published on July 21 and Aug. 3. Righthaven didn’t indicate why it sued over two copyrights and is seeking double the usual amount in damages.
A request for comment was left with the Angle campaign.
Records filed with the lawsuit show the Review-Journal received full credit for a July 21 editorial posted on Angle’s site, “It’s the jobs, stupid,” which was critical of Angle’s election opponent, Sen. Harry Reid; and for an Aug. 3 story displayed on Angle’s site headlined “Angle: Reid’s clout misguided.”
Righthaven, which has now filed at least 117 lawsuits, has sued both liberal and conservative sites around the country ranging from the Democratic Party of Nevada, the Democratic Underground and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (liberal) to the Free Republic (conservative).
hahahahahahhahaahaa!
LMAO!
For the first time in years, the RJ has made me very happy.
so this is the only way the RJ can make money...lol what is this like the 200th lawsuit they filed...the RJ is such a joke
HAHAHAHAHHAHA. This is too funny. They want double then anyone else, and her domain.
GOOD LUCK. This is the end of RJ/Wronghaven. Doomed for SURE.
Big trouble for Angle.
You mean that "Good Christian" who says she's annointed by G-d is a thief?
Who'd thunk it, that a Tea Bagger is a Republican hypocritical plagerer.
Yes, this story is comical (regardless of which side one favors on the whole Righthaven series), but isn't it also a bit scary?
I mean, this woman is a candidate for the U.S. SENATE, the highest law-making body in the land, and she can't even figure out the fundamentals of copyright law?! She STEALS from the Review-Journal, even after its editorial department ENDORSES her candidacy?! Ha ha, Sharon; looks like you and the Crazy Cat Lady from Boston are alike in more ways than one...
i hope the RJ looses this,,the RJ has always been the joke of the media. but most media services are they are one sided, they always report one side and dont show the other.. i hope the RJ goes belly up..
So let met get this straight, the RJ is ill-legitimite when it does it to anyone else but fine when it does it to an opponent to the liberal love childs? It's call reality and the Angle is no different than anyone else. If her people did something wrong they need to compensate like everyone else. Sorry all the other liberals, Angle is one of you now. ;-)
I bet Sharron pays it. After all it the Copyright Clause was written into the Constitution by Founding Fathers. Sherm Frederick cites this in his blog. So not only will she be abiding by the original intent (as she claims to do) but she'll be admitting she's a thief! That's kinda awesome. Right, Sgt. Rock?
Idiots are just trying to to get their name in the national news. Publicity stunt! this is boring news now. Enough with these morons.
Hilarious. It's a world gone mad. The R-J is crazy. Righthaven is crazy. And, as we all know, Sharron Angle is bat sh** crazy. It's a match made in heaven.
Why would you sue Angle, who is our single greatest hope for getting Reid out of office? Worthless lawsuits.
This is just hilarious.
Angle should file a counter-suit for misappropriation of her likeness, etc.
Not that she would necessarily prevail, but one frivolousness suit would seem to deserve another.
Or is that, an eye for an eye?
"Angle should file a counter-suit for misappropriation of her likeness"
Yup. Small Claims Court is there for a reason ...
Sharron Angle
Get you tea party friends to a second Amendment Remedies' As 'Cure'
Just like you said.
I think it really sharron angle actions Violate the First Commandment using money as a god.
She is too extreme (you know the nice word for crazy)
People cut and paste excepts, articles and comments from this website everyday. They put them in other websites, email them to businesses and post them on other newspapers websites.
Wrong is wrong and and no excuses, but it does seem strange that this is the only copyright infringement lawsuit we have heard about in how long?
I am still against the RJ on these things but it is funny cause when I seen the material I thought about buying the copyrights to it and sue also.
I bet she says the same thing the democrat party said and if she does that means that she agrees with them on this matter OMG it's a revelation!
It just keeps getting better.
Thanks Sun that is news worthy stuff I wonder If the RJ will print that news worthy story.
Settlement coming up... to ensure prompt payment Righthaven should demand it in GOLD. Or the equivalent in ammunition, or scrip, or psych meds. Whatever the Angle campaign has ready to hand.
They must know that shes going down in November and they are going to rape her coffers before they are depleted.
If Harry did this also he better buy the rights hey.
BRASS,
They have been here in the Sun two, three times each week since February.
