Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Sept. 26, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.
Sun archives
- Lawyers argue R-J stories on Web aren’t protected by copyright (9-25-2010)
- Attorney: Righthaven copyright suits a free speech threat (9-23-2010)
- 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 executives behind the copyright infringement lawsuits over online Las Vegas Review-Journal stories says the newspaper industry hasn’t done a good job of protecting its copyrights.
But Mark Hinueber, vice president and general counsel of Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, said Saturday that it’s encouraging that a big player in the news industry — the Associated Press — is working to curb unlicensed use of its news content.
AP CEO Tom Curley last week said an effort is under way to track websites engaged in “scraping,” or unauthorized postings of AP material.
Hinueber spoke about the Review-Journal’s concerns about infringement of its copyrights during a presentation sponsored by the Las Vegas Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.
“All content producers have done a mediocre job of educating the population” about copyright theft issues, with the newspaper industry lagging other parts of the media sector, he said.
And partly because of that lack of knowledge by the general public about copyright law, and the technological ease of copying and pasting news content, online infringements are common, he said.
When it was suggested the Review-Journal hasn’t done much to educate its website users about appropriate uses of its content online, Hinueber noted the policy is spelled out on the Review-Journal website. The policy appears in the website privacy notice.
As for news coverage that could educate readers about copyrights, it was pointed out the Las Vegas Sun regularly covers lawsuits filed by Righthaven LLC over Review-Journal copyrights, while the Review-Journal’s coverage has consisted of blog posts by Publisher Sherman Frederick and a story on Righthaven suing U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle.
Charles Zobell, Review-Journal managing editor, said the newspaper hasn’t found Righthaven to be particularly newsworthy beyond that, but is now considering doing a larger piece on the topic.
“We haven’t been told not to” cover Righthaven, Zobell said.
Since March, Righthaven has sued at least 136 website operators in federal court in Las Vegas charging they infringed on copyrights with unauthorized posts of Stephens Media material — mostly stories or substantial portions of stories from the Review-Journal.
The investors who control Stephens Media have invested in Righthaven, and Stephens Media participates in the lawsuits by agreeing to transfer the copyrights at issue to Righthaven.
While the Review-Journal and Righthaven say the lawsuits are necessary to stop infringements of Stephens Media material, critics, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and defense attorneys and defendants, have accused the Review-Journal and Righthaven of everything from running a lawsuit shakedown operation to entrapment to unnecessarily inciting litigation.
Righthaven has, so far, partnered with just one other newspaper chain, WEHCO Media of Little Rock, Ark., which owns 15 newspapers, including the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and Chattanooga Times Free Press. But Hinueber said talks have been ongoing with other potential media partners.
Hinueber on Saturday described the Review-Journal lawsuits as the beta test of Righthaven’s copyright protection service, which generally involves retroactive lawsuits and filing suits without first asking or demanding that infringing material be taken down as most newspapers do.
The lawsuits cover alleged retroactive infringements because Righthaven detects infringements to Review-Journal stories and then — weeks or months after the alleged infringements — obtains copyrights to the stories at issue and then files suits over those copyrights.
Hinueber acknowledged the lawsuits have generated negative publicity for the Review-Journal and problems for the newspaper, particularly when Review-Journal sources were sued, but said the lawsuits will continue — with the hope that efforts by the Associated Press and others will also deter infringements.
“I think the benefits are worth the negative publicity,” said Hinueber, who explained users of the Review-Journal website can avoid lawsuits by using links to stories — rather than story posts — or seeking advance permission for other uses.
As to criticism that Righthaven sues without warning, Hinueber said it’s common for legal action to be taken against thieves without warning.
Another criticism of suing over online infringements is that “everyone does it,” Hinueber said. But by that logic, people could avoid speeding tickets just because others regularly violate speed limits and drive dangerously, he said.
Lawsuits are just one part of the answer to copyright infringement, he said. “Righthaven isn’t the only solution to this problem,” he said.
