Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2010 | 12:46 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2010 | 9:15 p.m.
Sun archives
- Righthaven judge: Review-Journal ‘implied license’ defense may have merit (9-20-2010)
- 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)
Editor's note: The coverage of the future of the Righthaven lawsuits in this story is from Tuesday's broadcast of KNPR’s State of Nevada, which airs on News 88.9 KNPR. The guests were interviewed by host Dave Becker. The Righthaven discussion is archived here.
Plenty of unanswered questions remain about the Las Vegas Review-Journal's online copyright infringement lawsuit campaign, observers said during a radio news discussion Tuesday.
The Review-Journal's owner, Stephens Media LLC, has invested in Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company that detects online infringements to Review-Journal stories, obtains copyrights to those stories and then sues website operators over the unauthorized postings on a retroactive basis.
The lawsuit campaign has attracted international attention and is of special interest in media and intellectual property legal circles -- largely because it's a departure from the usual newspaper industry practice of asking or demanding that website operators remove infringing material and/or replace the material with links to the source material.
The Review-Journal and Righthaven say the lawsuits are aimed at deterring copyright infringements, but defense attorneys and critics call the initiative a shakedown campaign against, typically, individuals, small-time websites and nonprofits.
While typically demanding $75,000 or more recently $150,000 in its suits, Righthaven often settles for a few thousand dollars -- often making it easier for defendants to settle than to hire attorneys to litigate against Righthaven.
Speaking Tuesday on KNPR Nevada Public Radio, Las Vegas freelance writer Steve Friess said he's supportive of legal efforts to stop copyright infringement because he's regularly seen his own material reposted without authorization -- reducing the value of those stories to him.
But Friess said it's unclear if the Review-Journal and Righthaven are truly working to stop copyright infringement -- or if they're looking to earn money with the lawsuits since, he said, the Review-Journal hasn't taken steps on its website to educate readers about how they can properly use Review-Journal material online.
"One of the things I have not seen on the Review-Journal website is any information about this," Friess said. "You'd think if they weren't just looking for money they would post a warning."
"Now I'm a little confused about what they're trying to do," he said.
The Review-Journal/Righthaven litigation strategy has been covered by the Review-Journal in a story on a Righthaven lawsuit against U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle and in blogs by Publisher Sherman Frederick.
Eric Goldman, associate professor at California's Santa Clara University School of Law and director of the High Tech Law Institute there, said he doubted the litigation strategy would be profitable in the long run as more defendants organize and fight back, increasingly keeping Righthaven attorneys busy researching and writing legal briefs and making court appearances.
Goldman noted that once federal judges or juries get around to deciding damages in the contested cases, the typical Righthaven demand of $75,000 or $150,000 could be slashed to awards of just $200 or $750.
"The business model assumes they're going to get quick settlements from a majority of the cases. Because of their (Righthaven's) tactics, defendants are organizing. ... The more defendants that choose to fight, it makes it harder for Righthaven."
Of the potential judgments as low as $200 for so-called innocent infringers, Goldman said: "If that's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the money isn't going to be there" for Righthaven to be profitable.
But Peter Menell, professor of law and director of UC Berkeley University's Center for Law & Technology, said some of the copyright lawsuits could be decided on summary judgment motions -- meaning there are no expenses for a trial.
Even at trial, juries could be sympathetic to Righthaven as one was in a copyright infringement case involving a Boston University student hit with a $675,000 judgment last year for unauthorized music file downloading and sharing -- though that amount was slashed by a federal judge to $67,500.
Menell noted Righthaven is claiming statutory damages and attorneys fees.
With statutory damages -- which don't require a showing of economic loss and which Righthaven says are in place as a deterrent to copyright infringement -- there's not as much legal work as in proving actual economic damages.
"You might be able to make it work," Menell said of the Righthaven business model.
But Goldman said if Righthaven is "trying to clean up the Internet, there's a much more cost-effective way to do that."