I guess you have been reading the RJ.
They are doing the suing but not the reporting about it.
And she represents herself as being a lawmaker when in reality she is a law breaker!!!
This is going to continue to a lot of public officials on both sides of the isle,
The reason I think they want twice as much is because it is being used for personal gain not like the others that have been sued.
Maybe Harry can make a phone call in her behalf!
Would she be opposed to that too?
Hey Maybe if Harry bought the law suit from right-haven and shelved it would that get him more votes or would he be demonized?
And what are we supposed to make of the forthcoming confidential settlement?
Suing the poor cat lady was one thing. Suing Sharron Angle is another, she obviously has no sense of right and wrong, and since she has the mental capacity of a 9 year old from the 17th century, this should get tossed from court. Cmon RJ, quit picking on insane old ladies.
Wait, wait, wait just a minute. Not only did god bring Sharon her daily bread but she received a message stating that it was ok to copy the articles.
C'mon she got a message from god. You can't sue her for doing god's work. This is blasphemy.
I wish this were the end of seeing Sharon Angle's mug on tv. I actually can't believe that there are people out there who believe some of the crap she is spewing. I'm not saying Harry Reid is an angel sent from god but Angle is the absolute worst of them.
Chunky says:
He likes the story Steve Green wrote explaining the Sun's position and perspective on covering the Righthaven lawsuits. Something on the order of "they (Righthaven) have developed this as a business model or way of doing business". Sorry Chunky can't remember exactly but it's late.
Chunky still thinks Righthaven and Gibson are what gives the legal field a bad name and that their tactics are heavy handed. He also hopes that someone big enough and wealthy enough comes after Righthaven and shuts them down.
Where are all the good lawyers when you need them?
That's what Chunky thinks!
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
"The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas by Righthaven LLC, seeks damages of $150,000"
Why 150k? The rest of the suits were $75k?
I wouldn't be too surprised if we open up the Sun web site one day next week and read....
"The Las Vegas Review-Journal's copyright infringement lawsuit partner on Friday sued The Las Vegas Review-Journal over R-J material posted on their website, allegedly without authorization."
Must...look...away...but...can't....
The RJ is getting to be a joke, they can't sell papers so why not sue everyone...The word moron comes to mind...
Remember to take out the trash on November 2
Well, we wouldn't want the law to get in the way...
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
This makes me wanna sue somebody...
:-)
Angle looks like she fell out of the cuckoo's nest.
Here statements and actions certainly confirm that.
http://www.thewrongangle.com/
Limbaugh and Hannity quote articles verbatim, sometimes not even giving the source as the RJ. They should be sued. Why is broadcast media exempt?
Shows how stupid Angle campaign people are. The RJ doesn't spend much time covering this issue. The SUN does. Guess Angle people don't read the SUN.
They also sued that right wing hack who used to be an anchor man, sport guy, reporter etc. on a local TV station, who was fired after he was busted for a spaghetti bowl hit and run car wreck. (charges dropped)
Isn't Ciara Mathews, former KXNT talk show host, her communications director?
I think this will be a "back burner" suit and more to quell the criticism of the Nevada State Democratic Party and the bad publicity than anything else.
And Sharon Angle claimed she was for "private property rights." Look at the big deal Republicans made about Biden's alleged plagiarism. Sharon Angle a Plagiarist!
I guess I'll have to vote for HARRY REID!
God bless Righthaven! LMAO
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
She should be sued.
It is both unethical and illegal to copy and paste all or a significant portion of somebody else's work on put it on your own website without permission.
She probably did not do this but a staff person did.
She is still respondible because it is her campaign and she owns the website.
She should apologize.
She most likely will settle for around $1,500 to $6,000 which is about others have been settling for.
Andy_Aitken
gbigs
JDubs
Say it ain't so ... because it isn't. How's that PAC money workin' out for ya?
from the mouth of sgtrock to you...
"she should apologize".
Ha Ha Ha!!!
"I am sorry, Sherman, but in my ignorance, I assumed you guys were as Anti-Harry as me. I guess you WANT Harry to win. Do Vin & Thomas know about this? "
"I thought you RJ people were Libertardian? I am DEFINATELY Libertardian! Why are you DOING THIS to me? I guess I'm sorry if I done something wrong here."