“We need some sort of digital rights agency” that could be involved in copyright protection and licensing of content, he said.
Hinueber, who said he was surprised to receive a death threat after the Righthaven litigation got under way, disputed some observers’ suggestions that Righthaven is a “copyright troll” similar to “patent trolls” that buy patents and then look for infringers.
The difference, Hinueber said, is that trolls are thought to be hiding under bridges and then attacking without warning.
While saying the content industry hasn’t done a good job of educating the public about complying with copyright law, Hinueber also said no one infringing on Review-Journal content should be surprised to be sued.
“I don’t think it’s a surprise when you’ve been taught since first grade not to steal,” he said.
“If you’re operating in the Internet space, you’re presumed to understand you don’t steal your neighbors’ Crayons,” he said.
Defense attorneys and others, however, have argued in some cases involving nonprofit educational websites that they posted thousands of newspaper stories over many years and thought this was appropriate since no one complained until Righthaven started filing its lawsuits.
As to those who would post Review-Journal material without authorization, particularly sites with advertising or those that seek donations, Hinueber said: “You’re profiting off of someone else’s intellectual property.”
While the copyright lawsuits are unusual for the newspaper industry, they’re common in the movie and music industries that have been harmed by illegal downloading of their content, he said.
Righthaven has not been suing news aggregators like Google, Yahoo and Facebook that typically post the first paragraph of a story and a link to the full article. Nor does it sue direct competitors in the Las Vegas media industry like newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. Rather, it sues operators of special-interest websites throughout North America — the Democratic Party of Nevada, a Bette Midler fan site and Motor Trend’s website, for instance.
Asked how unauthorized postings of its stories by infringing sites prior to Righthaven had affected the Review-Journal’s revenue, Hinueber said he didn’t know.
“If people are taking your property and you don’t know about it, how do you know how much you have lost?” he said.
Asked if he was surprised that more newspaper companies hadn’t signed on to Righthaven’s lawsuit campaign or launched their own litigation efforts, Hinueber noted it’s difficult to get competing chains to agree to work together, and such collaborative efforts could raise antitrust issues.
“I wish more people would do more to enforce their copyrights,” he said. “When you talk to congressmen about this issue, they say they have provided newspapers a remedy for this. It’s the copyright law.”
Separately, Righthaven reached a confidential settlement last week in one of its most controversial cases: An infringement lawsuit against Boston blogger Allegra Wong.
Wong, who had a noncommercial blog about cats, written from the point of view of a cat, posted on her blog a Review-Journal story about a fire that killed some birds in Las Vegas. She apparently posted the information out of concern for the animals.
The lawsuit, seeking damages of $75,000 and forfeiture of Wong’s Internet domain name, prompted a Los Angeles Times media columnist to suggest the Review-Journal and Righthaven had taken on “less than a menacing opponent” and “effectively had blasted a small tabby with a howitzer.”
The lawsuit prompted additional criticism, such as a blog headlined: “The Internet Kills Cat Journalism.’’
During an Aug. 26 hearing in her case, Righthaven kicked around settlement numbers ranging from $1,300 to $1,500, which Wong said would be a lot for her given she was unemployed.
During that hearing, federal Magistrate Judge Robert Johnston in Las Vegas asked if Wong could be an unwillful infringer subject to just a $200 judgment — but Righthaven wouldn’t concede Wong was an unwillful infringer.
The confidential settlement was reached during a telephone conference Sept. 21 supervised by Johnston.
Righthaven is just doing what vultures dressed in fancy suits do. After all, we all know that lawyers are the cause of most of the lawsuits in this country, not the plaintiffs. Lawyers aggresively seek "victims" in advertisments that bait litigants with phrases such as "you may be entitled to a large monetary settlment" in many cases that are specious, to say the least. Ambulance-chasers have to drum up business so they can pay for their fancy cars, clothing & life-style. While some may be honest and mean well, most are a scourge on society especially when they get elected to office and can further their parasitic activities by enacting statutes, rules and/or regulations that prompt even more lawsuits. Shakespeare wrote: "First, we kill the lawyers." I wonder what he meant by that?
