Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 | 12:33 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 | 4:53 p.m.
Sun archives
- 5 more website operators sued over R-J copyrights (9-28-2010)
- Attorneys attack Review-Journal copyright suit arrangement (9-27-2010)
- Executive says suing over R-J copyrights worth the negative publicity (9-26-2010)
- 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)
The owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal has for the first time been hit with a counterclaim over its online copyright infringement lawsuit campaign, with attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation accusing the newspaper of entering a "sham" relationship with the Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner Righthaven LLC — and accusing Righthaven of copyright fraud.
Attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an influential Internet freedom of speech and privacy group based in San Francisco, filed the counterclaim Monday in federal court in Las Vegas against Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC as well as Righthaven.
Righthaven is a company owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson and an affiliate of Stephens Media's parent company in Arkansas.
Righthaven detects online infringements to Review-Journal stories, obtains copyrights from Stephens Media to those stories and then sues websites where the stories had been posted weeks or months earlier by webmasters or third-party message-board and forum users. Through Monday, 141 suits had been filed against defendants in the United States and Canada.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says the lawsuit campaign threatens freedom of speech on the Internet as Righthaven generally sues without first asking that infringing material be removed from websites or be replaced with links as is the standard practice in the U.S. newspaper industry.
Besides recruiting attorneys to represent Righthaven defendants for free as a public service, attorneys for the EFF are representing the Democratic Underground LLC in a Righthaven lawsuit over the posting by a message board user of four paragraphs of a 34-paragraph Review-Journal political article.
The EFF attorneys filed their counterclaim in that case Monday, raising defenses previously raised by some other defendants including fair use; unclean hands and barratry (the alleged excessive incitement of litigation); and champerty (an allegedly improper relationship between one funding and one pursuing a lawsuit).
The EFF also raised new allegations against Righthaven, accusing it of causing "fraud upon the Copyright Office."
"This case is a particularly abusive instance of a broad and aggressive strategy by Stephens Media, working in conjunction with its 'little friend' Righthaven as its front and sham representative, to seek windfall recoveries of statutory damages and to exact nuisance settlements by challenging a fair use of an excerpt of an article that Stephens Media makes freely available on the Internet, and which it encourages its users to 'Share & Save' at least 19 different ways," the EFF attorneys wrote in their counterclaim.
The "little friend" reference relates to Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick calling Righthaven his "little friend" in copyright protection matters.
The counterclaim went on to allege:
--Righthaven's business model is to sue in hopes of intimidating defendants into quickly settling for thousands of dollars. (Righthaven typically sues for $150,000 but has been known to settle for $5,000 or less. It demands that defendants forfeit their website names, but so far has let settling defendants keep their names. Righthaven initially demanded $75,000 in statutory damages in its suits but lately has been demanding $150,000, without explaining the increase.)
--"Righthaven has not published any works (stories) with a copyright notice identifying itself as copyright owner of the published work. Counterclaimant believes and therefore alleges that Righthaven has not sued to enforce any copyrights other than copyrights in works in which it claimed the initial author was Stephens Media. Counterclaimant believes and therefore alleges that the assignment of copyright from Stephens Media to Righthaven underlying the claims in this case is a sham."
--"Stephens Media retains some legal or equitable interest in some copyright rights in the news article. Counterclaimant believes and therefore alleges that Righthaven is acting as agent of Stephens Media in connection with the claims Righthaven asserts in this case. Counterclaimant believes and therefore alleges that Stephens Media is an alter ego of Righthaven for the purposes of this case and that any separation between them for the purposes of this lawsuit is a sham."
The Democratic Underground response also noted that on the Review-Journal website's privacy statement, it's stated by Stephens Media that "we do not and cannot monitor materials transmitted by users or third parties into bulletin boards, chat rooms and the like."
"Counterclaimant believes and therefore alleges that Stephens Media does not screen all materials transmitted by users or third parties into bulletin boards, chat rooms, and the like before they appear," the response said in an apparent attempt to show that the unauthorized posting of third-party material on websites as alleged in Righthaven lawsuits may also be happening on the Review-Journal website.
The Democratic Underground response then charged Stephens Media has its own copyright issues, alleging: "employees of Stephens Media have cut and pasted excerpts of copyrighted materials to which Stephens Media has no license or copyright rights on multiple occasions."