"I simply took Lemons and made Lemonade. I didn't know YOUR LEMONS were SACRED. SO Sorry. SUE ME!!!"
"My Dear Sherman, how DARE YOU!?!? You are now OFFICIALLY INTERFERING WITH GOD'S PLAN! You will go STRAIGHT TO HELL, Sherman Frederick! And I won't help you one bit with the "Big Guy! But I guess I'm sorry."
Ha Ha Ha!
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
All of the Righthaven suits have been settled in private with the owners keeping their domains. I predict that Sharron Angle pays TWO dollars and will probably pay another dollar for ALL Righthaven copyrights in perpetuity. Sharron sued, Sharron settled, Sharron off scot-free. Evil Republicans and their "journalistic" minions are evil, not stupid.
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
Doesn't anyone posting on this page believe in copyright law? Intellectual property rights are rights.
I am surprised this rag has so little support for copyright.
This is too funny for words. The RJ editors are fond of calling this copyright infringement theft. I guess we can now look forward to Sherman Frederick's column tomorrow morning in which he bashes Sharron Angle for the theft of his property. I can't wait!
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
Say what you want, Angle has a pair on her. Her site is still using excerpts from the R-J on her news coverage page: http://sharronangle.com/news
And if this is the format that the R-J is suing over they are going to lose. A headline combined with a one paragraph excerpt and a link to the source is not infringement, especially when done by the subject of the story itself.
I suspect this is the case in several of the lawsuits.
It is clear that some of the lawsuits are over full copies of stories, with or without proper sourcing. Those will stand up.
This particular case is interesting because of the political use.
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
It gets better. Harry Reid's website is doing the exact same thing: http://www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/ne...
If you want to call Angle a intellectual property thief, you gotta say the same to Harry.
Maybe the Reid campaign got permission?
Reid should make a commercial featuring Angle's statement that: "unemployment doesn't help anyone" and then at the end say: "Now Angle's been charged with two counts of PLAGERISM..."
The guy over at the RJ's City Life is linking to the SUN.
Next time I'm in Russia, I think I'll set up a website ("www.suemesherm.ru)with a prepaid credit card in a phoney name and post a bunch of RJ stuff.
Today I read the RJ and I looked for the name and date and found nothing by the stories they wrote. I also didn't see anything regarding copyright in their paper about their paper on page 3A. I didn't even see an All Rights Reserved. So, my question would be, how can you claim your work is copyright protected if you don't notify anyone? Yes, you can copyright after the fact which most do but they still have to put the notification in their material. You can see how the Sun does it at the bottom of this page.
mred....I think you getting confused.
Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not always the same thing.
Angle committed copyright infringement by publishing all or a significant portion of another's work without permission but she still gave credit for the work to LVRJ.
Example of plagiarism is when Biden would write college papers that were directly lifted off somebody's work and did not give credit to the person. He also gave some speeches that were already given by other speakers and did not give the credit to them. He also once said that he graduated in the top half of his law school class. He graduated 76th out of 85 students. That is an example of him just out-n-out lying.
Unbelievably naive, the Supreme Court has already ruled on various similar law suits, ruling that news, represented in a public newspaper is part of the public domain and is not subject to copyright infringement (as long as the source is revealed). This is just a way for the lefty RJ to keep Angle from quoting them in her ads against Harry Reid.
If what Harry is doing constitutes "fair use" then Angle's news page does, too. The fact that Angle's page still contains stories from the R-J leads one to speculate whether or not her team is going to fight this.
Spoiler, I think you are getting confused. One can quote newspaper articles. That is not copyright infringment. One can't copy and paste all or a singificant part of story. That is copyright infrinement.
boftx is correct.
The Reid site listed the headline, gave credit, listed one paragraph and linked back to the source. That is not copyright infringement.
The Sharon site copied and pasted the whole story. Even though it gave credit, it is still copyright infringement. Even providing a link does not undo the copyright infringement.
You should not copy and paste no more than 2 paragraphs.
SgtRock, you have not followed the links I posted. Both sites operate in a similar fashion, but with an important difference.
SharronAngle.com News: http://sharronangle.com/news
Angle puts up a headline, one paragraph, a link to the original story, and also a link to an expanded excerpt on her site that also has a link to the original source. The headline for the teaser is also a link to the expanded excerpt. In both cases the link to the original story has the name of the source as the link.
