Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Sept. 13, 2010 | 5:42 p.m.
Sun archives
- 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)
- 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 Nevada agency that regulates attorneys is looking into a grievance filed against the chief executive officer of Righthaven LLC, the Las Vegas copyright enforcement company that has sued at least 124 individuals and companies in North America since March over unauthorized online postings of Las Vegas Review-Journal stories.
The nature of the grievance hasn’t been disclosed except that someone filed it with the State Bar of Nevada against Righthaven CEO Steven Gibson, a Las Vegas attorney, and that it is related to Righthaven.
The State Bar calls complaints filed against attorneys by citizens or clients "grievances" so they’re not confused with "complaints" the State Bar may file against lawyers.
The grievance under investigation could relate to any number of allegations defense attorneys have made against Righthaven and its procedures — which are unusual for the newspaper industry — of detecting online infringements of Review-Journal material, obtaining copyrights to the infringed material and then suing over the retroactive infringements.
The allegations include suggestions Righthaven is a shakedown operation that hits bloggers, website operators, companies and nonprofits with frivolous lawsuits demanding $75,000 or $150,000 in damages and forfeiture of their domain names — but then quickly offers to settle, knowing costs to hire attorneys to fight the lawsuits are much higher than the proposed settlement amounts of a few thousand dollars.
Influential Righthaven foe the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, has charged Righthaven is "just the latest group of lawyers to try to turn copyright litigation into a business model."
"What these lawyers have in common is that they seek to take advantage of copyright's draconian damages in order to bully Internet users into forking over money," an EFF report this month said.
Some attorneys have complained Righthaven is engaged in "barratry" -- the persistent incitement of litigation or stirring up legal disputes to drive up legal fees — since in many if not most cases it sues before trying to resolve its issues with the defendants out of court. Others have accused Righthaven of "copyright misuse" and of coming to lawsuits with "unclean hands."
Gibson and Righthaven have denied these charges in court papers and Righthaven’s partner in the lawsuit campaign, Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, has said the lawsuits are necessary to stop rampant piracy of online Review-Journal stories, editorials and columns. The rest of the newspaper industry, however, generally asks that infringing material be taken down and/or replaced with links before resorting to litigation.
Stephens Media has participated in the litigation by investing in Righthaven and providing the copyrights at issue in the lawsuits.
A request for comment was placed Monday with Gibson, who besides running Righthaven is the managing partner of the Las Vegas office of the Detroit law firm Dickinson Wright PLLC.
The State Bar, which regulates the practice of law in the state under the direction of the Nevada Supreme Court, confirmed Monday it had received two grievances regarding Gibson and involving Righthaven.
One grievance was filed in June and one was filed in July.
Officials at the State Bar’s Office of Bar Counsel said they dismissed one of the complaints, but wouldn’t say why. A file has been opened on a second complaint, which will be forwarded to a three-member panel for screening for either dismissal or discipline.
"If we feel there’s enough probable cause to look at it further, we open a file," Bar spokesman Phil Pattee said in describing the process of reviewing and investigating grievances.
Opening a file and forwarding it to the screening panel is the standard procedure for cases in which Office of Bar Counsel attorneys feel there is probable cause for further review of the case.
The Office of Bar Counsel will make a recommendation to the screening panel, which meets confidentially. The Office of Bar Counsel has not yet decided what recommendation on Gibson to make to the screening panel, which likely will receive the case in the next few months.
The Office of Bar Counsel will notify Gibson of the grievance under review and he will have a chance to respond to the Office of Bar Counsel before the Office of Bar Counsel makes a recommendation to the screening committee.
If Gibson offers comments to the Office of Bar Counsel, those comments and evidence will be presented to the screening panel.
The screening panel, consisting of two attorneys and one lay person, can either close the case with no discipline or can impose discipline that could range from a "letter of caution" to a private reprimand and a fine of up to $1,000.
If the screening committee feels stiffer discipline is warranted, it can send the issue to a formal hearing panel that consists of four attorneys and one lay person.
Attorneys who are disciplined have the right to respond if a private reprimand is ordered; and are required to file an answer if the issue results in the filing of a complaint and a formal hearing.
Karma can be such a bitch.
I hope they disbar the scumbag.
Wow, a whole $1,000!
Its about time that somebody went after him
"Some attorneys have complained Righthaven is engaged in "barratry"
Some attorneys have said that the moon is made of cheese
Some attorneys have said that egg came before the chicken.