That would be for Righthaven and the Review-Journal to ask or demand that infringing material be taken down, which many Righthaven defendants have said they would have done if they had received such a request. But Righthaven has argued it's not cost-effective for newspapers to send such requests given the huge numbers of infringing websites.
Colleen Lynn of Austin, Texas, runs the nonprofit DogsBite.org organization seeking limits on dangerous dogs. She also crusades against Righthaven with her website righthavenvictims.blogspot.com, and said she was terrified when she learned of the Righthaven lawsuits and immediately moved to remove Review-Journal material from her website.
Lynn, who uses news stories from around the country to document dog attacks so policy makers, the media and others have access to the information, hasn't been sued by Righthaven.
But she took issue with the Review-Journal calling individuals and groups like she's involved with content thieves.
"This whole idea of calling groups like ours criminals and thieves is un-American," she said.
Lynn acknowledges that in the past she didn't ask for permission to archive news stories from the Review-Journal and other news sources. Numerous other nonprofits have said in response to Righthaven that they too archived thousands of stories from around the country for years with no objections until Righthaven came along.
A big reason for archiving the information, Lynn said, was that newspaper links sometimes disappear after a few months.
Lynn, in response to Righthaven, said she's now found a service that will allow her access to the required news archives without putting her in jeopardy of a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Menell noted that the backdrop of the situation is that the newspaper industry and journalism in general have suffered during the Internet era because of a lack of advertising support for online news content.
He said there are ways for people to avoid becoming copyright infringers by simply channeling website users back to the journalism sources that produce the material at issue.
The most common such method, encouraged by the Las Vegas Sun and many other newspapers, is for website operators to post links with at most the first paragraph or a few sentences rather than entire stories.
Separately, Righthaven filed two more copyright infringement lawsuits on Monday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas -- bringing to 131 the number of lawsuits it has filed in that court since March alleging online infringements of Stephens Media LLC stories -- mostly stories from the Review-Journal.
The latest defendants are:
-- EMP Media Inc. and three individuals Righthaven says are associated with the company: Neil Infante, Shad Applegate and Burak Baskan. Righthaven says EMP is a Nevada company that has a website called www.eroticmp.com.
The website offers reviews on massage parlors around the world to paying subscribers. The defendants are accused of displaying on the site a July 21 Review-Journal story about the closure of a Las Vegas massage business because of prostitution arrests there.
It's unclear if the story was posted by one or more of the defendants or by a message-board user.
Full credit to the Review-Journal and a link to the Review-Journal website were included with the post on eroticmp.com, court records show.
-- Donald K. Schultz and Travis Nagle, whom Righthaven says are associated with the website www.donatdawn.com, where someone allegedly posted a July 29 Review-Journal story about Sen. Harry Reid participating in an energy summit at UNLV.
Full credit and a link were provided to the Review-Journal for the story on the donatdawn website, which covers energy and environmental issues.
Schultz says on the website he worked at the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and that he retired in 2008 from the CPUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates.
As in all the recent Righthaven cases, the company in both lawsuits seeks damages of $150,000 apiece and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names.
In its usual boilerplate lawsuit language, Righthaven charged in both cases: "The defendants displayed, and continue to display, the infringement on the website. The defendants did not seek permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display, or otherwise exploit the work (stories). The defendants were not granted permission, in any manner, to reproduce, display, or otherwise exploit the work."
Requests for comment were placed with the defendants.
It's really not that difficult.
RJ is in financial ruin. Bottom of the barrel media. This is their last attempt to gather enough cash before shutting down.
The Righthaven effect proven again:
She says, "she was terrified when she learned of the Righthaven lawsuits and immediately moved to remove Review-Journal material from her website." and "Lynn acknowledges that in the past she didn't ask for permission to archive news stories from the Review-Journal and other news sources"
And then she, "Lynn, in response to Righthaven, said she's now found a service that will allow her access to the required news archives without putting her in jeopardy of a copyright infringement lawsuit."
They are changing the behavior of people who lack ethics and now are forced to have ethics.