HarryReid.com News: http://www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/ne...
Reid is putting up a headline and a paragraph. The headline is a link to his site that re-publishes a significant portion of the original story (at least 50% in one instance I saw) and then puts a link to the original story at the bottom of that on the second page. The link at the bottom always says "Read the whole article". The only attribution is given as a byline to the publisher and is NOT a link.
Bottom line is that in this case, Angle is making the original source much more clear and available than Reid is.
Sharron has fixed her site. Before getting sued, it had the whole LVRJ story posted on her site.
Can give an specific example on the Reid site?
When I go to the "Spot the Trend: Republicans endorse Reid". It gives credit. It gives one sentence. Then a link "Read the Whole Article".
It takes me to a 2nd page which gives credit. Gives one sentence, again. Than a link "Read the Whole Article" When I click on that it goes to the LVRJ.
That is not copyright infringement. That is fair use. It does not copy and paste like 3 paragraphs. It just copies and pastes one sentence. It gives credit. It provides a link to the original story.
Twenty Four Hours later and I am Still Laughing...... :)
Go to the article titled "School Board OKs plan to create, save more than 900 jobs" (which came from the Sun. On that stories second page it re-publishes about 50% of the original article.
A story from MyNews4 re-published the entire story. A story from KLAS put forth about 90% of the original story.
It appears that only stories from the R-J and Ely Times are being limited to a single sentence.
The RJ probably wants to control Angle's campaign completely through their supportive editorials!!
This gets even funnier. If you click on any story on Harry's site you go to the Spanish language version of the site, even though the text of the article is in English.
Good catch boftx.
I see that as the effect of Righthaven lawsuits.
Reid is stealing traffic away from the Sun. If a person can just read most of the story at Reid's site there is not need to click over to the Sun. If the person goes to the Sun site then they might go back in the future to the Sun.
Reid is contributing traffic to the LVRJ. It lists just enough info to get the person curious to read more so that the user has to click to the LVRJ. There they might bookmark LVRJ and give returning traffic.
I hope Mr. Green can now see that copyright infringement can endanger his wallet on the long run.
Harry's a crook. But Angle's a nut. I'll take a crook over a crazy. Crooks are predictable, nut jobs are not.
Thanks for the laughs, Republicants and Teabaggers! Your selection on June 8th is a gift that just keeps on giving and giving. Too bad it'll come to an end on November 2nd, when we get back to discussing serious issues, and finding our way out of the BushDepression.
But it has been a fun interlude.
gbigs: I really get a lot of enjoyment reading
your many coments on the Suns articles. Thanks
for being so prolific, even though you do wax redundant on many occasions. Sorry to see you lost your usual eloquence and got flagged several
times today? Could you restate what you were so
upset about. I haven't had my good laugh from you yet today. Thanks again
If you search back you'll find stories that imply that the R-J is in some respect partnered with Righthaven, having put up the start-up money for them. It is unknown just how much control the R-J exerts as to "aiming" Righthaven at particular stories or persons who may be infringing.
MarketYou,
You can get the story straight from the horse's mouth on the R-J in Sherm's editorial: http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Copyrigh...
The key sentence is this one: "We grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven."
To date, Righthaven has only two known clients, the R-J, and another paper who is partnered with Stephens Media in Arkansas.
More information can be found on this site that was started specifically to help fight these lawsuits: http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/
Righthaven appears to be a revenue center for Stephens Media.
I only have one comment, Whoops!
SgtNut.... Plagerism, copywrite, who cares, she is guilty as charged in the court of public opinion of two violations. You are just trying to get her off on a legal technicality.
Guilty! Of violating somone else's private property rights.
I'm going to call msnbc and tell on her...nah nah nah
Where's your response to the last several comments MarketYou (wherein you were your recent remarks were proven 100% false)???
Perhaps you're busy practicing your Rosetta Stone -- for English.
So Angle is a thief. We already knew she is a lunatic but now we know even more. She is against private property rights.... I'll bet Sherm is crying over this one. He loves Angle.
It's too early for Halloween, why are they posting pictures of a witch?
copyright infringement is the LEAST of Angle's offenses against man.
If you do a critical comparison of the stories cited by Reid and those by Angle it becomes apparent that Reid is far more loose in his use of stories.