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, explained that in covering the news and in writing blogs and reviews, Review-Journal writers regularly cut and paste materials from press releases, books and other materials. This is not necessarily copyright infringement, but Opsahl said this practice was included in the counterclaim because the same type of cutting and pasting resulted in the lawsuit against the Democratic Underground.
The Review-Journal and Righthaven can’t legitimately complain about cutting and pasting of the type in the Democratic Underground case since Review-Journal writers regularly engage in that practice, he said.
Opsahl noted three intellectual property attorneys from the San Francisco law firm Winston & Strawn LLP are working on the case for the Democratic Underground on a pro bono, or public service, basis. They include Andrew Bridges, whom Opsahl called one of the nation’s foremost intellectual property attorneys, with extensive experience defending Internet service providers.
Also working on the case for the Democratic Underground are J. Caleb Donaldson and Kathleen Lu of Winston & Strawn, Opsahl and Corynne McSherry of the EFF; and Las Vegas attorney Chad Bowers.
The counterclaim went on to say that the story at issue that was posted on the Democratic Underground site is still available for free on the Review-Journal website and that the story there includes the notice "Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal."
"As of the filing of this answer and counterclaim, that copyright notice was false," the counterclaim charged, noting Righthaven claims to be the copyright owner now.
The Democratic Underground counterclaim also said that in another Righthaven lawsuit, Righthaven attorneys said that excerpting the first two paragraphs — or three sentences of a 28-sentence story — would have been fair use even though that use exceeded 10 percent of the story.
In the Democratic Underground case, five sentences or less than 10 percent of the 54-sentence story were re-posted, the attorneys said.
"In the post on the Democratic Underground website at issue, the five sentences accompanying the link to the news article on LVRJ’s website served to stimulate interest in the article displayed on the LVRJ website," the counterclaim said.
Asked about the counterclaim Tuesday, Mark Hinueber, vice president and general counsel of Stephens Media, said in an email: "We do not comment on pending litigation and have not been served with a copy of the suit."
Righthaven has previously denied the barratry allegation against it. Asked about the counterclaim Tuesday, Gibson said: "The Las Vegas Sun's reporting on this matter has been horribly one-sided, biased and at times in my view not fully accurate."
Gibson declined to cite any specific instances of biased or inaccurate reporting, saying he had no confidence they would be appropriately dealt with.
Separately, three website operators sued Monday by Righthaven responded to queries from the Las Vegas Sun about the lawsuits.
"We have been following this extortion racket with some alarm. Like many others, it seems, we have learned of the lawsuit against National Wind Watch only from your query. Therefore, we have little to say at this time," said Eric Rosenbloom, president of National Wind Watch Inc. in Rowe, Mass.
While an exhibit in the Righthaven lawsuit indicates an entire Review-Journal story was posted on the Wind Watch website, Rosenbloom said: "It is National Wind Watch policy to publish only excerpts of stories from the Stephens Media newspapers, and the article cited in the complaint is no exception: only the first four paragraphs of the 32-paragraph story are reproduced. The source and a link to the original are prominently provided right below the title, as for all news articles that we publish for the benefit of our worldwide audience."
At the AR15.com website, Juan Avila said: "We have not heard anything from any lawyers, nor had we received any emails requesting action on the infringing discussion."
"We are a discussion forum (much like Democratic Underground) and the content was posted by a third party. The discussion had 160 views and two replies, meaning it barely got any attention. It looked like the author posted the article in its entirety as it was not very long. Because of the amount of traffic we get, it's near impossible to find all of these types of posts without help. Anytime an author contacts us with a similar issue, we handle it immediately as per their request," Avila said.
"Typically, they wish to continue to have a link to their article, but ask more of the copied text be removed to help encourage traffic back to their site. We are strong believers in protecting original content, but in an open discussion forum with high traffic, it takes help. Additionally, since web content can be posted by anyone, who is to stop an associate of theirs or employee of the owning company from posting it themselves to create these types of scenarios?" Avila said.
At Climate Change Dispatch, Tom Richard said: "I haven't heard anything about this (lawsuit). I have heard about them and their tactics and have since removed any LVRJ material from the site."