Some attorneys have said that sky is blue.
Wow....I got the same reporting skills as Mr. Green.
I bet that the "same attorneys" would never want their name printed against that "quote" because it is about a 20 on a 1 to 10 silly scale.
I wonder what Steve Green gets from Righthaven... These articles posted are very onesided and he seems to get info very quickly.
Yes like the NSB has any teeth. If it had some cajones they'd have taken on Bob Vannah, Randy Mainor (RIP) and the likes of Bob "that vial gave me hepatitis" Eglet for their relattionships with Howard Awand. Gibson, in my opinion, is a blight on the legal landscape but is a bit player in the corruption of the Nevada court system. I guess we can hope for change....but that's been tried once and we're now living with those results.
The good things for Steve Gibson are: (1) these "grievances" are filed early, before a track record has been established for the Righthaven litigation, (2) these "grievances" could be construed as sour grapes, (3) depending on who filed them, the "grievances" could be construed as improper attempts to affect the outcome of litigation, and (4) these are NOT based on adverse findings by one or more federal judges.
There are some really difficult and important questions raised by the Righthaven business model which the Nevada State Bar is going to have to deal with at some point.
Every single for-profit and even not-for-profit law firm has a business model to bring in more revenue beyon\d expenses via the court the system and lawsuits and settlements.
So if Righthaven gets a sanction for a having a business model for profit.
Then every single law firm in the state will get a sanction for having a business model for profit.
It is a silly argument.
Law firms are in the business to make money.
If you are a local business in LV please consider pulling your advertising from the RJ and send them a clear message that your business don't support extortion.
In a time when our Government, State, Counties and local municipalities are under extreme pressure to get the Ship righted, it makes one wonder what these frivilous lawsuits could be about other than just another way to shake down people with little or no means to pay their bills. If these were truly "Real" "Legitimate" lawsuits these suits would be going to litigation, with depositions, discovery, and eventually to a Mediation or Trial. No they are settled at the backdoor with intimidation, and with the promise not to go after the person(s) and screw up other aspects of their life.
I have no doubt that in about 5-10 years we will find Mr. Gibson picture on the side of an ambulance spouting off another pack of lies.
Mr. Gibson might I suggest that you join the District Attorney's Office or become a Public Defender so that you might learn to become a "Real Attorney" rather than just some scum sucking parasite looking to benefit off of those that you know cannot afford to fight you.
Mr. Gibson your track record as an "Attorney" is shoddy at best. It makes me wonder did you get your JDS from a correspondent school?
One last thing Mr. Gibson when you do take that "real case" not just a rubber stamp on one of your interns briefs please feel free to let me know as I will be representing the opposing side, serving "Pro Bono". Oh yeah "Ambulance Cases" and "shams" don't count. This means we go before a judge. You do know what a "Judge" is Mr Gibson? Right
They should put all the Righthaven folks out of business! In my opinion what they're practicing is EXTORTION!
Going out of Business is to good. They would be allowed to continue under another name. An investigation followed by sanctions and then disbarred would seem more like the appropriate action in this case. Simply because of the total abuse of the Judiciary System and the way that Mr. Gibson handles himself as an "Attorney". And I use that term very loosely and with sarcasm.
BOYCOTT LVRJ !
Here we go again with SgtSuck defending SlimeHaven...
Agrees with SgtRock's analysis. However he omits intangibles like the concept of "good will" and the theory that litigation is a last resort in civil matters. SgtRock would have us believe that there are no court costs associated with the multitude of filings by Righthaven. And that none of those costs will be borne by the taxpayer when in reality it is you and I who indirectly finance Mr. Gibson and the RJ's adventure. The use of the courts as a "de facto" first line of offense is an inappropriate use of judicial resources.
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 5.4, which has been adopted by the Nevada Supreme Court and applies to licensed members of the State Bar of Nevada, including Mr. Gibson, might apply in this case.
MRPC 5.4 governs law firms and associations and the professional independence of a lawyer.
MRPC 5.4 provides:
(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-lawyer (with certain limited exceptions that don't apply in Righthaven's case);
(b) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a non-lawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.
(c) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services.
(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if: (1) a non-lawyer owns any interest therein ..., (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or (3) a non-lawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.
5.4(a) could apply if Gibson, a lawyer, shares his legal fees with a non-lawyer, in this case, the LLC of which he is CEO (Righthaven), or Stephens Media.