Almost every story on Angle's site either mentions her directly or is an attack on Reid. On the other hand, Reid's site uses stories that have no obvious connection to either him or Angle, yet he quotes the entire article.
Reid is probably more vulnerable to a copyright suit like this than Angle is. She would appear to have a very strong "fair use" claim being that she is a public figure reporting what has been said about her.
Some of the people being sued by Righthaven have raised the issue of "barratry".
From thefreedictionary.com : http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...
"barratry n. creating legal business by stirring up disputes and quarrels, generally for the benefit of the lawyer who sees fees in the matter. Barratry is illegal in all states and subject to criminal punishment and/or discipline by the state bar, but there must be a showing that the resulting lawsuit was totally groundless. There is a lot of border-line barratry in which attorneys, in the name of being tough or protecting the client, fail to seek avenues for settlement of disputes or will not tell the client he/she has no legitimate claim."
Particular attention should be paid to the phrase "... border-line barratry in which attorneys, in the name of being tough or protecting the client, fail to seek avenues for settlement of disputes ..."
Gordon,
You're right, I am making the assumption that Reid did not specifically get permission but is relying on common perceptions of "fair use". I suspect that many people in the public eye, such as candidates, do not get permission from every publication they quote from.
I use a couple of RSS feeds from the Sun on my sites, but I got permission to do so beforehand.
"Barratry"...
boftx, I think that's EXACTLY how the "court of public opinion" sees it, save sgtrock.
"Bats In Her Belfry"
Definition: Crazy or Eccentric
Example: Angle thinks she can get voters with THAT
hooey???
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/b...
gmag39,
Let's just say that it is possible that SgtRock, unlike the judicial system (when it functions correctly), fails to make a distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. :)
I bet good money that nobody has been found guilty of barratry in Nevada. I even bet that nobody has even been charged with barratry.
A key element in charging one with barratry is the defendent conducted groundless judicial activity.
Not a single one of Righthaven's lawsuits have been dismissed.
Also in all Righthaven cases they are offerring settlements far less then the suit amounts.
The AP picked up the story. Too bad they used source data from the lunies:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...
"Doesn't anyone posting on this page believe in copyright law? Intellectual property rights are rights.
I am surprised this rag has so little support for copyright."
Yes I do but there comes a point and time when stupid lawsuits are stupid. I work as a Maint Tech and have had residents threaten to sue because i leave a foot print on thier carpet because they are having an emergency, which turns out that they caused. So RightHaven thinks they can play with the big boys and girls. They are a joke. But we all had better watch what we say they may sue us for defamation of character of course they would have to have character to sue for.
And as far as Sharon Angle goes she scares me more than Harry does. The ideas that she has especially about our unemployed being "spoiled" that just tells me she has never been unemployed and had to pay bills like rent, food, gas, and electric on 316 a week. If that makes you spoiled im sorry then I guess i am but come on Sharron get a clue.
Hey at least the AP was smart enough to not copy and past the article like the Review journal does maybe the AP could sue them for copyright violations
"Hey at least the AP was smart enough to not copy and past the article like the Review journal does maybe the AP could sue them for copyright violations"
You seem to have a lack of understanding of what the AP is.
It is not a newspaper but a wire service.
Newspaper pay money to AP to write news articles.
They get to put those AP stories in their newspapers because they pay for them.
I hope you understand now.
poor rock
Go back to your chemical induced world in that camper that uses zero oil products.
"In most of its suits, Righthaven detects the infringement, then obtains a copyright and sues the infringer on a retroactive basis. The suits usually seek damages of $75,000 for a single copyright."
Righthaven is nothing more than a scum sucking, money grubbing business. Lawsuits like these are destroying the legal system.
The legal system has already been destroyed by scum sucking lawyers who are more concerned about the "Game" and less concerned about what is ethical.
72 Hours Later and I am STILL Busting a Gut!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.................
Odd that these off-the-wall things keep battering Angle when any time other than an election year, or done by other than a candidate, they might not even be noteworty.
If Angle is all the worst things said about her, still consider the alternative...Reid! If elected, Angle will have one vote out of 100. She will not be directing the agenda for the Senate, she will not be in a position of power to ignore constituents and arrogantly dictate what's best for the country. If Reid wins, he will continue to be in a position of power regardless of which party controls the Senate. A minority leader can be as devastating as a majority leader. He needs to be gone! The end.