"On the face of it, it looks utterly silly considering we have a mechanism for any DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) violations via our contact page. It's like using an elephant gun to kill a mouse," Richard said.
Gibson may be Sherm's "little friend" but soon he'll become his "big nightmare." The pattern doesn't change.
This is the showdown I was expecting from the very beginning. I hope it can move with reasonable speed through the courts.
What is of interest now is what impact will EFF's action have on any other pending or new suits filed by Righthaven?
So Sherm isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is? hmmm, color me surprised.
Where's SargRock now that we really need the RJ's position on this latest nail in the eventual RJ / Righthaven coffin?
<smirk>
In Federal court litigation, a Counter Claim is supposed to be an "I sue you back for bad things you did to me". In other words there are two separate lawsuits proceeding simultaneously, under the Complaint and the Counter Claim.
One cannot bring a "malicious prosecution" case as a Counter Claim, because the defendant has to win the basic case (Complaint) before the malicious prosecution claim can be made.
I waded through the 150+ paragraphs of this "Counter Claim", and it's a nothing in my book. Just 150+ paragraphs of blah, blah, blah about why the defendant did nothing wrong. I kept looking for any pleading of a real cause of action against Righthaven or the other defendant.
There wasn't one. Instead, just a request that the court declare that no copyright violation occurred. It's commonly called a Declaratory Relief cause of action. Not scary at all.
If that is all the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a large, national law firm can come up with to attack Righthaven and the other defendant, I am not impressed.
I highly doubt the plaintiffs are going to be deterred.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I did read through the counterclaim. What occurred to me is not so much the claim itself but that Edwards and Righthaven are now going to have to pony up for a response or defense. Also, maybe the counterclaim strategy will get some traction and be followed by other public interest groups, ACLU, 1st Amendment, etc., as well as some of the defendants themselves.
You can dismiss (not in a legal sense) the merits of the counterclaim, but not the cost for Edwards, who will need his own attorney (probably paid for by Stephens) and Righthaven, which will have some internal cost and time.
> I waded through the 150+ paragraphs of this "Counter Claim", and it's a nothing in my book.
perhaps --- but the court must determine that. what will that cost? what will happen, as murryb points out, that the counter attacks will become more and more refined and more and more effective with each action. Righthaven of course was sharpening its edge with its starter suits --- but as they move up the food chain things will get harder and harder for them.
I don't know that the goal would be necessarily to stop Righthaven cold --- but make them work hard enough to make cost a staggering issue.
The countersuit is so funny.
I think it will be used as the funny pages for law school classes.
What did they do get a 1st year law student to type up the briefing?
vegas_tom: If "starter suits" means small guys, yes. But, if you're talking about the complaints themselves, they're all fill in the blanks; all almost exactly the same. While I said earlier that we might even seem counterclaims from defendants, the heavy fire, in my opinion, will come from the PIRGs, which have serious legal power internally and major outside firms on which they can call.
I wonder if the RJ's management will see performance bonuses this year.
I just read through the counterclaim. What strikes me is that if the relief being sought by Allen is granted, meaning it wins the counter-suit, then it will set a standard that will be used by other Righthaven targets whenever it seems appropriate with a good chance of success. Considering that such relief includes all legal costs that could get expensive for Righthaven and easily wipe out whatever profit they might have realized.
Of even more interest is that the counter suit claims that the RJ has not taken steps to fully comply with DMCA itself, and would be vulnerable to the exact same tactics if a 3rd party posted copyrighted material on the forums inappropriately. I'm sure that the very first thing they will do after reading the counter claim will be to register an Agent for contact with the copyright office. :)
botfx..."Of even more interest is that the counter suit claims that the RJ has not taken steps to fully comply with DMCA itself, and would be vulnerable to the exact same tactics if a 3rd party posted copyrighted material on the forums inappropriately"
You been hoodwinked.
LVJR has created a Safe Harbor against causal users posting copyright material. When in the Safe Harbor that requires a take-down notice when a causal users posts copyright material.
There is no Safe Harbor if a owner or website staffer posts copyright material.
Any website can create a Safe Harbor by following DMCA rules which include registering contact information with the US Copyright office.
If Democratic Underground followed DMCA rules then they would not be in this mess.
If you own a small website they you should be pre-screening postings.
