Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Sept. 20, 2010 | 11:39 a.m.
Sun archives
- Defendants fight back against Righthaven copyright lawsuits (9-20-2010)
- Copyright lawsuit filed against group fighting Pahrump prison (9-15-2010)
- Righthaven settles 2 lawsuits over R-J story copyrights (9-13-2010)
- Another company fights back against copyright lawsuit (9-11-2010)
- Quick settlement reached in copyright lawsuit against PR company (9-10-2010)
- Texas woman emerges as vocal critic of copyright lawsuit firm (9-9-2010)
- Righthaven CEO defends company during roundtable discussion (9-9-2010)
- Copyright lawsuits filed against U.S. Marijuana Party, dating website (9-9-2010)
- Righthaven’s suit against Sharron Angle draws increased attention (9-8-2010)
- Defendant accuses Righthaven of misusing legal system (9-5-2010)
- Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit (9-3-2010)
- Righthaven wins key ruling as new criticism leveled over suits (9-3-2010)
- Righthaven sues D.C.-based group over R-J editorial posting (9-2-2010)
- PR firm Kirvin Doak sued by Righthaven over Celine Dion story it promoted (9-1-2010)
- 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 has suffered a legal setback, with the newest federal judge in Las Vegas ruling one of the Righthaven defendants may have a meritorious defense in arguing the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an "implied license" for the online reposting of its stories.
U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro on Friday granted a request by defendant Jan Klerks of Chicago that a clerk's default against him be set aside so he can fight the Righthaven lawsuit -- a motion Righthaven had opposed.
Klerks was sued May 19 after a Review-Journal story was posted on his website www.skyscrapercity.com, a nonprofit site covering skyscrapers and urban development.
The clerk's default was entered after Righthaven said Klerks was served with the suit but failed to respond by the deadline -- attorneys for Klerks with the Las Vegas office of the law firm of Lewis and Roca argued Klerks had not been served.
Navarro on Friday sided with Klerks in that part of the dispute, saying that once he learned from the Las Vegas Sun that he was being sued he obtained counsel to respond to the lawsuit.
But perhaps of more importance, Navarro sided with Lewis and Roca attorneys Michael McCue and Nikkya Williams, who argued one reason for setting aside the default was that Klerks may have meritorious defenses to the copyright infringement allegations of Righthaven, which has sued at least 129 website operators since March over unauthorized postings of Review-Journal stories.
Navarro in her ruling wrote: "The defendant has reasonably asserted that the plaintiff’s conduct may have constituted an implied license and that the defendant may have properly inferred that the (copyright) owner consented to the use, especially in light of the established and accepted custom of users freely and openly sharing certain information posted on the Internet."
The plaintiff's conduct the judge referred to, according to the Lewis and Roca attorneys, is that: "The Las Vegas Review-Journal offered the allegedly infringed work (story) to the world for free when it was originally published. It encouraged people to save links to the work or to send links to the work to others anywhere in the world at no cost and without restriction. The Las Vegas Review-Journal website also enables third parties to 'right click' and copy the text of articles on the site. Accordingly, based on this implied license, the allegedly infringing copy was, in fact, authorized by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and therefore, is not an infringement."
The judge also ruled Klerks may have meritorious "fair use" defenses, noting the posting at issue was likely "primarily informational" and writing:
"Defendant argues that the allegedly infringing article was posted by a third-party to an informational, non-commercial website maintained by defendant and that this website is dedicated to sharing information about skyscrapers and urban development among enthusiasts around the world. As it can be properly asserted and reasonably argued in this case that the article was posted by a reader of the defendant’s site for the non-commercial purpose of sharing information and not for the purpose of making a profit for the reader or the site, the ... factor is sufficiently satisfied and weighs in favor of setting aside the default."
The judge's findings on these issues are not final and Righthaven will have plenty of opportunities to contest Klerks' contentions should the lawsuit proceed and not be settled.
Sad day in media.
If Righthaven / RJ win this thing, I can only imagine all the cash-strapped media outlets out there going out on a rampage. The Internet will never be the same.
BOYCOTT RJ. Let's hope they go under before any of this happens.
I dunno if I'd say that being able to right click on a web page is implied consent to copypasta.
The 15+ sharing options at the bottom of every article, maybe.
That the fair use is "informational" and non-commercial in nature - sure.
