Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Sept. 23, 2010 | 10:56 a.m.
Sun archives
- Observers note uncertainty over future of Righthaven/R-J copyright suits (9-21-2010)
- 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)
One of the attorneys fighting the Righthaven LLC copyright lawsuits has penned an opinion article critical of Righthaven, calling it a threat to free speech.
Lewis and Roca LLP attorney Jonathan Fountain discusses Righthaven and its lawsuits involving Las Vegas Review-Journal stories in a post at www.lexology.com.
Fountain is one of at least four Lewis and Roca attorneys in Las Vegas that have represented Righthaven defendants in litigation and settlements.
Righthaven detects online infringements to Review-Journal stories, acquires copyrights to the allegedly infringing material and then retroactively sues website owners over the allegedly unauthorized postings of the material. While recently demanding damages of $150,000 in each of its suits and forfeiture of defendants' website domain names, Righthaven typically settles for less than five figures and lets defendants keep their domain names.
Among law firms handling Righthaven cases, Lewis and Roca represents the largest number of defendants and the firm made headway last week when a judge agreed in one of the cases that fair use and "implied license" defenses may have merit.
Under the "implied license" theory, people are free to use Review-Journal stories online without infringing on copyrights because the Review-Journal encourages such online sharing. Righthaven has disputed this.
"Websites beware. Once a mighty empire, the newspaper industry -- an industry that has blamed the Internet for more than a decade’s worth of declining readership and advertising revenues -- is striking back. If you own a website and a newspaper article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal has been posted on your website, then you are in the crosshairs and are at risk of being sued for copyright infringement," Fountain wrote in the lexology piece.
He noted that since Righthaven does not send cease and desist letters before filing suit, many of its targets have reported being taken by surprise by the lawsuits.
"Indeed, many alleged infringers have reported that they would have voluntarily removed the newspaper articles from their websites if they had been asked to do so," wrote Fountain, who went on to explain various legal defenses against Righthaven as well as steps website operators should take to prevent lawsuits.
"The implications of the Righthaven cases upon free speech is clear. By appointing itself as the copyright enforcer of the Internet, Righthaven is chilling free speech throughout the country," Fountain wrote.
Separately, Righthaven this week filed at least its 132nd copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court in Las Vegas since March.
The newest defendant is the owner of the Motor Trend magazine website, where someone allegedly posted on a forum a July 20 Review-Journal story about protesters blocking the Las Vegas Strip.
The protesters were demanding that Sen. Harry Reid support legislation prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
A request for comment was placed with the motortrend.com operators, Automotive.com LLC and Source Interlink Media LLC.
In a similar Righthaven lawsuit involving a forum post about Reid at the www.corvetteforum.com website, Fountain and other attorneys for the defendant, Internet Brands Inc., responded with the implied license defense and accused Righthaven of "barratry," among other things.
"Barratry" is defined as the persistent incitement of litigation or as creating legal work by stirring up disputes and quarrels.
Righthaven, in an unrelated case, has denied the allegation of barratry.
Righthaven and the Review-Journal say the lawsuits are necessary to stop widespread online infringements of Review-Journal copyrights.
The suits against the Motor Trend site and Internet Brands are among a handful of suits Righthaven has filed against what appear to be well-funded corporations. Most of its lawsuits are against individuals, bloggers, nonprofits and other operators of special-interest websites.
"May they [the RJ] go bankrupt forthwith." - BobbyG
That would leave the print edition of the Sun in a world of hurt since it is distributed inside the RJ.
I just checked with the offical newspaper industry guide.
Repeating the same thing for the 197th time usually means that it is not truly a news story.
One could take this statement: "Under the "implied license" theory, people are free to use Review-Journal stories online without infringing on copyrights because the Review-Journal encourages such online sharing."
And say this: "Under the "implied license" theory, people are free to use Las Vegas Sun stories online without infringing on copyrights because the Las Vegas Sun encourages such online sharing."
Since the Sun lets people steal its copyright material at will then I guess it is a moot point
I am sure this "Editor's note" was inadvertently left off this story and all others about Righthaven:
Lewis & Roca is the outside intellectual property counsel to Greenspun Media Group, owner of the Las Vegas Sun.
See for example: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=d...
CJR take note!
Of course, they never list conflict of interests in their stories.
So Sun's lawyers are preaching that the implied license theory also can be applied to Sun's news articles.
So I think it would be extremely hard for the Sun to successful sue anybody for copyright infringement.
Again, it is really a moot point.
Sun does not defend its copyright.
So....anybody out there.....copy and paste Sun articles to your little heart's desire.
The Sun's lawyers are saying it is A-OK.
>but then maybe the Sun could avail themselves of a cheap BK liquidation sale for the RJ hardcopy mfg and distribution.
or take it as part of the settlement for the RJ's breach of contract with the Sun.
> The Sun's lawyers are saying it is A-OK.
sorry --- that's not what they're saying. But, and this is probably a foreign concept for you, they don't feel the need to act like schoolyard bullies when resolving issues.
and honestly, why are you bleating on and on about this? It is what it is --- the Sun's doing good work and they will, sooner or later, report on Righthaven's demise.
What does Chunky have to say about this?
You are so "willfully" misinformed Sherm Rock; and only you are to blame. Like nearly all newspapers, the Sun FIRST issues a take down notice to protect its copyright (which is far cheaper than dropping $500 on a lawsuit as Righthaven is doing). Unlike the Review-Journal, the Sun recognizes that Allegra Wongs do not threaten their bottom line and that websites such as the Pahrump Times are an ASSET to them and only need to be informed about HOW to correctly post a Sun article to their website. Newspapers are in the business of educating and informing the masses, which is likely way they have taken this approach with blogges and websites.
1st, the Sun really does not send take-down notices. They just plain ignore the violations. They don't have the money to pay staff to monitor violations and send take down notices.
2nd, their copyright lawyers i.e. the law firm that they are quoting in the above story and also who they failed to mention that it is their own lawyers (meaning they failed to follow proper newspaper ethics), are promoting a legal theory that says that they Sun has NO CLAIM TO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION for their news stories.
What in the heck is this BS propagated by Gibson and you regarding "they don't have money to pay staff to monitor violations?" That's a bunch of crap that needs to die already. The Sun, Gannett and nearly all other newspapers, do not care about Allegra Wongs posting their content to their blog. These newspapers though do care and will send take down notices when warranted. You're twisting in the wind Sherm. Possibly a better metaphor is that the water is almost to the top. Ever read "The Perfect Storm?"
The Sun rarely sends take-down notices because the Sun does not have staff to look for copyright infringement.
They don't have the staff because they can't afford to have the staff.
You get it now.
On top of that, their very own copyright lawyers are promoting a legal theory that says that the Sun has no claim to copyright protection anyway.