Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Sept. 20, 2010 | 1:50 a.m.
Sun archives
- 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)
- 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)
Even as Las Vegas online copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC continues to file new lawsuits, work appears to be piling up for its attorneys as additional defendants retain law firms to either fight back in court or represent them in settlement talks.
In what could be a showdown over Righthaven's lawsuit campaign, two attorneys for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation have signed on to represent the Democratic Underground LLC in one of the high-profile Righthaven lawsuits.
Righthaven is a Las Vegas company that detects online infringements to Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, obtains copyrights to those stories and then sues over the retroactive infringements. At least 129 copyright infringement lawsuits had been filed through Friday. The owner of the Review-Journal has participated in the lawsuits by investing in Righthaven and providing it the copyrights at issue.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been critical of Righthaven's legal tactics, including its common procedure of suing before contacting website owners to ask or demand that infringing material be taken down and/or be replaced with links as most newspapers do.
The EFF -- an influential freedom of speech and online privacy advocate -- has called Righthaven "just the latest group of lawyers to try to turn copyright litigation into a business model."
An EFF report this month said that Righthaven's lawsuits are "targeting news" and that its suits "could have a chilling effect on individuals' attempts to engage their communities in free and open discussion."
Righthaven and the Review-Journal, however, maintain the lawsuits are necessary to stop the theft of copyrighted Review-Journal material and this policy was spelled out in a blog by Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick on May 28.
The EFF, though, is now committing its own legal resources to the Democratic Underground case filed Aug. 10.
The EFF has also been referring Righthaven defendants to outside attorneys -- some of whom may represent Righthaven defendants on a "pro bono," or free basis, as a public service.
In the Democratic Underground case, EFF attorneys Kurt Opsahl and Corynne McSherry will represent the group along with its local Las Vegas counsel, Chad Bowers of the Law Office of Chad A. Bowers Ltd.
These attorneys haven't yet filed an answer to Righthaven's Aug. 8 lawsuit, but plan to do so by Sept. 27.
Among the Righthaven lawsuits, the Democratic Underground case has generated more than the usual amount of interest because the defendant is a large and well-known political and news discussion site.
In addition, Democratic Underground users have criticized Righthaven because of four elements in the case raising liability and fair use issues: The story at issue involving Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle allegedly was posted not by the Democratic Underground webmaster but by a third-party message-board user; just four paragraphs of the 34-paragraph Review-Journal story were posted, the Review-Journal was fully credited in the post and there was a link from the post to the Review-Journal website.
Separately involving Righthaven, one of the higher-profile defendants, the Idaho-based Armed Citizen, has now retained the Las Vegas office of Lewis and Roca LLP to represent it.
Another gun-rights group, the Second Amendment Sisters Inc., is also newly represented by Lewis and Roca.
Another law firm in Las Vegas, Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux, is now representing the Center for Intercultural Organizing of Portland, Ore., in a suit filed by Righthaven.
In court papers filed Aug. 30, attorneys for that firm James Olson and Michael Stoberski sought dismissal of the Righthaven case, saying Righthaven didn't own the copyright to the story at issue at the time of the alleged infringement and that the Oregon group is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Nevada court since the Center for Intercultural Organizing doesn't do business in Nevada.
However, the defense attorneys later withdrew portions of their arguments after a judge in another Righthaven case ruled that out-of-state alleged "willful infringers" of Review-Journal material automatically are subject to the jurisdiction of the Review-Journal's home state court.
In addition, at least two of the Las Vegas federal judges handling Righthaven cases have -- for purposes of denying dismissal motions -- upheld Righthaven's right to sue for infringements that occurred prior to it obtaining the copyrights at issue.
Not all of the Righthaven lawsuits are being contested by attorneys.
Fred Pruitt of Baltimore, who has a website called www.rantburg.com, was sued after a website user "Beavis" allegedly posted to the site a July 9 Review-Journal editorial about President Obama visiting Las Vegas.
Pruitt has a website called www.bottomfeeder.org that solicits donations to help in his defense.
Pruitt said in his response to the lawsuit that the editorial was posted by a third party "in contravention of the defendant's regularly-posted guidelines."
Pruitt wrote that after the editorial was posted -- but before he was sued on Aug. 9 -- he became aware of Righthaven because of a wired.com article about Righthaven and took steps to advise website users on July 23 and July 24 not to post Review-Journal material on the site.
"Any damages to the plaintiff, who purchased copyright to the (editorial) a full 18 days after its publication, must be less than negligible," Pruitt wrote in his response.
"Plaintiffs have filed as of the date of their complaint against the defendant approximately 93 lawsuits (129 through Sept. 17), each similarly-worded, each containing the same allegations of irreparable harm and demands for relief. The plaintiffs are operating a lawsuit mill forcing individuals and small groups going innocently about their avocations into expensive and time-consuming litigation of frivolous suits at a remote location and thus lack clean hands in the matter," he wrote.
Separately, Righthaven on Friday filed at least its 129th lawsuit in federal court in Las Vegas, this one naming as defendants Ralph R. Roberts and Ralph Roberts Realty LLC in Washington Township, Mich.
They're accused of displaying on Roberts' website www.flippingfrenzy.com a July 28 Review-Journal story about a Las Vegas homebuilder indicted in a mortgage fraud case.
As in all recent Righthaven cases, the lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages and forfeiture of the flippingfrenzy.com website domain name to Righthaven.
Court records and a look at the website on Sunday showed the Review-Journal's reporter received credit for the story on the flippingfrenzy site -- but the Review-Journal did not. There also was no link from the flippingfrenzy post to the Review-Journal website. A request for comment was left with the defendant.
All EFF will do is to solidify all of Righthaven's cases and make the lawsuits even more financial rewarding to Righthaven.