Righthaven's agenda is simply not the issue here. The fact is that the R-J is well within its legal rights to sue. Copyright infringements and plagiarism incidents are completely out of control on the Internet. The concept of "fair use" allows other writers to use very limited portions of another person's work without express permission as long as proper citation is given. But these days writers simply cut and paste entire articles without obtaining permission. As a college speech teacher, I must educate my students about fair use, as many of them believe that anything they find on the Internet can be used in any way they please. They are often quite surprised to find out that is not the case, usually after receiving a failing grade for giving a speech verbatim from an article they "found on a website somewhere."
While it is true that other newspapers simply demand that the offender remove the article from the site, that has unfortunately done nothing to reduce the number of copyright violations. I will continue to teach students how to use the words and ideas of others properly; if they insist on violating copyright or committing plagiarism, they will receive a failing grade. It may seem as if the R-J is being overly harsh, but it is the only way to get the offenders to comply.
"Righthaven has not been suing news aggregators like Google, Yahoo and Facebook that typically post the first paragraph of a story and a link to the full article."
There is nothing to sue for.
But you are tricking the reader into thinking that they don't sue the big companies because they are afraid of them.
It is similar to writing this, "The police did not arrest Mr. Green for wife beating, he typically yells and screams at her."
You on purpose are trying to trick your readers.
"first paragraph of a story and a link to the full article" is fair use and one can't be sued for fair use.
Let's look at this another way: Righthaven has set its webcrawler loose, looking all over the web, night and day, every day, no vacations, no personal leave, no sick days, no lunches, no coffee breaks -- just relentlessly searching and matching text to see if there could be copying. And, after all that, they have only found 136 possible infringers. 136 out of about 120 Million blogs on the net. Assuming that every Righthaven case is meritorious, that yields roughly 1 infringement per 1,000,000 blogs. An infringement rate of 1 in 1,000,000 is remarkably low. (An average citizen of the U.S. has been calculated to have a 1 in 500,000 chance of dying in a tsunami sometime during his or her lifetime, that is twice as likely as what seems to be the odds of the infringement of an R-J story.)
So what did Righthaven's suing of the catlady, or anyone else for that matter, have to do with the vindication of substantial rights?
"I don't think it's a surprise when you've been taught since first grade not to steal,"
Does he really think that people who attended first grade in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s understand that copy/paste is stealing, especially since they don't get any sort of financial benefit? Most can barely work a computer as-is.
Also, as numerous Internet nerds will point out, copyright infringement isn't stealing. Stealing a candy bar is a slap on the wrist. In Righthaven's and Congress' view, copyright infringement is worth $75,000.
Does that seem weird to anyone else?
Comment removed by moderator. Off topic.
Mr. Hinueber, you are a Copyright Troll! The Review Journal should be proud that someone wants to display their work. Righthaven doesn't Copyright your work until someone uses it which for the sole purpose of making money, not protecting your work. Your crooked pals at Righthaven are trolls hiding under the bridge just waiting to to file the copyright when someone crosses the bridge. itsumo 2010
If the actions of the RJ and Righthaven disturb you like they do to me, take it upon yourself to target the businesses that buy advertising from Stephens media and ask them not to do business with this low life organization. It would be wonderful to see some big gaming companies here in the valley pull their advertising from the RJ. I really think that this would be a wonderful way to send a message to the RJ and Righthaven.
I completely agree that stealing content from the RJ is not right. But, what would be the harm in sending a cease and desist order before suing? Inform the website owners about their responsibility to ask permission or to just post a link and not completely copy the article. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the RJ and Righthaven if the warning letter came first.
"But, what would be the harm in sending a cease and desist order before suing? "
Because that cost LVRJ money.
Why should they spend money to teach people simple ethics?
They would have to hire staff to monitor the internet and find copyright infrinement.
They would have to hire staff to find the address of the website owner.