Righthaven was started by, funded by, works only for and has no other clients than the owners of the RJ.
the RJ, after many years of building up an inventory that was well linked, well sourced and posted all over the world, suddenly decides to cry "foul" and sets up the legal firm for the sole purpose of creating profit from frivolous lawsuits
So Internet Brands defense has some legs to stand on.
If the ambulance chasing lawyer had a real practice and had other clients, things would be different. or sued for other purposes.
This is harrassment.
Add to it, the stupidity of suing your sources. that should get them to return your calls for comments again!
I really don't understand this junk suit... Any newspaper "report" affecting a campaign used by another campaign should be boilerplate fair use under the Federal Code.
Lawyers for the LVRJ are disgusting pariahs that should be kicked out of the profession.
It's NOT like either the non-profit Angle campaign or the non-profit Reid campaign is making money from publicizing a newspaper's endorsement or a report slamming the other candidate.
If anything, there's a public interest in republishing information casting an opponent in an unflattering light OR an endorsement of that candidate by the paper that outweighs the newspapers claim of copyright.
Shame on the LVRJ. Also shame on the Democrats and the Reid campaign for making an political issue of this instead of fighting for free speech.
The right to vote is sacrosanct in this country. Information about campaigns and candidates should flow freely without some third-rate shyster trying to shake down those who dare republish newspaper reports on campaigns without tacit permission. Terrible.
So does Angle intend to respond or do we the public have to Reid her mind.
Quoted from SgtRock:
"Reid is contributing traffic to the LVRJ. It lists just enough info to get the person curious to read more so that the user has to click to the LVRJ. There they might bookmark LVRJ and give returning traffic.
I hope Mr. Green can now see that copyright infringement can endanger his wallet on the long run."
------------------------------------
But wouldn't it make a little bit of sense to turn enemies into allies? "Hey cat lady. Continue to post these great LVRJ stories but do so in the correct fashion."
Is this sort of parenting offensive to the LVRJ?
Just as the LVRJ has to look through emails for "permission" notices from the likes of Harry Reid, and then either say Yes or No. It's the same sort of back and forth that would be used when telling websites to LINK properly.
Instead you have ~108 different blogs or websites that have COMPLETELY turned their back away from LVRJ stories. You go from a potential traffic flow of thousands, to NOTHING. In these blogs/websites eyes, the LVRJ doesn't exist. They shall learn from this experience and take that new gained insight to properly link to OTHER peoples work.
Biting off the hand that feeds you makes so much sense. Think 4 steps ahead, like a game of chess, and you'll be okay. Think like Righthaven with the letter of the law in hand and you're looking mighty foolish.
blee44 you make no sense.
Let's take the cat lady.
She copied and pasted the ENTIRE LVRJ story.
So why in the hell would a reader on her blog want to click on a link to a story that they have already read.
What are they dumb readers?
Dumb reader: Huuuuuhhh.....I just read the entire LVRJ story on the cat's lady blog. Duuuuhhhhh.....I am now going to click on the link and re-read the exact same entire story. I am dumb. I like reading stories twice.
That is dumb.
That makes no sense.
Now, if the cat lady did it right. She would have listed two paragraphs, headline, given credit and linked. So the reader would have clicked on the link.
You get it now.
I don't think so.
You head must be thicker than a 2 x 4.
Ok, so I think that Righthaven & the RJ are nothing but a bunch of lowlife extortionists, but this is some FUNNY stuff!!
Obviously A correct reposting of the same article would be stupid. The damage has been done so to speak. A mistake, or as lawyer's put it, a willing infringement was done.
I am talking future articles. Go beyond the present for a moment.
The law states something illegal was done. It's up to the person who was affected to think things through. That's all.
Do I sue and CUT all future ties with this "infringer"? Because after all, they broke the law to begin with and shouldn't be trusted...
Or Do I "give them a warning", become an ally with this website and have all FUTURE stories properly linked.
As I've stated before, I'm sure the advertisers are very happy with this decision. Are they getting a part of the settlements?
Does LVRJ have long term goals here? Long term goals like what the NBA and other organizations realized when they had copyright infringed Videos all over Youtube? Did they get rid of everything? Or was there some inherent benefit behind it all? Did the 150,000 views on A Lebron James video earn the NBA or its advertisers any money at that particular moment? No. Did this popularity translate into increased ticket and merchandise sales? Yes.