It's not clear whether the 'settlements' Righthaven receives would constitute fee sharing where the CEO of the client, Righthaven, is also an attorney and also practices law for profit with a law firm, in this case, the Las Vegas office of the Detroit law firm Dickinson Wright PLLC.
5.4(b) may also fit Righthaven's situation: a lawyer (Gibson) appears to have formed a partnership (Righthaven) with a non-lawyer (Stephens Media, which according to the LV Sun story, if accurate, has 'invested' in Righthaven).
Question is whether the partnership's activities consist of the practice of law?
Clearly the partnership only buys the copyrighted RJ stories for 1 reason -- to sue infringers. However that alone may not constitute the practice of law.
SgtRock;
Question for you? After reading your post do you work for Mr. Gibson? What is your stake in this matter? For someone to defend this firm and their cohorts in this matter would leave my cynical Attorney mind to only one conclusion. You are on the take. So get honest what is your percentage? Or are you the person digging up the stories?
Most every MAJOR Newspaper in this Country invites sharing of the news, blogs and other information. In return the Web sites that do post this information get a link to the website of origination. It is beneficial for the origination site to have a link on someone elses web site. SEO and Rankings are more important than content. You can have the worlds greatest web site but if the site is not optimized or has links it sits in the GUTTER.
So you can rant and rave how right "WrongHaven" is but essentially they are playing Russian Roulette with their own well being.
Please tell me how all these lawsuits are going to benefit anyone but "Mr Gibson". Stevens Media is not going to care when "Las Vegas Enquirer" crashes. It will just be another write off. And there goes a whole another group of people out of work. No it won't happen tomorrow, next week, or even next month. But as revenue decreases so will the quality of the newspaper.
Next question? How come "Wrong-Gibson" hasn't gone after the "NYT" for publishing a blurb on their web site in regards to this ludicrous waste of time and taxpayers money?
Oh yeah I forgot the NYT has "REAL ATTORNEYS". Not only would The LV Enquirer get smacked in Court but would lose every little bit of respect that they THINK they might have had. "Hello this is Steve can I take your order!I heard McDonald's in The Greater Hoboken area is hiring.
Question for Mr Steven Gab(long)son. Were you one of Mr. Gibson's Professors while he was taking correspondent course on his way to getting his Law "Certicate"? Or is it really you are just a lowly paralegal flunky who gets paid to fill in the blanks on the "Jiffy Lube" boiler plates that your flim-flam (aka firm) fills out?
So many questions no answers...................... HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Court House must be filled with all those forms, in triplicate they must have to fill out on OUR DOLLAR!
LarryHPark, I have doubts that you are a lawyer or even a serious person.
I am just an observer.
You made this statement: " If these were truly "Real" "Legitimate" lawsuits these suits would be going to litigation, with depositions, discovery, and eventually to a Mediation or Trial"
I am not sure what area of the law you practice but you seem clueless that most lawsuits never make it to the trial or mediation stage. Most get dismissed or settled.
You also seem to be clueless what the Righthaven lawsuits are about.
Do you believe that it is fair use to copy and paste an entire news article without permission?
I do wish hear your expert legal opinion on that.
"How come "Wrong-Gibson" hasn't gone after the "NYT" for publishing a blurb on their web site in regards to this ludicrous waste of time and taxpayers money? "
Go read DCMA. Read the section on fair use. Use the gray matter between your ears and you will see what the NYT did was fair use as oppose to the people that Righthaven are suing for copyright infringement.
"SgtRock would have us believe that there are no court costs associated with the multitude of filings by Righthaven. And that none of those costs will be borne by the taxpayer when in reality it is you and I who indirectly finance Mr. Gibson and the RJ's adventure."
When you go to civil courts then one has to pay court fees.
Please most of the Righthaven's cases are getting settled out of court.
Also, I have a simple plan to stop all the Righthaven lawsuits.
All we need to do is to stop people from copying and pasting all or a significant parts of LVRJ articles.
Novel idea.....have people stop stealing other people's property. Wow!!!! What a brillant idea!!!
If a person has any ethics then they would never cut and paste work from another website and put it on their own website.
It seems there are a lot unethical people in the world.
Case solved.
Steve Gibson has been fired from every firm he's ever practiced law for.
Somehow he's snookered the LVRJ into this illicit partnership, and convinced the publishers that this is a viable strategy to save their dying business model.
The courts will eventually catch up with Gibson, put Righthaven out of business, and Gibson will likely be disbarred.
