Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Sept. 8, 2010 | 9:22 a.m.
Related Documents (.pdf)
Sun archives
- 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)
- 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)
Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC's legal action against Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle is bringing wider attention to the company's online copyright infringement lawsuit campaign.
Righthaven since March has filed 117 copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court in Las Vegas against bloggers and website operators throughout North America.
One observer noted that by suing Angle on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day, Righthaven may have been hoping to limit media attention to the case.
If that was the strategy, it's unclear if it worked, as the story was picked up by The Associated Press, was covered by Politico.com and was mentioned on the Fox News Channel. Righthaven was also covered, apparently for the first time, by the Washington Post.
A Post writer noted: "I don't know how common it is for print or web publications to police copyright in the manner this journal is using (via a third-party entity)."
The answer, according to media and legal observers, is that Righthaven's arrangement with the Las Vegas Review-Journal is unusual. Righthaven finds online infringements of Review-Journal stories, columns and editorials; obtains copyrights to that material from the Review-Journal and then files lawsuits over the retroactive online infringements.
The observers also say the Review-Journal/Righthaven practice of suing before asking that infringing material be taken down is unprecedented in recent U.S. newspaper industry history.
The usual procedure in the newspaper industry is that when a newspaper objects to the use of its content online, it asks or demands that the material be taken down. Sometimes infringers are asked to replace the material with links.
"Because damages in copyright lawsuits can run as high as $150,000 for willful infringement even when no actual damages are proved, the suits could prompt some targets to settle — providing a stream of revenue for Righthaven, the Review-Journal and the newspaper's owner, Stephens Media. Notwithstanding that possibility, most news publishers have opted against the mass-lawsuit tactic, fearing that any revenue it could bring in or traffic it could drive would come at the expense of alienating readers," Politico.com's Josh Gerstein wrote in a blog.
Other observers weighed in on several aspects of the case:
• Kate James, writing at gather.com called the Righthaven lawsuits a good thing.
"Many bloggers and journalists are happy that Righthaven is partnering with publishing groups to help crack down on copyright infringement throughout the United States. If Angle has to pay and give up her domain name, this could be a problem for her campaign. Hopefully this is the beginning of tougher standards for Internet copyright infringement rules," she wrote.
• Others asked if the Review-Journal, which has invested in Righthaven, had Righthaven sue Angle so the Review-Journal couldn't be accused of providing an unreported in-kind campaign donation to Angle in the form of a tolerated copyright infringement.
That issue was raised earlier this year when Righthaven and the Review-Journal didn't sue Danny Tarkanian, who had posted Review-Journal stories on his website and whom Angle defeated in the Republican primary.
"I've heard this argument before (that failure to pursue a copyright infringement equals an in-kind campaign contribution) but I have never put much stock in it," Eric Goldman, associate professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law and director of the High Tech Law Institute there, told the Las Vegas Sun.
• Some asked if Righthaven had to sue Angle so as not to jeopardize existing cases -- or to be consistent in suing all known copyright infringers. Not likely, one attorney said, noting each lawsuit is ultimately judged on the facts specific to that case.
• Mike Masnick, writing at techdirt.com, noted the irony in that Angle earlier this year demanded Democrats take down a website she said infringed on her own copyrights.
"So, it's not as if Angle is any sort of champion for smarter copyright lawsuits," Masnick wrote. "I've seen some people think that, because of this lawsuit by Righthaven, if she gets elected, perhaps she'll speak up for better copyright laws, but that seems unlikely. Still, it is somewhat ironic that she was claiming copyright infringement by (Sen. Harry) Reid, while at the very same time, taking chunks of the Las Vegas Review-Journal -- especially since Righthaven's lawsuits were already ongoing at that point."
"Still, with a lawsuit against someone so high profile, perhaps it will get more people paying attention to just how ridiculous Righthaven's lawsuits have become," Masnick wrote.
• Another frequent Righthaven critic, Wendy Davis at MediaPost.com, argued that while the Review-Journal has argued the copyright lawsuits are necessary to protect newspapers' revenue, Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick "has yet to offer any evidence showing that newspapers have lost revenue due to the alleged piracy."