They would have to hire staff to send the letter.
They would have to hire staff to response to correspondences from the infringers.
They would have to hire staff to follow-up to see if the infringers are now in compliances.
Are you going to give them the money to do all that?
The Righthaven lawsuits cost LVRJ zero dollars.
The Sun rarely defends its copyright.
Why? Because they can't afford staff to monitor, find addresses, send letters, correspond and followup.
Why should they be nice to people who have no ethics?
Just another reason I no longer subscribe to the rag..I say screw the RJ and its lawyers.
Remember to take out the trash on November 2
In the past few months, I have been in several markets, that have stoped selling the RJ. I guess word is getting out.
Being a content producer, in fact, I'll go on record: http://www.socialparadox.com and http://www.socialparody.com, I find the Review Journals business model absolutely scandalous. That's to say 136 lawsuits speaks volumes.
RJ Executives which I'm sure are reading these comments should find ways to be pro active which with a little ingenuity and creativity would go a long way.
Further, as a pillar of the community, RJ ought to find solutions short of chasing piraters; there are options such as pirate amnesty. Without going into detail, do some research, get enlightened.
In the meantime, don't be surprised to find many such as myself boycotting RJ entirely.
Finally, I'll share this with the huddle masses. Of all the inventions Benjamin Franklin gave us, not one had a copyright or patent filed.
"Serve humanity with dignity and benevolence otherwise humanity will never prosper."
Sean B.
Sarge, in response to your comment:
Because that cost LVRJ money.
*The RJ "invested" $300,000 in Righthaven.
Why should they spend money to teach people simple ethics?
*They don't have to. This has been done on the Internet for years, however, bloggers, etc. simply weren't aware it was a violation. Not everyone is familiar with the law.
They would have to hire staff to monitor the internet and find copyright infrinement.
*This is just a foolish statement. The RJ could have used half, at most what it invested in Righthaven if it were really interested in principles rather than trying foolishly to develop new revenues.
They would have to hire staff to find the address of the website owner.
*See above
They would have to hire staff to send the letter.
*Now you really do sound like Sherm Frederick with this sort of logic. Talk to the editor of the Seattle paper.
They would have to hire staff to response to correspondences from the infringers.
*No, a cease and desist letter first, litigation second. Again, you sound like Sherm's editorials: Illogical and well, ridiculous.
They would have to hire staff to follow-up to see if the infringers are now in compliances.
*Oh my, you go on and on. Why doesn't the RJ come up with an online strategy with a "paywall," if it's so interested in this issue.
Are you going to give them the money to do all that?
*What kind of question is this? Of course, I've got to be a character in a Beckett play to be even responding to this.
The Righthaven lawsuits cost LVRJ zero dollars.
$300,000 so far. What's been the return.
The Sun rarely defends its copyright.
How do you know the Sun hasn't written a letter or two.
Why? Because they can't afford staff to monitor, find addresses, send letters, correspond and followup.
Irrelevant.
Why should they be nice to people who have no ethics?
Read Aristotle and learn about ethics.
ardahigbee: Irrelevant
I got a brillant idea.
Murray....you should start a newspaper and when there are about 100 or so people who steal the material that are paying others $10,000's to write for you then you can pay other staff $10,000's to beg the unethical thieves to stop stealing.
Also, a big FYI, there is a key difference between the words "investment" and "expense".
The owner of the LVRJ invested in Righthaven and is expecting that money to be returned with profit.
They could "expense" cash to pay staff to beg people not to steal but there would be no return in asset or profit on top of that.
Perhaps, you should first take a business class or something.
I've been following this story. The RJ/Righthaven may well lose $ on these lawsuits: While the cat lady settled for a confidential amount, it might be just a few hundred dollars. That kind of money doesn't buy a lot of lawyer time. And it will hurt the RJ because they are suing their own reporters' sources: e.g., the Sharron Angle campaign, and the Las Vegas Advisor website (a source for RJ entertainment reporter Mike Weatherford). Working reporters cultivate their sources carefully.