It is a shame that in the mean time he is causing so much pain as well as having such a chilling effect on the web.
But every dog has its day, and Gibson will have his.
Gibson is the foremost example of everything that is wrong with our legal system.
Righthaven is wrong.
Copying and pasting other people's work is wrong, too.
Hey Sgt 'Steve Gibson' Rock.
I have a solution as well. It is called the "no right click" script. A few lines of code -- freely available on the internet -- (some people don't mind if you copy/past), the script automatically prevents anyone from easily copying anything from any page on their website.
Even a hack highschool web designer can find the free script on the web. Google it - or tell your buddies at Stephens Media to.
If LVRJ was serious about protecting their content, their IT department could implement it on every page overnight.
The fact that they don't is the clearest indication that they're not interested in protecting their content, but interested in entrapment, then suing and scaring those without resources.
LVRJ didn't mind for 10 years, and suddenly they start suing? Please. It doesn't pass the smell test. This is a racket, pure and simple.
I smell RICO interstate fraud charges and Federal prison time for Steve Gibson if he continues down this reckless course. This is going to backfire badly in his face. Righthaven and LVRJ are both wrong, and they will pay dearly for their breathtaking miscalculation.
Righthaven is wrong.
If the LV Regurgitate-Urinal was serious about copyright protection they would either a) make their web site a subscription only with copy function disabled or b) put up one page on the 'net with headlines only and a note to buy the paper version of their rag for the complete story.
While neither method would be a sure-fire way to prevent copyright infringement, it would at least prove to the world they were trying to be proactive in protecting their material.
Meanwhile, boycott LVRJ and all their advertisers!
Righthaven:
Definition
Right - in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
Haven - 1. A harbor or anchorage; a port.
2. A place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary.
Well folks I guess we can come to our own conclusion as defined by Webster.
"Steve Gibson, according to several Las Vegas Attornies, has been "working on" developing Righthaven for years. Why? As it is understood from those who practice in intellectual property, it is because there's an automatic attorney's fee provision in the copyright statutes. So, Steve Gibson has become a "douchebag", a pariah, bottom feeder and a stain on the profession, but he will also become very wealthy for doing very little. There's lots of other professions that should be culled because their members take care of themselves and their pocket books at the expense of the greater community. Other intellectual property attorneys in Las Vegas say that Steve Gibson has been a total "douchebag" even before he concocted Righthaven. So, if you want to stop these "nuisance" law suits (and that is truly what they are), and keep the likes of Steve Gibson from lining their wallets, petition your federal delegation to update the copyright statutes to: 1) mandate a "take down" letter before any lawsuit can be filed, with penalties attached to plaintiffs who file before doing so; and 2) delete the automatic entitlement to attorney's fees. In the meantime, quit cutting and pasting and you will prevent Steve Gibson from earning additional money to get rid of that second chin. ................
Sgt rock. When you get out of your Paralegal office and start putting case law to paper rather than just blurbs you catch in between coffee breaks then I would be happy to meet with you. I could probably even learn a thing from you as you are so versed in the law. Thank You
I seems to me that cutting and pasting work that belongs to someone else because you are to lazy to come up with your own story, is no different than turning in a term paper that you did not write. The penalty for turning in that term paper: you get kicked out of school. Why should it be any different in the real world.
I can see that LarryHParkers likes to ask questions but is very afraid to answer questions.
But at least Larry gives give advice: " In the meantime, quit cutting and pasting "
If people had ethics then they would not cut and paste other people's work.
If people did not cut and paste other people's work then Righthaven would go out of business.
Be ethical. Stop stealing. End of story.
Hey Sgt Rock, aka Steve Gibson -
You didn't answer my question.
If LVRJ / Righthaven is so interested in "protecting" their content, why not install an exceedingly, disgustingly simple (not to mention free) right-click protect code on their sites?
Takes 30 seconds, protects the whole site. That would stop the cutting & pasting.
Google it: "Right click protect." If Steve Gibson weren't so busy suing people, maybe he'd have time to do just that.
But we know he doesn't want a solution. Why? As you said, if LVRJ actually did protect their content, Righthaven would go out of business. And LVRJ can't have that - because that is their only hope of income, as they pathetically cling to a dying business model.
Sad, sad, sad.
Be ethical. Protect your content, Steve. Don't rely on entrapment as a "business model."
Righthaven is wrong.
Steve Gibson - your problem has been solved!