• Evan Brown, a technology and intellectual property attorney in Chicago, on his Internet Cases blog likened the Righthaven litigation to "spamigation" -- defined as lawsuits filed in bulk to intimidate large numbers of people into settling.
Brown was particularly critical of Righthaven's standard lawsuit demand that Angle's website domain name be forfeited and transferred to the control of Righthaven.
"Say what?" Brown wrote, saying this demand "demonstrates a plaintiff mindset that is over the top on just about any reasonable scale."
Brown wrote there's no basis in the federal Copyright Act for a plaintiff to obtain a defendant's domain name and suggested Righthaven's tactics are "silly" and "in some cases uncalled-for."
Righthaven CEO Steven Gibson, a Las Vegas attorney, has said defendants' website domain names are an asset that Righthaven could seize should the defendant refuse to stop infringing or lack financial resources to pay a judgment.
Critics, though, have said the threat that domain names be forfeited is part of Righthaven's tactic of pressuring website operators and bloggers to settle the Righthaven suits.
• Goldman noted the lawsuit against Angle illustrates that people who should know better are finding themselves caught up in copyright litigation.
"A surprising number of political candidates have been sued for using third-party copyrighted material as part of their campaigns," Goldman said, noting Don Henley of the Eagles sued California Senate candidate Chuck DeVore for using the songs "Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants To Do Is Dance" and that Jackson Browne sued Arizona Sen. John McCain over use of the song "Running on Empty."
"I always find a certain irony when our lawmakers -- who we entrust with the power to set the rules for our society -- struggle with understanding the boundaries of copyright law. If they can't figure it out, how are ordinary citizens supposed to figure it out?" Goldman said.
Down with RJ. Boycotted for life.
she was for it until she was against it. Flop flop. flip flop. Just like she and her husband feed off the public trough and she rails agains "government." In today's RJ someone wrote a letter saying they wouldn't vote for Harry because he was a "career" politician. Of course, Sharron is too since this isn't the first office she has occupied [and was paid to occupy...no altruism in her bones.]
The RJ is a joke and an embarrassment to the residents of Las Vegas! lol
I dont give a toot about sharon angle, but I can tell you I will never read the review journal ever again. I also refuse to go to their website and give them unique visits since that also increases the amount they can earn from advertisers. RJ is dead to me and has been for some time.
If they wanted to limit the news coverage, they shouldn't have done it at all. They settle these cases for a few thousand dollars. How could they expect to come out ahead on something like this?
The RJ should be embarrassed to have some of the crap they print reprinted.
gbig
Are you funded directly by Koch Industries or just the Koch brothers. Or, do you even know who they are. They control the Tea Party, started it, run training sessions to train idiots like yourself to complain etc...The Tea Party is really two brothers, owners of Koch Industries, trying to influence American politics to fit their own agenda. The U of Mass called them one of the top 10 air polluters in the U.S. By the way, they make Dixie cups, Brawny Paper towels, own Georgia Pacific, Stainmaster, Lycra and other companies and brands. Look it up...google Koch Tea party or Koch brothers.
By the way, their father made their fortune dealing with Stain way back in 1930's. They made their money the old-fashioned way--by catering to communists.
Chilling effect on Free Speech and the First Amendment. These actions will also have a chilling effect on advertisers, readers and the future value of the Review Journal, in my opinion. Angle doesn't matter, nor to the individual cases, really. What matters is the uncivilized and almost unparalled way in which Frederick and minions attacked this issue.
gbigs,
You have no credibility and are not swaying anyone with the nonsense you post, at least no one who isn't already as delusional as you are. So, why are you doing it?
Sounds to me, like the RJ. is in league with Fox news, they promote nothing but senseless human beings willing to complain about the most senseless and smaller lame brained Items in the Country, It's all about convincing these simple people to jump on the bandwagon and start hollering and jumping up and down, see how many will pay attention.........
gbigs, way to stay on point and comment on the article.
BTW, we're at 40 million jobless because we haven't reached you yet. Once we get you, we'll let companies start hiring again.
Woody3733: "Are you funded directly by Koch Industries or just the Koch brothers." Interesting observation. A recent issue of the New Yorker had a huge article on these wealthy clowns.
gbigs,
Hard to take anything you say seriously since you can never post on topic.