If the R/J goes under, who will we have left? The LV Pravda (Sun)? No, thanks. Just hope for more fighters of the baseless suits. As the costs rise for Righthaven, it will become more & more unprofitable and Righthaven will soon become a bad memory. Lewis & Roca have it right. If the R/J doesn't want its info copied, disable the right click/copy option. Problem solved. However, that doesn't provide the R/J with a share of the income derived from the "iffy" lawsuits, does it? And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Not "intellectual" property. Just money.
about time. if they don't want it being copied freely, don't encourage it by adding links to copy the text, and save the articles themselves on the website itself
lvfacts: too bad you can't disable right click/copy. that isn't a website feature, but a browser feature. websites can try and disable the right click, but that is easily bypassed, along with any other attempt to disable copying text from the webpage.
The headline is a little misleading - a casual reader may infer that the judge was siding with the R-J, when in fact the judge appears to be siding with the folks that Righthaven sued. Outstanding - kudos to the judge for seeing through this for what it is.
I'm working on my suemesherm.ru Russian website that will have RJ articles ...
I notice Matt Sludge is linking to the RJ 14.4 Nevada unemployment story. I hope he gets sued.
Man, this all sounds like something out of The Sopranos. Watch out Drudge! Somebody told me about this problem the other day and I was just shocked. Gives the legal profession a black eye. I will invest the time to explore the many media outlets of these companies to see who advertises with them and boycott their products. I'll tell them why as well.
Lewis & Roca has a first rate IP team, and an excellent group of attorneys working in that practice area.
I highly recommend them if anyone out there is in need of intellectual property advice.
I'm not affiliated with their firm, but have worked with their attorneys and they do high quality work.
And they have experience working with the likes of Steve Gibson....
Did Righthaven use Maurice Carroll and his unlicensed On Scene Mediations company to 'sewer serve' Klerks? It would seem to be their style.
Where is Sgt "Steve Gibson" Rock on this one? Probably crapping his pants now that a judge has unexpectedly ruled against him.
Lol.
Re: Implied license - yes.
1) LVRJ took absolutely NO steps to protect its content. If its content is so valuable, why not protect it with a right-click protect script? Search for it on Google. It is free, and could be implemented on every page of the LVRJ overnight. If someone tried to copy the text, a warning box would appear saying, "Copy this article at the risk of being sued." Highlighting would be disabled.
Simple, problem solved.
2) If LVRJ's content is so valuable -- if it were worth $75,000 for a few lines -- as they implausibly claim, then why don't they protect it behind a paid content subscription?
Answer: Because no one would pay for it. Because their news is a worthless commodity. If the LVRJ disappeared tomorrow, no one would miss it.
3) Bloggers have been copy/pasting for over a decade with nary a complaint from LVRJ. Suddenly it is a problem, and they are suing without warning? What changed? Ha. Makes me laugh.
The truth is that LVRJ has no interest in protecting their content, because it is more profitable for them to sue instead.
Today is a great victory for Righthaven victims. Today Righthaven is on the run for a single, undeniable reason:
Righthaven is wrong.
I happen to like the R/J. At least the crossword puzzles & comics section. I'd miss them.
All the judge did was allow some defenses to be present.
It is similar to allowing a criminal defense attorney to present an insanity defense.
She allowed them to proceed and that is all.
If she actually applies her crazy logic on implied license and fair use and rules against Righthaven in a case then it basically means there is no such thing as copyright for anything posted on the web.
I think even the 9th District will throw that ruling in the trash and most definitely the Supreme Court will if Righthaven spends the money to take it that far.
If she wants to look silly then I guess she will look silly.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If you can't trash the victim, trash the judge! (The 'she' judge mind you).
HEEHEEHEEHEEEE! Check out the Christian Monitor that has a COPYRIGHT button at the bottom of each article.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/201...
> She allowed them to proceed and that is all.
lol --- no, there is more to it than that. And if Gibones ends up in the 9th his model is doomed ... not to mention if it ends up in the 9th he's toast.
but nice spin. good for you.
SgtRock,
Gee, it looks like someone realized that the '67 Vette that Shermy left in front of the house for admiration was unlocked, had the keys in it and a bunch of "Drive me for free!" signs around it.
(For those that don't get the reference, read the article at techdirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2010060... )
Craignv.....there are no "Copy and Paste signs at will" on the LVRJ site.
The implied license logic is more strict then most of you are saying.
Let's say that Shermy did leave keys in the car and unlocked. Are you now saying that it would be both legal and ethical to steal the car under the implied license theory? It that was true then a lot of car thieves need to be let out of jail.
I guess you can apply that the "copy and paste" logic to a 7-11.
Since, they don't have the candy bars behind a locked glass window and because they don't have a security guard standing next to the candy and because there is a high instances of shoplifting therefore there is a implied license for everybody to steal the candy.