"Have you ever worked really hard on graphics for your site only to find later that someone has stolen them as their own. You can fully encrypt and protect your site with HTML-Protector and the scripts below will help against novices.
"Use the script below so when someone right clicks to save an image off your page, a message will come up letting people know that your information is copyrighted.
"This script only works on newer browsers, and it's not foolproof. If someone really wants something from your page they can find ways around it, but at least it's a warning to people who want to take your graphics. Copy and paste the following code, and make sure it comes right after your <HEAD> tag..."
http://www.hypergurl.com/norightclick.ht...
Give me a break Gibson. Your solution is right here, on the internet, free. Your business model is crap. You rely on the state, which means you're being funded by taxpayers.
You will be disbarred and in the Federal pen before this is over, strung up on RICO charges and interstate fraud.
You've been working on this for "years?" You should have saved yourself the time and gotten an honest job.
SgtRock. Questions? Do I find it right to cut and paste?
1) It is COPY AND PASTE.
Up until "Sir sue alot" came along, there had always been an implied agreement that if someone "STOLE", (your words) by copying and pasting an article, with full credit, and link, that unless the Author or Publisher found it harmful it was fine. The Article or work that was being copied provided a link and only helped the site from which it was copied from. If the publisher found it to be harmful in their opinion, a cease and desist letter would be sent and the content in question would be removed almost always.
2) YOU ARE CORRECT THAT A NUMBER OF CASES DO NOT MAKE IT PAST THE CONFERENCE ROOM. However in these cases there should not even be any filings!
3) If The "Enquirer" is so worried about there content being copied, then they can simply install a small piece of cheap software making it impossible for no one to COPY AND PASTE. There is plenty of "Freeware" out there to facilitate this. Another preventive measure post one of "SIR SUES A LOTS" BOILER PLATES, just like a FULL PAGE ADVERTISEMENT warning people of the consequences of their actions.
However that would go against Wrongdangers Business Plan. Wouldn't it?
Part 2
SGT rock.
Now Rock be real you are not fully versed in the DMCA.Now are you? When the DMCA was drafted and then passed, it was done mainly to protect the Entertainment Industry. Not the print media or the media period.
Not that I should even take the time to respond to this but I will.
You seem to think that I am not serious about this matter. You couldn't be any further from the truth. I find it a very serious abuse of the judicial system when these TYPE of suits continue and in the matter that they continue. What is the number at now? 1 suit okay. 2 alright. but 124 and counting. When that pewk of a Newspaper you continually defend does nothing, NOTHING, to post any warnings or comments about the consequences of COPYING AND PASTING! that is abuse. What is worse it can take several months before the troll even finds the post, then copyrights it after the fact, and in 99% of the cases is only a couple of paragraphs and gives full credit back to the "PEWK".
So now I believe I have answered YOUR QUESTIONS. Now answer mine. What is the purpose of these suits? Other than the attempted fleecing of others. Do you think that the Plantiff and all other implied parties could start taking some type of pro action to put an end to this daytime drama? Why haven't they taken any action to stop this "alleged theft". A jewelry store gets robbed they install security, correct? They just don't leave the doors open during non business hours for all to pilfer. The "pewk" supposedy gets robbed, not only do they not install security, they take the doors off the building inviting people in.
So why doesn't that waste of trees, ink and landfill, take some type of action to prevent this from further happening? Reason. Why should we when we can continue make money off people. Their supposed Business Plan directly relies on the fact that people won't know what is going on. They are counting on and encouraging people to not know and not having the time to read 10 volumes of West Law just to get a taste of what it really is.
In conclusion;
1.Cease and desist on these frivilous lawsuits and abuse of the legal system.
2.Take action to prevent people from doing what YOU AND WHIP LASH LOUIE, want them to keep on doing.
3.Finally have someone from one of those entities hold a forum to explain themselves and allow for a question and answer period.
Rules: The speaker needs to be brutally honest. The Forum cannot be staged or with "Ringers" (AKA Tiger W.)
Rock, I hope this answers all your questions. Now for the TEN Cent question? Are you going to answer my questions and inquiries? No political spins either. Your not good at it. Stick to your day job. I am waiting with bated breath.
SgtRock;
I have another question. What is your stance when a person post part of an article from "The Pewk", gives a link, just like in most other cases and it is posted on a web site such as Facebook?
My assumption is that since Face book has more cash on hand nothing would happen. JMO
You application of the concept of "implied agreement that if someone "STOLE", " is funny.