Democratic Underground might have to end up paying $75,000 to Righthaven at the end of the day.
The law is very clear and black and white.
Righthaven has a solid case. They will win. The only question is how much will they get.
EFF's only chance is to challenge the constitutionality of the law. So far, they have not made such a argument.
The Sun repeating nonsense that has no legal standing from defendent's briefings is poor journalism.
Change your name to LawyerRock....
Sgt "Steve Gibson" Rock:
In answer to your question, 'how much will they get?' They will certainly not get $75,000. That is ridiculous. They certainly won't get the Democratic Underground's domain. That is a laughable scare tactic.
Righthaven is using a Xerox machine to file their suits. The DU suit is so full of sloppy, irrelevant law and false claims that this is what Righthaven will get:
- Dismissal of the case
- A bill for all legal charges
- Countercharges of Federal fraud, extortion and racketeering
- Disbarment for Steve Gibson
- Bankruptcy and dissolution for Righthaven
- Irreparable loss of reputation for the faux-conservative LVRJ
The law on Fair Use is not black and white. But it most certainly covers *4* (four!) paragraphs of an article not uploaded by the Webmaster, given full credit to the copyright holder, and a link back to the original.
If the DU webmaster didn't upload it, then Righthaven is suing the wrong party.
Three cheers for the Sun for actually reporting news while the copyright trolling faux-conservative LVRJ attempts to partner with the State for a corporate welfare handout in a pathetic last gasp attempt to save their dying business model.
Righthaven will lose, because Righthaven is wrong.
@logic_should_rule:
He should change his name to 'Steve Gibson'
Chunky says:
The more Defendants who attack and fight back against Righthaven the less likely they'll be to attack without warning.
Our legal system needs to weed this kind of law firm and it's lawyers out of the business!
That's what Chunky thinks!
I'm curious. The article says that Righthaven "obtains" the copyright to the stories. Does the RJ retain rights? If not, wouldn't Righthaven have to sue the RJ if RJ stories for which Righthaven has the copyright get posted on the RJ message boards?
Anyie, how much do you want to bet that the case gets dismissed? Put your money where your mouth is.
"The law on Fair Use is not black and white. But it most certainly covers *4* (four!) paragraphs of an article not uploaded by the Webmaster, given full credit to the copyright holder, and a link back to the original."
DMCA is very clear.
If one copies and pastes all or a singificant portion of another's work then that is not fair use and is copyright infringement.
It is very clear on the topic of casual users. Websites need to register to get Safe Harbor status. That means paying a fee and registering with the US Copyright Office.
Smaller websites should pre-screen postings.
The copyright law in these cases is very black and white with tons of case rulings to back them up.
EFF has a mighty hill to climb. They will cause Democratic Underground to pay out more in damages then what they could have settled for. Plus it will send out a message to all the people that steal copyright material.
Thanks EFF for expending the resources although the Democratic Underground will pay a price.
Aynnie...
You're pretty bright;
And I PRAY you are right!
This whole RJ/Righthaven business is ROTTON TO THE CORE.
Steve Gibson, aka Sgt. Rock
Put my money where my mouth is? Sure. I know you already are, with Righthaven.
"If one copies and pastes all or a singificant portion of another's work then that is not fair use and is copyright infringement."
This is the problem, and as I said, Righthaven is being sloppy - very sloppy, because they're lazy and they think the Xerox machine is their money printing press. You are just as sloppy.
In the DU case, an outside poster copied 4 (four!) paragraphs of an article that is 34 paragraphs! Is that "all?" No. Is that a "significant portion?" No.
Epic Fail for both you and Righthaven. Look at the case before you go spouting off.
The EFF is not dumb. They looked at all of these cases before picking one they know, not only they will win, but that will set a precedent to destroy Righthaven.
LVRJ and Righthaven have overplayed their hands. It will be death by a thousand cuts as the small players settle for $1000 or less, and the knockout blow will come when the well-funded defendants strike back, and draw these cases out.
Righthaven doesn't have a chance for a simple reason:
Righthaven is wrong.
Look at the Sun archives to the right of the story for evidence. Even in the article, both liberal sites (DU) and conservative ones (2nd Amendment Sisters) are sued; there is no rhyme nor reason for this except to cash in on a legal loophole.
Boycott RJ. Throw away their papers whenever you see them in stores/coffee shops.
The EFF would not take a case they could not win. This puts a little twist into Rock's panties. I don't think Mr. Rock is Gibson, I think he's a nutty kook named Sherman. It used to be that only Reid wanted you to go out of biz Sherm. Now the entire Internet does. I treasure the day your rants turn into squeals like that of a scared pig.
SgtShermanRock, if your own miserable rag wouldn't censor all posts related to your SlimeHaven ambulance chasing, you wouldn't have to come here with your rants.
Cash grabbing, abusing the legal system and bullying small message board operators is nothing to be proud of.
But, but, but... Mr. Kooky went live on TV after the famous Reid comment and said, "We won't allow you to bully us!" I guess when one can't handle being bullied, you turn yourself into a bigger one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKRX0jmT...
"Boycott RJ. Throw away their papers whenever you see them in stores/coffee shops."
You do know that hurts the Sun, too.
One way to look at this is that Righthaven is stimulating the local economy. Everyone has to come to Las Vegas to respond to lawsuits and hire local lawyers to do it. The visitors use hotel rooms and consume meals and the local lawyers are better able to support local upscale eateries and buy expensive clothes and cars. This provides increased sales tax revenues and jobs. Look at this as our own local stimulus. Perhaps the LVVCA should consider giving up persuading people to come here for fun and business and sue in our local Federal Courts just like Righthaven has.