I am not sure if the Sun has created a Safe Harbor or not.
SgtRock,
From page 13, paragraph 70:
"Counterclaimant believes and therefore alleges that Stephens Media has not, at the
time of the filing of this Answer and Counterclaim, properly filed a designation of agent to receive
notification of copyright infringement as provided under 17 U.S.C. 512."
In other words, the RJ have not fully taken steps to qualify for safe harbor protection.
boftx: There's no point in debating Sarge. It's much like a political debate with the very far right (or the left for that matter). There's never any movement or acknowledgement of a possible valid point.
First, if he is an attorney, he seems to have gotten his degree from a Bahamamanian law school. If he doesn't have his degree, he's been watching too much Court TV.
Second, it just doesn't matter what position he takes. One of these cases is going to court. And, while the defendants did violate the copyright laws, both general and conventional wisdom among attorneys in this field, at least some of the better ones is that recovery, if anything, will be di minimus and legal fees will not be awarded. Now, that's certainly a supposition on their parts, but they're in a better position to know than most, if not all of us.
Third, this is a very complex issue, notwithstanding the violations. For example, the "implied consent" component, as much as our friend wants to diminish it, is quite major, as well as some other allegations.
Finally, as I think I've said before, these suits won't be settled finally here, but rather in Washington and in the Supreme Court. That's my guess anyway.
Concerning the RJ, again, I think the action that it has taken has severely diminished the value of the paper to the community and for a potential sale, if Stephens wants to do that later.
Sherm Edwards, in my opinion, is the single worst newspaper employee (it's impossible for me to call him a "newsman") I've ever experienced. And, I've experienced hundreds of them. Further, if Sarge is, indeed, Sherm in masquerade, it's going to cause him a lot trouble when one of these cases gets to court.
And, by the way, I speak from experience in both of those businesses.
I agree with you, murray, that the RJ has taken a major PR hit.
As for SgtRock, it is widely believed that he used to post on the Sun using the name jfnance (I don't recall the capitals, if any, that were present). I don't think anyone ever associated him with Sherm til he started defending the RJ in this articles and I see no reason to think he is Sherm.
Copyright protection is a valuable right, and needs to be protected, but so does respect for our courts and culture. The RJ had demonstrated respect for neither.
botfx....just because somebody puts something in a briefing does not make it true.
Even if that statement is true then it has absolutely nothing with the defendent stealing and posting copyright material. It is like saying talking to a cop that pulled you over and saying, "Yes, I was going 100 MPH but the car to the left of us was going 70 MPH."
Sarge: Why don't you tell us your association with the RJ? If you're an attorney, the defendants in these cases have little about which to be concerned. If you're a proxy for Edwards, he's just as, well, dumb and ill-informed as his blog and his editorials. And, if you're speaking on your own, stop trying to interpret that about which you know little or nothing. Opinions are fine, but pontification is just showing ignorance.
SgtRock, the entire counterclaim is laying out the case that Righthaven is bringing an action in equity with unclean hands.
Beyond that, if the assertion that less than 10% of the original material was used in the excerpt is true, then that falls well within the guidelines set by other cases and what is cited as a standard rule of thumb as being safe for "fair use".
Also, the counterclaim raises some real issues regarding potential ethical violations by Gibson at the time.
To be honest, I would not be surprised at all if some of the counterclaim stands up and the suit is dismissed.
Visit the EFF website, these folks know a lot about copyright law and DMCA. I'll grant that they fired a shotgun at this, but its a damn BIG shotgun.
"Copyright protection is a valuable right, and needs to be protected, but so does respect for our courts and culture."
So it is a valuable right and according to you one should not go to court to defend that valuable right.
Interesting conflict you have presented to yourself.
I guess another way to defend a valuable right is allow people to steal it and then to spend money to track them down and send a nice letter begging them not to steal again.
I make a note.
You have a valuable right then don't go to court to defend it.
Thanks for the advice.
So you know:
St. Johns College Annapolis
GW Graduate School MA American History
Georgetown Law
Simpson Thatcher
James Buckley staff, Legislative Affairs
Tell us about yourself Sarge
botfx, their "unclean hands" arguments are so lame.
They might have a slight chance with the amount of material argument but I doubt if that flies either.