I laughed out loud when I saw Mark Hinueber (Stephens Media LLC VP and General Counsel) say that "we need some kind of digital rights agency". He's actually calling for the creation of a government regulatory agency!!! What, the free market won't take care of this problem?? I'm shocked. This deserves a story: "Private bureaucrat calls for creation of new government bureaucracy".
"Also, a big FYI, there is a key difference between the words "investment" and "expense"."
Sarge, I've looked at a range of hypothetical numbers on this matter, as well as the costs. I've also spoken with reporters and editors at other newspapers, none of whom can see either profitability from this "strategy," or possibly the survival of the newspaper given the possibility of source dropoff.
I'm not sure who you are, though a minion of Sherm or Gibson, who like Christine O'Donnell had a "previous engagement," but I do know the economics of the newspaper business, and the tenderhooks by which swings now. Sherm Frederick's legacy, it's thought, will be to have destroyed something that under Don Reynolds was a much sharper product.
Your bandying numbers about don't work. Considering the settlements Righthaven has received so far; and considering that once a couple these cases roll through court with the strong possibily that recovery will be deminimus, I have to wonder how the paper's going to pay its staff.
I don't know if you've done your home; it doesn't seem as you're on the borderline of rave and rage on this matter -- thoughtful persons are just that, they think thinks out.
AP's strategy, by the way, will be to write letters first. And the New York Times has already gotten smart and is starting a "paywall" in January.
Mr. Frederick seems like a publicity hungry fellow seeking a legacy based on a non-workable, non-journalistic revenue stream and I suspect his legacy will be little more than that of an unsavvy publisher who tore down a newspaper on a whimsical business tactic -- In short, a failure. And his paper's content pretty much reflects that weakness in terms of its content and reporting.
I would guess that if the economy were better, any true reporter there would jump ship as soon as the opportunity arose.
Your arguments are simplistic and embarrssing, just like Sherm's editorials. They lack basis in fact, common sensical thought and any knowledge of the impact, short and long term this action is having on his staff and what little readership the RJ has left.
I have known all along that your a freaking newspaper wiz genius.
Like for instance, you have ran all the numbers for Righthaven especially using the crystal ball and have falsely assumed that they will only have one client. I can see you using your super fast brain and will do a similar calculation like for a fast-food chain and assume that they will only open one store.
Talk about simplistic and embarrsing logic. That takes the cake.
You are using the range of hypothetical numbers of one. OMG!!! You are a math genius indeed.
You are also do this grand strategy that LVRJ is going to rely on money from Righthaven as a major source of income. Yes, you are a freaking geninus again. I am sure that LVRJ is planning to shut down its paper circulation for it is now relying on money from Righthaven.
I have highly confident that you know about the same on the economics of the newspaper business as much as I know about brain surgery.
You make statements like this, " I have to wonder how the paper's going to pay its staff" when referring to lawsuits.
I do this very slowly. There is this entity called Righthaven. It is not same entity as LVRJ.
They are two separate businesses. I hope you can understand that very simple concept.
The only person with rage here is you buddy. You are the one that has taken the task throwing out personal insults. You are the one that needs to seek some medical help.
You seem to be a person that knows a lot about the newspaper business (yeah right). So you should be in the know what AP is about to do. If you knew that then you would be doing back flips being pissed off about that.
Just you clue you in...AP doesn't even like people using small quotes from its material without paying a license fee.
You are so smart. So let's put our money where your mouth is. You say, "possibly the survival of the newspaper given the possibility of source dropoff.". So let's give it one year.
According to you, the LVRJ will be out of business by Sept 27, 2011.
Let's bet $2,000. Is that OK newspaper economic genius?
Also, newspaper genius which paper has the super content in town. Is it the one that wraps another paper in its pages or it is the one that is an insert into another paper?
Sarge: "I have known all along that your a freaking newspaper wiz genius." Thank you, I am somewhat of a newspaper wiz.