Sargent Crock,
At the bottom of the articles the LVR is telling people to "share and save". That is what people are doing... sharing and saving. They are sharing with others on message boards and utilizing the hard drive on the message boards to save it for future viewing. To most, that means "copy and paste at will". Otherwise, what does share and save mean?
And because LVR did not attempt to put in any right click protections, it is just like leaving the keys in the car.
If you click on "Share and Save" it takes you a page of similar stories on LVRJ and a search function. There is no explicit software function written into LVRJ web code to allows one to save an article to you own hard drive so that they can later share it at will with thousands of others.
Even if there was such a explicit written function to save to hard drive, it does not trump the copyright seal on every single LVRJ web page.
Under the Share and Save link is all the forum bookmark links buttons. One can click on one and then place a bookmark for the link which also adds the headline and perhaps the 1st paragraph. All this is allowed as fair use. It is not copying and pasting all or a significant portion of the story which is explicitly not fair use.
"And because LVR did not attempt to put in any right click protections, it is just like leaving the keys in the car."
Nope...that is not correct.
This is what you are actually saying: And because LVRJ did not attempt to put in any right click protections, it is just like leaving the keys in your pocket. Instead, they should have put the keys in locked brief case with a hand cuff placed on their wrist. Because they did not do enough to prevent theives from stealing then they are at fault.
Even if your analogy is correct, you are saying that if one leaves their keys in their car then it gives a thief an implied license to steal your car.
That is pretty high on the silly scale.
Sgt Steve Gibson Crock -
The outdated analogy to the '67 'vette that the clueless Sherman Frederick is pushing has limited application. Analogies are just that - analogies. Getting caught up in this one serves your purpose, which is to redirect, obfuscate and confuse.
As the old saying goes, if you can't battle them with brilliance baffle them with b*llsh*t!
A digital newspaper article is not a physical car. They are fundamentally different. One is a rival good (the car), another is non-rival (the article). If someone steals your car, no one else can use it. If someone copies the article, it does not diminish the its availability for others to enjoy.
The car analogy, while it serves your case well, is false. This is the 21st century, not 1967. Wake up and smell the reality! Stop living in the past, and stop arguing from the perspective of fantastical imagination.
But persistent attempts to apply this reality speaks to LVRJ / Righthaven's fundamental problem: They don't understand and cannot keep up with a changing world, but instead hope to cling to a dead (but profitable) past by partnering with the state to squeeze money from those that are keeping up with the times.
Another example of why Righthaven is wrong.
In time it will be shown, and LVRJ / Righthaven will go down as laughing stocks in digital history - dinosaurs that couldn't keep up with the changing times and instead thrashed out in anger at those who could.
Righthaven is wrong.
Share and Save is a click-able button? Looked like just text to me at first. A casual user of the web would think it was instructions from the publisher.
All those pretty boxes below that are links to forums? The casual web user would have no idea about that.
Craignv (see, I got a mark too.)
Aynnie......so if your write a book. I copy it. And according to you, I can sell it to a publisher and make millions and you would be A-OK with it because you will still have the original and can do whatever you want with it.
Perhaps you should just look up the word "copyright" and see what that means.
LVRJ encourages sharing it articles according to copyright rules which includes fair use.
There is a copyright seal at the bottom of every LVRJ web page.
You can share LVJR stories by doing this:
You must give credit to the LVRJ.
You may give credit to the reporter.
You may list the headline.
You may give a description of the article.
You may list one or 2 paragraphs.
You must provide a link back to the original.
Aynnie, you cannot prevent me from copying and pasting anything from your page, irregardless of a right-click script.
SgtRock, i didn't realize the people who were posting stories were profiting from it, nor taking credit for it. Many of the accused had links or even credited LVRJ for it.
Big Difference
Two points, jaesun.....
First, DCMA has a section for punitive statutory damages that are not tied to economics. The reason why the legislators placed that into the law was to discourage copyright infringement in the first place. It is scare people from even thinking of stealing copyright. From that section is where Righthaven gets the $75,000 or $150,000 numbers.
Second, the copyright infringers in these cases are also stealing traffic. When they copy and paste all or a significant portion of the article then there is no need for the reader to click on the link. Why would a website user want to read the same thing twice?
On the otherhand, if they properly just give the headline, cite the source, give a description and provide a link (all fair use) then they will actually drive traffic back to the owner of the copyright material.
One time or here or there, then it is not a big deal.
But over time, here or there adds up. There is the multiple effect of getting repeat vistors. So that here or there gets multipled over time.
All these lawsuits would never happen if these people would just stop copying and pasting all or a significant part of the article.