Murryburns, "Opinions are fine, but pontification is just showing ignorance"......don't be so hard on youself. We are Ok if you keep showing your ignorance.
Why don't we meet face to face, Sarge...and have a reporter from the RJ and the Sun there?
Remember when 'libertarians' Sherman Frederick III, Vinnie and Cowboy Tom used to whine about frivolous lawsuits? Whatever happened to those guys?
That's odd -- SgtRock ALWAYS shows up on these comment boards when there's a story about the RJ/GOP/Righthaven frivolous lawsuits.
Hmmm...
Electronic Frontier Foundation is no fly by night group. They have won major cases all across this country including with the Fed's in Washington.
They have been involved in a great deal of Federal case law.
They may not have everything 100% in their filing but all good suits start out that way. Load it up and thin it out as time goes on.
They are no fools. Best to sit back and watch this one rather then make opinions that may bite you later.
Waiting for Sarge. I really do think we should get together and discuss face to face. And, we'll have a reporter from the RJ and the Sun there to document. How's that?
I doubt you could get anyone from the RJ to show up, Murray, but I'd be happy to be a co-moderator with Steve if he'd agree to it. :)
A rather ironic story, from Britain, for you copyright mavens to read:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/in...
It seems there is more than one way to attack copyright infringers !
Sarge: Are we going to get together? All: If Sarge agrees, feel free to join us.
I must admit, all kinds of interesting topics in that story, Cynical. :)
Sarge, are we going to meet? All, the answer to that question, I guess, is "No." I'm willing to debate this publicly with Sarge and I'll bet I could get Green to cover it. Come on Sarge, let's have a beer and talk things out, publicly, with no masks.
Sarge has mysteriously disappeared as soon as he was called out and told to put up or shut up. Darn teabaggers!
> It seems there is more than one way to attack copyright infringers !
it cuts both ways. a week or two ago the RIAA probed several file sharing sites and ended up with a 3 hour denial of service attack they couldn't even begin to come to grips with.
the neat thing about technology? it levels the playing field.
I just wanted to meet him and discuss this in the open. No big deal, but my feeling is that if you have an opinion, you should be, well, proud of it, or support it in person, especially if there's as much "passion" behind it as Sarge portrays.
Again, so all posting here are aware, I understand the issue of copyright violation, or did once this whole thing started. I think it's a non-violent issue and that people just made mistakes that really cost the RJ nothing.
I only have one issue with it: Jumping right to litigation on this. The news business is important to all of us and yet the media is ranked almost as low in reputation as lawyers and Congress. You would think the RJ, which regularly is ridiculed in the circles I frequent, would have taken a different direction.
If you really stop to think about it, there's more innocence in this than guilt as a result of Internet history as well as its youth.
What truly disturbs me is that the RJ has done nothing on its website to prevent it and has not yet written a story about it, though Zobell says they're going to do something "big." I'm not sure what that might be as Green's all over it and has been since it started.
The paper has just not exercised integrity in this matter and for a news organization that's terribly troubling.
"What truly disturbs me is that the RJ ..... has not yet written a story about it"
Yet again, you have displayed your ignorance.
I think Murray has expressed how all of us (with a few exceptions) feel about this.
It's not that we don't appreciate copyrights and what they mean, it's that we think that Stephens Media and Gibson have formed an alliance that is aimed solely at using the courts for profit, not justice.
That is just plain wrong.
The law makes a distinction between a legal right and a valuable one -- between injury and damages. All these Righthaven claims seem to suffer from the same problem: there may be legal injury, but there does not appear to be more than nominal damages -- if there be any damage at all. Ultimately, this can be a very dangerous position for Righthaven and its counsel to be in, and especially dangerous with a filing rate of over 250 cases per year in one District.
"that is aimed solely at using the courts for profit, not justice."
So do you think most law firms make no profits?
When Righthaven hits some unethical person that has copied and pasted a story that they had nothing to do with generating that there is no justice in that?
In one breath you guys yell that Righthaven is not making money.
In the next breath you guys yell that Righthaven is making a ton of money.
Which one is it?
I don't think they even made a profit yet.
If they do then that is OK. Most law firms have a business model to make a profit. OMG!!!! Just of the thougth of that must drive you nuts.