So if everyday over a year I went into your garage without permission and took something then according to you one day I can come over and steal your car and claim it was an implied agreement.
Your point 2 makes no sense.
Your point 3 is silly, too. So I own a convenience store, according you I would need to put my candy behind lock and key and hire a security guard to watch over them. Overwise, according to you, everybody will have the legal right to steal the candy because I did not do enough to protect it.
"What is your stance when a person post part of an article from "The Pewk", gives a link, just like in most other cases and it is posted on a web site such as Facebook? "
This again demostrates your lack of knowledge of DMCA. Most likely FaceBook is registered with the US Copyright office. So when a FaceBook user posts copyright material then FaceBook is in a Safe Harbor. That Safe Harbor requires the owner of the copyright office to send a take-down notice to FaceBook. Any website can get Safe Harbor status to protect itself from harm from users who post. The main step is to register with the US Copyright office.
You really should not be making comments on stuff you are almost totally clueless on. It makes you look silly.
I again seriously doubt you are a lawyer.
Sgt "Steve Gibson" Rock -
You are not so artfully dodging my points:
1) Why doesn't LVRJ take a simple, painless step to protect its content? Right Click Protect it. Obviously, LVRJ / Righthaven have no interest in protecting it. It is more profitable to sue. But that is a pathetic business model.
2)"So if everyday over a year I went into your garage without permission and took something then according to you one day I can come over and steal your car and claim it was an implied agreement."
Copying is not stealing. When you steal something, it is not available to use by the owner. It is gone.
If something is copied, the original remains, undisturbed. This is the difference between rival and non-rival goods. The things in your garage are rival goods. If someone took something from your garage, you have actually lost it, as you cannot use it. Articles on the LVRJ website are 'non-rival.' The fact that someone copied it does not prevent it from being read on the LVRJ site.
You're the one making dumb arguments here.
Righthaven is wrong.
I am not even going to pretend that you know one single thing about copyright law.
Let's say you spend 3 years writing a book and you left in your dining room table.
I see it and pick it up go to the library copy it and bring it back.
I then sell it to a publisher for $1 million.
You would be perfectly fine with that because in your goofy world of ethics that would not be stealing for 2 reasons.
Reason 1: You did not do not enough to protect your property. OMG....you do not lock in a safe. Why did not you lock it a safe?????? Why? Why? Why? LOL
Reason 2: Since you have the original then I did not steal it.
Sgt Steve Gibson Rock,
I can tell you're a lawyer by your ridiculous and intentional conflation of unrealistic hypotheticals.
1) If you break into my house and steal a physical object, that is theft. The fact that it is in my house means that I'm taking reasonable steps to protect my property.
LVRJ doesn't even take the most basic step to protect its content, because it *wants* people to copy it. I think we can all acknowledge this reality. LVRJ / Righthaven have made the theft of their "property" the cornerstone of its new, pathetic business model.
2) "I then sell it to a publisher for $1 million." No one is selling LVRJ's pathetic commodity content for $1 million. They're making links available for content that is freely available.
Enough of the outdated analogies. This is a new world, one in which LVRJ / Righthaven do not understand and are woefully out of touch with, and that will be their undoing.
There are a million places to go for online news. If LVRJ persists in suing and alienating its visitors, it will find itself with fewer and fewer visitors, friends and revenue.
Pathetic, and pathetic that you do not understand it.
Righthaven is wrong.
So going back to the theft analogy. If someone steals something from a store and tosses it in your front yard, should you be sued?
Someone else stole it.
Someone else put it in your yard.
Wouldn't you want the thief to be sued instead of you?
And when you do get sued, the person suing you tells you that you needed to walk your 100 acre property everyday looking for stolen items and since you did not do that, you are at fault.
That is what you are doing to forum owners that had 3rd parties dump your crap in the forums.
The spirit of the DMCA would cause normal people to notify the forum owner, but you have found a loophole that you are exploiting to line your pockets with money. Disgusting....
Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about when dealing with DMCA.
It is very specific with zero fuzziness.
If a website staff or owner copies and pastes significant parts of copyright material there is no defense and there is no requirement for the thieves to receive notice.
If a causal user post copyright material then the owner of the website needs to register with the US copyright office to get protection in a safe harbor and then one has to give the website owner a notice.
For small websites, they should review the posts before allowing it to post to the site.
The "spirit" of the law can't conflict the the black letter of the law.