"You are using the range of hypothetical numbers of one. OMG!!! You are a math genius indeed." Numbers weren't baseless, but drawn from the $300k the RJ has already invested, public settlements and the general cost of Righthaven's business drawn from its approximate rent, cost of filings a minimal salaries.
"So you should be in the know what AP is about to do" I am.
"AP doesn't even like people using small quotes from its material without paying a license fee" Not exactly true.
"You've got to be Sherm to attribute "According to you, the LVRJ will be out of business by Sept 27, 2011" to me. Your sources are drying up and your advertising's down, partly the recesssion but that decline has grown since the rash of suits has been filed. I never said that you'll be out of business, just that you're losing sources and you are.
Wrapping one paper in another is your continued meaningless argument. Your newspaper has less than 200,000 in circulation and that's been flat to down for years. The Sun has a stronger website that's updated more frequently, while your paper as, in the eyes of many, one of the poorest websites in the business.
What you're not looking at is the great picture which is one that is starting to make it more difficult for some reporters to do their jobs and what the future of this business will look like.
This is not an LVRJ-Sun discussion. The Sun made its bones with a Pulitzer and I think it generally has better reporting and writing, but that's subjective. I also think that the Sun's better prepared for a paid online service, unlike the "bigger paper in town," which should have, by now, started floating the paywall idea out to its readers.
It's just bad business not to do that, and bad business to engage in what might be the kind of litigation that draws the courts attention to numbers of suits, rather than the matter itself.
Innocent infringement, in my opinion, will play a big role in this, as will barrastry. It's supposition, I'll acknowledge, but at least I acknowledge it, rather than pontificate.
"I never said that you'll be out of business, just that you're losing sources and you are."
You can't even track your own crazy statements like " possibly the survival of the newspaper given the possibility of source dropoff."
What the heck does "survival of the newspaper" mean? Perhaps....going out of business.
"Wrapping one paper in another is your continued meaningless argument. " Hmmmm...perhaps the insert can't stand on its own legs and needs to piggyback off the better newspaper.
" I also think that the Sun's better prepared for a paid online service, " Since you backtracked on your prediction of the LVRJ demise, let's make another bet genuis.
Let's bet by the end of 2012, that the Sun, according to you has this super high quality, will place its online content behind a paywall. Ok, newspaper genius put your money where your mouth is.
NY Times tried once the paywall and it was a miserable failure.
There is no major newspaper in the USA that purely places all its content behind a paywall.
It is so funny to see you promote the paywall and then in the some mouth say that defending copyright is a big waste of time. You are a barrel of laughs.
"Innocent infringement" meaning the people who lack any ethics and who while they are placing their mouse cursor over another person's work, copies it and then paste it on their site to drive traffic to it.
Can I come by your house and innocently take some things out of your garage?
It's just impossible to discuss anything with Sarge on a dispassionate, open basis.
"NY Times tried once the paywall and it was a miserable failure....There is no major newspaper in the USA that purely places all its content behind a paywall."
At least the Times gave it a go and the numbers show that it wasn't a "miserable" failure. It put "Premium" news behind it and had a reasonable number of subscribers. It's doing it again in January in some.
The Wall Street Journal has a "paywall," the success of which surprised Murdoch when he took over, according to "The War at the Wall Street Journal."
And, misquoting as you constantly do, I never said that any paper puts everything behind a "paywall."
And stop with the "come by my house" analogy. It's a false analogy and if you don't know that, then, well, this is why it's just foolish to debate with you.
You have been very dispassionate.
For example, you use words like, "impossible, foolish, barrastry (yes you are a lawyer, too and know exactly what that word means...lol), meaningless,embarrssing, minion, publicity hungry fellow, etc...
Yes all that is very dispassionate....very dispassionate indeed.
Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle.
You do know that you look silly when you say the Sun or LVRJ should have a paywall for people to access their web site.
I doubt you realize that.
You also look silly when you use the words "innocent infringement". That is like saying there are "innocent shoplifters", "innocent speeders" and "innocent thieves."