Rock: Zobell acknowledged publicly when as of the time this story was published that no story has been written. As of today, the RJ remains scooped and with no story. It's now apparent that you're just tossing off random thoughts, not facts.
Righthaven/Steve Gibson: "Hey LVRJ, lemme borrow those copyrights for a sec. I'm going to sue a ton of people for big money. When I'm done, I'll give them back to you."
LVRJ: "Um...Ok. Do you think it will work?"
Righthaven/Steve Gibson: "Work? We're gonna be rich! Trust me. I'm a lawyer. I know what I'm doing."
- - - -
Unfortunately, this little arrangement between LVRJ and its "little friend" Righthaven is illegal.
Champerty & Barratry. I'm glad the EFF is calling them on it
Goodbye Righthaven. Get your things in order. The end is nigh.
Aynnie: First, I'm on your side. But, your statement: "this little arrangement between LVRJ and its "little friend" Righthaven is illegal" should be qualified as "may be illegal." We just won't know until it reaches the courts.
I think the fact that Sherm Frederick uses the "my little friend" metaphor is amusing as we know it refers to a violent, drug dealing murderer in "Scarface." That a newspaperman would even consider that as a positive analogy is just nutty.
On the other hand, Sherm Frederick is neither a newsman nor a good manager. I think he's shown that repeatedly in the product he produces.
Sarge: A link to the RJ story please and not that brief that made the paper, I understand, by accident. Again, you're just making statements pulled out of the air. Even Zobell acknowledged the paper hadn't done story. Excuse, it's not a newspaper is it? Don Reynolds is probably rolling in his grave.
And don't start the "it's not news" garbage: It's national news. But then again, if you're a pawn of the RJ and Righthaven, you don't know what news is, I guess.
On the other hand, I'm still waiting to get together.
Aynnie: Righthaven/Steve Gibson: "Work? We're gonna be rich! Trust me. I'm a lawyer. I know what I'm doing."
Perfect. Just look at the settlements so far.
murrayburns says: '"What truly disturbs me is that the RJ ..... has not yet written a story about it"
Now there is this thing called Google. Go to advance search. Type in "Righthaven" in the "all these words" section. Type in "www.lvrj.com" in the "search within a site or domain:" section.
You should find a link to this news article by LVRJ on Righthaven.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/angle-faces-cop...
Now you have received an education on Google searches and you will not look so silly when making statements that are not true.
Sarge: I stand marginally corrected, but I interpreted that as an Angle story, as apparently did Zobell, who responded to this question more forthrightly than you. He acknowledged the paper had not done a story on the suits and said it would do something "big," or at least was planning to do so.
On the other hand, I'm sure you know better than the Managing Editor of the RJ.
When are we going to meet? And what is your association with the RJ or Righthaven? And what is your background?
And, if you do decide to come out and talk personally about this, I'll make sure you become famous.
Oh, and maybe you can tell me why the major papers in the US have not taken these actions. Specifically, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Herald, to name just a few. They all send out letters.
Could it be that Sherm just can't make a buck running a paper and has to try to do so as PI attorney would?
You are marginally correct...as in overall...you are marignally correct in almost everything you do.
Also you may have maringal reading skills.
The paragraph right above the Zobell quote, Mr. Green wrote, "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." I guess you skipped over that.
Also you adding more to the Zobell what was stated by Mr. Green. Zobell did not say that no story on Righthaven by the LVRJ had occured. Mr Green discribes his conversation with Zobell as ",said the newspaper hasn't found Righthaven to be particularly newsworthy". So far all they found was one story that has been particularly newsorthy whereas the Sun has found 100 stories that often repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again the same points.
Sarge: I'm about done with you. Blog posts aren't news. It almost had sue Angle and write about it or its credibility might have moved into minus territory.
Let's face, you know virtually nothing about news, news value or the news industry. Oh, that puts you right in Sherm's league. How about we meet this week for drink. Pick the spot and I'll be there. Oh, everyone else here is invited.
Come on out and play Sarge. And if you can't, tell me how those other newspapers handle copyright violations. Oh, you don't have to. I already checked a few and wrote about them.
Just admit it. You can't read.
Mr. Green referred to a LVRJ news article.
I give you the link to the actual LVRJ news article.