Don't copy and paste. It is wrong and unethical.
Purchase a service or get permission or just follow fair use guidelines which are:
Cite the source
Link back to the original
Can copy and paste a paragraph or two but no more
It is just that simple.
You want to shut down Righthaven then just be ethical.
Problem solved.
Chunky says:
"shakedown" is about the kindest description he can imagine.
The RJ owns it's work and has a right to decide how it is used.
Just because you can sue right off the bat doesn't mean it's the ethical thing to do when a simple letter was all it might take.
This is almost akin to the right to defend yourself with deadly force. A person comes at you with a knife from a distance of say 50 yards. Could you shoot them before yelling stop or retreating? Theoretically you could but that's not moral or ethically the best approach. Yell STOP or STOP OR I'LL SHOOT and they keep coming then you've got some moral and ethical ground to stand on.
Righthaven simply shoots first and negotiates first aid later!
That's what Chunky thinks!
chunky, This is a better analogy of what you want LVRJ to do.
So you open a gas convenience store.
Everyday people shoplift your stuff.
So following your own advice. You spend money on labor (you hire somebody, plan them cash, pay health care, pay ssi taxes) to track the people down and send them a letter. In the letter, you beg them to stop stealing and return the goods.
Hmmmm....spend money to beg people to stop stealing your stuff.
Sounds like a solid business plan.
You should open a 7-11 store.
You make millions.
The Sun does not send hardly any take-down notices.
Why? Because they can't afford the staff to track copyright infrinements, find the person who owns the website, send the letter, response to return correspondence and the follow up to see if they have stop the copy infringement.
That labor cost money. The Sun can't afford.
So they essentially are allowing copyright infringement to occur at will.
> You want to shut down Righthaven then just be ethical.
or just let the RJ drill itself into the ground using its own "ethics" model. I'd enjoy seeing that a great deal.
If the RJ was serious about people getting permission to post their stories they would have prominent statements or instructions on their site on how to "legally" post their stories. There is NOTHING on their site that tells how to properly repost their stories, or warnings that you will be sued into oblivion. How about a big red button? There are, however many options on their site to share articles via email, facebook, twitter, etc, indicating that they welcome sharing their articles.
I doubt anything would please you.
If they put a put red stop sign that says "Don't Copy and Paste" you would still probably complain.
How much ethics does one need to have to know that is it just plain wrong to copy and paste other people's work product?
The LVRJ just like Sun has copyright symbols and warnings on every page.
Both have detail sections that list the proper instructions on fair use of their copyright material.
Here is the LVRJ. You get to by clicking on the link next to the copright seal on every web page.
http://www.stephensmedia.com/copyright/
It says, "Stephens Media welcomes hypertext links to its electronically-published textual content. The appropriate method for linking to Stephens Media content is to post only the headline and the first paragraph of a story and then a link to the original textual material."
Here is the Sun's. It is the Reader Agreement link. It says, "Text from our stories can be quoted when linking to our content, but it must not be more than one-tenth of the total word count of the story or 100 words, whichever is lesser. Quoted content must contain a direct link to the story from which it is taken. If an image is being used in the link to lasvegassun.com's content, it must not be larger than 300 pixels wide and must link to the exact page on our site in which the original image can be found."
Sarge, if Chunky owned a 7-11 and people were taking stuff, but their excuse was that the sign above the product said to take it for free (share and save), wouldn't chunky change how he does things to safeguard his product? Perhaps he should put a price tag on it (pop up on right click warning)?
By your analogy, chunky should just shoot them.
If they were to issue takedown letters, they would have to lookup the person who owned the domain, then send a takedown letter.
They are sending lawsuits. They have to lookup the person who owned the domain, then send the lawsuit.
How is one different than the other?
The difference is morals.
So chunky had a sign that said "Take for Free" and below it there were brochures on how to save their coupons and then had envelopes for the customer to share the coupons with other people.
I think only perhaps an idiot would get a meaning to steal the candy from reading that.