People that copy and paste other work from the Internet and then use that work to publish on their own website in an attempt to get traffic have a lack of ethics.
You don't need to be a copyright lawyer to know that is just plain wrong.
Perhaps you struggle with simple ethics. Most people don't.
Innocent speeder scenario. You are traveling on a road that does not have posted speed limit but a lot of signs that say "drive safe". You think you are driving at a safe speed (sharing articles) as per the "drive safe" (share this) sign (text) and get pulled over and are told it is too fast according so some law the casual driver does not even know about. Rather than put up a speed sign (safeguards like right click pop up warnings), the town hires more cops as they realize that this may be a revenue maker.
You get a $75,000 ticket and they want to take your car.
""We haven't been told not to" cover Righthaven, Zobell said."
Haha, that's a good one. RJ is involved in hundred+ lawsuits via Righthaven, and there is not ONE mentioning of the whole charade on RJ ? I guess you have more important things to write about, huh ?
craignv....this is more like it.
You are traveling on a road. You are going 80 MPH. Common sense and decent ethics tells you that is not a safe speed. You get pulled over and get a ticket.
Just using plain regular day ethic one should know not to copy and paste other's work and place it on your own site to get new traffic.
bubbalv....the LVRJ did ran a story on Righthaven. They just have not ran 100 of them repeating the same old stuff over and over and over and over and over and over again like the Sun.
How do you get a lawyer down from a tree ?
You cut the rope !
Thats what gregdonny thinks-apologies to you know who
I wouldnt trust anyone who supported Wronghaven either...
Nah, the smart ones countersue. People shouldnt give into terroristic threats. They know thell lose in court and are just looking for a quick settlement. WrongHaven is just looking to make money, like the RIAA and MPAA before them. They never cared about artists, just about keeping the money for themselves-- which is why so many artists dissassociated from those organizations and started delivering content straight to P2P. Finally, they learned that lawsuits just dont work so they quit. What the shortsighted corporate types will never understand is that free distribution of material actually encourages those who like the material to buy it. When the lawsuits became outlandish, the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepped in and countersued. Some of these lawsuits were ridiculous, suing people who were dead, suing a person who lives in a homeless shelter who didnt even have access to a computer. Sorry, but these corporate types need to learn their lesson.
Wanna know what this really is all about and what they do with the money once they get it? Read the following.... I hope someone does this to Wronghaven, Im sure it would be widely acclaimed, even in government circles....
http://www.hellmail.co.uk/postalnews/tem...
Its good to see the lawyers themselves being investigated for being copyright trolls :)
As others are doing, I encourage everyone to completely avoid anything done by Stephens Media. Let's boycott them out of business! Just like the RIAA and MPAA learned that copying for personal use was here to stay, just like with VCR taping of TV shows (a famous court case) IF these people are going to threaten us, we will drive them out of business by not supporting them. I hadnt even heard of this filthy rag before this, but now that I have, the EEF will make sure they dont go unpunished..... WrongHaven is a company of 10 people created expressly for the purpose of googling 24/7 to find people to harass. They violate the spirit of US Copyright Laws by their dirty behavior (as mainstream media and lawyers have noted) and they deserve to be taken down, along with Gibson.
As others are doing, I encourage everyone to completely avoid anything done by Stephens Media. Let's boycott them out of business! Just like the RIAA and MPAA learned that copying for personal use was here to stay, just like with VCR taping of TV shows (a famous court case) IF these people are going to threaten us, we will drive them out of business by not supporting them. I hadnt even heard of this filthy rag before this, but now that I have, the EEF will make sure they dont go unpunished with the class action lawsuit against WrongMedia and Gibson that many have already joined..... WrongHaven is a company of 10 people created expressly for the purpose of googling 24/7 to find people to harass. They violate the spirit of US Copyright Laws by their dirty behavior (as mainstream media and lawyers have noted) and they deserve to be taken down, along with Gibson.