Good luck to you with what ever it is you are trying to do .
Angle might need you after election day, teach her how to post off topic for fun and profit.
The RJ is going down the tubes, just as Paris Hilton is. Coke is bad for business and her sponsors and companies she endorses are going to distance themselves from her. Paris 'the purse isn't mine, but everything in it is except the coke' Hilton.
I don't think the RJ is "going down the tubes." I think it's just destined to remain a political conduit and vehicle for vindictivness for its owner and publisher, as well as to remain in a position of journalism that is well below mediocrity.
Either one day some reporters will stand up to their bosses and tell them these lawsuits are wrong and detriment to the paper; or it'll get bought and current management will fade away.
We deserve better in Las Vegas and I thank Mr. Greenspun for continuing online, the future of journalism anyway.
We all know the song..."She got Betty Davis eyes." Well, the truth is, Sharron Angle has..."Charlie Mason's" EYES.
What is up with that weird blank stare? If the EYES are the window to the soul, I am scared to death of Angle. She is one serious mental patient.
The is not a political issue: It's an issue of precipitous and egregrious action, as well as abuse of the law on the part of Sherm Frederick and his second rate newspaper.
You have to ask yourself;
Does the ELEVATOR go all the way to the top over @ the RJ???
I think the boys thought they could pull this off
and make a few extra bucks on the side...
which says VOLUMES about the parties involved.
Absolutely no self-respect and dignity.
It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
this type of suing for copyright infringement is actually quite common, and a growing problem, in the technology world. law firms buy up patents they believe are being infringed upon then sue for damages. paul allen, co-founder of microsoft, claims patents on pretty much the entire internet through his research firm despite the fact the technology he's suing over has been in widespread use for nearly a decade prompting the question as to why he's waited until now to sue.nearly all such cases are settled out of court leading many to believe it's simply a revenue stream, as was mentioned in this article.
the fact that the rj is using an outside firm--which seems dedicated solely to this purpose--leads me to believe the case is the same here. the rj (more like their parent company) see a chance to bring in a few bucks under the guise of copyright infringement. their aggressive, unorthodox tactics bely the copyright claim.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
http://vimeo.com/14425309
Woody: I read your rant against bigsie. "Are you funded directly by Koch Industries or just the Koch brothers. Or, do you even know who they are. They control the Tea Party, started it, run training sessions to train idiots like yourself to complain etc...The Tea Party is really two brothers, owners of Koch Industries, trying to influence American politics to fit their own agenda. The U of Mass called them one of the top 10 air polluters in the U.S. By the way, they make Dixie cups, Brawny Paper towels, own Georgia Pacific, Stainmaster, Lycra and other companies and brands. Look it up...google Koch Tea party or Koch brothers.
By the way, their father made their fortune dealing with Stain way back in 1930's. They made their money the old-fashioned way--by catering to communists."
You spelled Stalin wrong. Carry on.
Another reason I'm reading the Sun instead of the LVRJ.
If you can share news articles on Facebook you can share it with your blog watchers.
A newspaper could GIVE away their papers with all the revenue they make from advertising, yet you have to pay. The Review Journal are a bunch of nickel stealing rectal orifices bullying a woman because of political bias and calling it an ad loss issue? Bully Bully Bully with a lawyer bully!
A blog is like talking to your hairdresser, but electronically. If you have a following (like the girls in the corner having their nails done) you have the freedom to discuss published works from what you saw on YouTube to the latest novel you read or advice from the happy nature blog on how to alleviate menstrual cramps naturally or even share some RJ news. Heck they did that sort of thing in Mayberry at Floyds Barber Shop. It is the American Way baby! Blogging is networking and electronic communication amongst your peers/followers.
They will be forcing the world to go back to private bulletin boards where anything can go between ONE phone line. Or maybe privatizing websites with members only.
As long as you link the source, you are actually providing another avenue for traffic. A lot of stuff on the internet takes so long to search and if you find it and share it that means x amount more people find it and share it and it becomes viral...duh. To share is to honor and NOT steal.
Bully Bully Bully with lawyers.