Perhaps there are idiots.
Perhaps somebody should present a defense that they are just plain dumb.
"They are sending lawsuits. They have to lookup the person who owned the domain, then send the lawsuit.
How is one different than the other?"
In the lawsuit example, they are getting settlement money from the thieves to fund their labor activities.
In the take-down notice example, they are pulling money out of their own pocket (actually the customers) to send nice letters begging the thieves to stop stealing from them.
Do you get it now?
If you haven't actually listened to the NPR show on Righthaven, it's very interesting and worth 30 minutes of your time:
http://www.knpr.org/son/archive/detail2....
It's very sad that the RJ chooses to sue as a 1st resort. Hopefully this will leave a sour taste in many subscribers' mouths (if there are any left). I applaud the Sun for following this story closely.
Anyone who holds a copyright MUST defend it... or risk losing it... So, Stephens Media MUST do something. The question is: HOW do they defend their copyrights without alienating their audience? One of most important elements in quantifying the value of a web site is how many other web sites link to it.
People pay big bucks to get other web sites to link to their web sites (I certainly do). It would be very inexpensive (compared to a lawyer) and easy to hire a person to make sure the offending links are properly placed...and in compliance with what they permit. It would be win-win for both parties.
Instead Stephens Media is paying big bucks to get people to STOP linking to them. So... the result is: The value of their online offerings are shrinking and BAD WILL is GROWING. They don't seem to understand that the links TO the stories are actually more valuable than the stories themselves.
To me this demonstrates Stephens Media's ignorance of how the Internet and Internet Marketing works. They are intimidating people into removing links instead of correcting the problem and keeping the links up. They are demanding others be good Netizens, yet by their actions, they are demonstrating they don't know what that word even means.
I'm not surprised though, Sherm Fredricks is an old man and probably doesn't get this whole "inter-web" thing. And Steve Gibson sure seems to have him bamboozled him into believing that scumbag lawyer techniques and abuse of an already overwhelmed legal system is the solution.
Well boys it's NOT!!
I have limited advertising dollars for my business... and I DON'T plan on wasting them on the RJ. I actually spend them getting others to link TO my site, even if they swipe a couple of extra paragraphs. It's worth it.
I hope you're enjoying that 8-track in your Red Corvette Sherm... wanna buy a map? Oops... my beeper just went off. Excuse me, I have to pull over and find a pay phone.
"People pay big bucks to get other web sites to link to their web sites (I certainly do). It would be very inexpensive (compared to a lawyer) and easy to hire a person to make sure the offending links are properly placed...and in compliance with what they permit. It would be win-win for both parties."
Ok....why not you offer to pay for this "very inexpensive " process of tracking copyright infringement, finding the owner of the websites, typing the letters, sending the letters, responding to correspondence and then following up to see if they are compliance with the take-down notice.
Let's go super cheap say that is one FTE at a salary of $25,000 plus health care and other benefits for a total of $32,000.
Please sure to list the correct name on the check.
How much do you think it cost LVRJ to get Righthaven to enforce copyright?
It is $0.
So which is cheaper.....$0 or $32,000.
These lawsuits are one thing, but where does Righthaven get off demanding the domain name? If the domain name has nothing to do with Righthaven, how can they demand it.
On another note. I operate a couple of websites where I sell manuals. A few years ago, I get a letter from Epson-America demanding I give them my domains with the name 'Epson' in them I complied, but they had a valid reason. Righthaven has no cause to confiscate a domain name period.
I will be departing to Belarus next week to set up a secret owner website: "suemesherm.br" which will infringe on over the planet.
Sarge owns a store and is so outraged at the alleged candy-bar thief that he spends 10,000 dollars suing him in court and tries to get $75,000.
The judge says, "Sarge, it's just a candy-bar!" and awards Sarge 5 dollars. Sarge got his way, but was financially struggling as a result of all the money he spent on his unfruitful lawsuit. He was very mad to find out that judges can modify statutory awards and become even more bitter.