It is not ethical to do that. What person in their right mind thinks it is OK to copy another persons work and place it on their own site? It is just plain wrong.
Just give a description. Give the link.
End of story and Righthaven would go out of business.
There are right click scripts used by some news sites that will copy only the first 50 words and when pasted it puts a link back to the original site blow the paste saying "To read the rest of the article, click here."
The protect their customers (instead of suing them) and they get return traffic.
They get it...
Sgt Steve Gibson Crock -
"Aynnie......so if your write a book. I copy it. And according to you, I can sell it to a publisher and make millions and you would be A-OK with it because you will still have the original and can do whatever you want with it."
Like I said, get out of the past and stop using poorly thought-out, misleading analogies. I know it is hard for you, as a lawyer, but please try to stay on topic.
Your analogy is about physical copies (rival). We are talking about digital copies (non-rival). Big difference. You are trying to imply that people copy / pasting LVRJ's pathetic commodity stories are making millions of dollars. Wrong. They're not. Further LVRJ's stories aren't even worth that.
Epic Fail.
Like Righthaven and LVRJ, your analogies are as outdated as dinosaurs. Please stop insulting everyone's intelligence with them.
We're not talking about books; we're not talking about cars. We're talking about digital text. Righthaven's lack of understanding of this simple distinction will be its undoing, and will get LVRJ branded as an online pariah.
Stop living in the past. Stop spinning stories that make sense only in your head.
Righthaven is wrong.
@craignv: Excellent point!!! "Share and Save is a click-able button? Looked like just text to me at first. A casual user of the web would think it was instructions from the publisher."
@jaesun: "you cannot prevent me from copying and pasting anything from your page, irregardless of a right-click script."
This is true enough. However, if LVRJ's intention were to protect its content, right-click-protect could 1) help, 2) serve to educate readers how to use their content with a pop-up warning.
This demonstrates that LVRJ / Righthaven are not interested in doing this, but rather are interested in abusing the American legal system for profit.
Righthaven is wrong.
Aynie...I change my analogy.
You wrote a book. Save it on your hard drive. I electronically copied it and then sold it to a publisher for a billion dollars.
You would be OK with that for now it is "electronic" copy and not a "physical" copy. Whopee whooppee do. Yeah...that changes everything.
It is still stealing lady.
It is still copyright infringement if is phsyical copying or electronic copying. There is no difference in the law.
I know you think copyright infringement should be legal and allowed.
But shhhhhhh....don't tell anybody...but the words "copyright" is in the Constitution.
Sorry to give you the 411.
I give you another 411.
If a person places their mouse on a web site. Hightlights the whole story or a significant part of it. Then pastes that on their website then they have a deep lack of understanding of ethics.
Stealing is wrong.
If Aynnie put the book on a site for free and with no safeguards with all types of "Share This, Save That" text around it, she would expect you to take it.
If a library puts her book in their building, would everyone that reads it be guilty of theft? If a newspaper is left in a cafe and read by 100 people, are 99 of them thieves? If someone has a browser that does not load graphics and cannot see the ads, are they a thief for reading the story online? If someone cut an article out about their business and posted on the wall of their lobby, are they a thief? If I cut an article out of the paper, and made a few copies to discuss at a meeting, am I a thief?
"If a library puts her book in their building, would everyone that reads it be guilty of theft?" That is fair use. But if they copied the book and gave a copy to everybody in their building then they could be sued for copyright infringement.
"If a newspaper is left in a cafe and read by 100 people, are 99 of them thieves?" That is fair use.
" someone has a browser that does not load graphics and cannot see the ads, are they a thief for reading the story online?" This has nothing to do with copyright infringment.
"If someone cut an article out about their business and posted on the wall of their lobby, are they a thief?" This is probably fair use to a certain degree. If it the news article also has a picture that had a high value then that would increase the likelyhood having a copyright infringement challenge.
"If I cut an article out of the paper, and made a few copies to discuss at a meeting, am I a thief?" That is fair use.
What is not fair use....
Copy all or a significant portion of another's work product and posting it on your own site without permission for 100's, 1000's, 10,000's and perhaps 100,000's to read.
That is not fair use and you could get sued for $75,000 or $150,000 for doing it.
It'll all shake out in court. My guess is that Righthaven will be awarded the minimum in virtually all cases and just fade away.
"If Aynnie put the book on a site for free and with no safeguards with all types of "Share This, Save That" text around it, she would expect you to take it."
So are you saying because the Sun has a buttom at the top of every story that says "Share" that it is an implied license to copy and paste Sun stories at will?