The second people stop seeing you, is the moment they forget all about you and move on. The sued bloggers/websites have simply learned the proper method of posting up a story, thanks to LVRJ with the lawsuits, and is LVRJ seeing the benefit of this?? Maybe with the $1500-$5000 dollar settlements. But it's the website articles who now are being shown all over these blogs (ALL PROPERLY LINKED) that are seeing the true long term benefits. These long term benefits, im sure reach far beyond the $1500-5000 dollar mark. We are talking a long term money stream.
I disagree and the Reid's website proves my point.
Reid has a news section. It treats LVRJ news articles differently then the other articles.
For LVRJ, they just list the headline, one sentence, give full credit and give a link.
For all the other sources, they either copied and pasted the whole story or most of it. They still give credit and link, too.
Why are they treating the sources differently? Because they know that one source will defend their copyright by suing them. They know that the rest either don't care or will just send them a letter.
LVRJ wins. They get their stories on the Reid site plus they will get traffic from the Reid.
The other sources will lose. The user will just read the article on Reid's site and there is no need to click the link. The sources lose traffic that they should have gotten like the LVRJ.
So you're saying a website like Reid's will get a C&D letter and ignore it? Or that a letter/email is not threatening enough for the "criminals"? I mean they've already broken the law once, what's stopping them again, right?
You sound very apologetic about them copy and pasting entire articles/50% of the articles, But hey, its all good. They provided a source link?? I thought you said, Wrong is wrong. Ilegal is Illegal? Just because it may not be enforced, they are given a pass to break the law? Great Logic
Go to http://www.harryreid.com/index.php/blog/...
Click on '41 to Angle' LVRJ item. Please note that it does not copy and paste the story but does the credit, one to two sentences and a link to LVRJ which is not copyright infringement.
Then click on the 'A Tea Party takeover?' Las Vegags Sun article. It is either a full copy or a 50% copy of the Sun article which is copyright infringement.
There is no need for the person to click to the Sun site because they can just read the story on the Reid's website.
They have to click to the LVRJ site to read its story.
Reid's site is stealing traffic that should have gone to the Sun.
Reid's site is feeding traffic to the LVRJ site.
Why? Because they don't want to be sued by the Righthaven.
They do not fear the Sun. They know they will not get sue. They don't care if they steal from them.
No wonder the Sun had to layoff so many people. They don't care about people stealing from them.
That's great logic. The majority of these non profit websites that were sued have already switched how they post stories. Thanks to the back handed slap to the face, they have essentially learned their lesson. Righthaven has put the FEAR into everyone.
Why Harry Reid would steal hits is beyond me.
Most of these people who were sued have more logic than that. "Hey the El Paso Times isnt suing anyone, let me steal their article". Actually no. Lesson learned the first time. Thanks RH. Since these people were mostly all non profit groups, they had nothing to gain by posting the stories. One could say that since they didnt mean any harm, why would they WILLINGLY try to harm other newspapers, who have yet to start suing? They simply won't go that route. That to me shows it was all a big misunderstanding.
How you, SgtRock, can commend the actions of Reid to be okay with stealing (since they arent actively protecting it) shows your true character.
A lot of people aren't actively doing a lot of things. Fear isn't needed when you have morals. An old 90 year old can't protect herself or her property, should I aim for the weak when I want to rob someone.
Hi, I am Sharron A$$, Oh, sorry- I mean Angle and I want to be your S-e-n-t A-c-t-or. Oh, I sorry,- I mean Senator. For the dazed, delusional and mentality impaired followers who voted for me, I want to say "Tea you." Oh, I sorry, I mean Thank you.
For the studious Americans who voted for Harry Reid, who beat me in this Election, I want to say:
I knew you would see through my irrational mental state of being a bad S-e-n-t A-C-T-OR. Next time, I will Scare at you harder with my "Charlie Mason" EYES!
Any rational, logical and mentality function human being who votes for Sharron Angel on November 2nd needs to seek psychiatric counseling.
Sharron Angle's VOTING RECORD is something right of "Silence Of The Lambs" and her weird "Charlie Mason" EYES with that empty stare gives me the chills.