All the bad press kept customers away from his store and now his store is closed.
Sarge did solve the theft problem though, as he is no longer able to provide a product to be stolen.
yes, go run a business.
Open a convenience store.
Let everybody steal your candy.
Send them a letter asking them not a steal.
Tell me how it works out.
actually "suemesherm.by" or somthing to that effect.
Sgt Steve Gibson Rock -
I told you, cut it out with the silly analogies. You use them because they make your case, but they are inaccurate, and misleading, which I'm certain is your intention.
This is not the story of a convenience store, or candy bars, or a '67 Corvette, or a manuscript left on your dining room table. Your arguments are great for those instances. Congratulations.
Unfortunately, they don't work for 21st century digital media, as Righthaven and LVRJ will soon find out, after they are hit with federal RICO racketeering charges, and Gibson is disbarred.
Stop living in the past. Stop living in your fantasy world. Catch up with the times or be banished by the changes. Since you like living in the past so much, here is something you might understand: "The times they are a changin'"
Righthaven is wrong.
Dear SgtRock -
I actually HAVE paid for at least portion of the salary you describe... as a former advertiser in the online RJ. And as a paying customer I expect the RJ to not only provide compelling content (many argue it's mediocre content but that's besides the point) to attract as many eyeballs as possible to my online ad. From an online marketing perspective" vertical links (links from a site highly relevant to the subject matter in the story for example) significantly increase rankings in Google for the RJ. Anyone with a business that expects to attract customers via online sources has someone on staff or pays money for consultants to procure these links (ie the hard copy version of the RJ). If you have an actual online business (ie the www.lvrj.com) this is even more important to do. If you are NOT trying to procure as many inbound links as possible, you are NOT doing your job. Why would I want to continue to advertise with you when you squander the online capital you have built up over the years. You ask me if I will pay for the FTE to do this. How about you let me advertise for free? Or cut my rates by 50% or 80% since you are making your site less valuable to me.
You say your lawyer costs you nothing but you are so wrong. The way he going about suing everyone is COSTING you big bucks and you don't even know it. You already have hoards of people linking to you" but if they use more than one paragraph you sue them for 75K and their domain name. Many of these people are intimidated and frightened" as well as people who you haven't yet sued" and links to the RJ are falling off the Internet so fast you can almost hear them crashing on the floor. The other thing that is falling is value of your online product because of your lawyer's actions.
There are so many better solutions to protect your copyrights AND your Google rankings than unleashing your pit bull on people" many who are moms and pops". The math isn't that difficult, but apparently you just don't get it. It's your business Sarge" and it's a free country" so you can screw it up if you want. It's just sad to watch.
MJB....so you think it increases traffic or steals traffic if a person copies and pastes an article from LVRJ.
So are readers that dumb they will actually want to read the exact same story twice?????
Is anyone working on the RJ advertiser list? We need this list created. Then it's going to get fun to watch a U.S. business sink into oblivion.
Copying is not theft.
Welcome to the 21st Century, Sgt. Gibson.
Enough with the outdated analogies about cars and candybars. Watch this, and just maybe you'll be able to understand it:
http://bit.ly/brUPA8
What part of "copy" in the words of "copyright infringement" that you don't understand?
Here to help you is one legal definition of copyright infringement (please notice that word "copy" is mention several times): "Copyright is a statutory or common law right of authors, artists, and developers (or other holders of a copyright) to publish their works, and to prevent others from copying their works. Infringement includes the unauthorized or unlicensed copying of a work subject to copyright. For example, Title 17 of the U.S. Code (which pertains to copyrights) defines the exclusive rights of copyright holders. There are also several provisions which create crimes for copyright infringement."
What part of RICO do you not understand? Righthaven is running a racket.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
It will be a spectacular fall for Steve Gibson.
Righthaven is wrong.
Steve Friess' is mistaken that the RJ does not educate people about its copyright policy.
Follow this link:
http://www.stephensmedia.com/copyright/
But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, Stevex2
Paging CJR!