Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Jan. 4, 2011 | 4:52 p.m.
Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas filed another copyright infringement lawsuit Monday, even as existing defendants fought back against Righthaven lawsuits.
A lawsuit alleging copyright infringement was filed in U.S. District Court for Nevada against the nonprofit Lone Star Foundation Inc. and Andy Hogue in Austin, Texas, allegedly associated with the website lonestarreport.org. The Lone Star Report describes itself as a weekly publication providing news and commentary about Texas politics.
Records show that most of a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about Nevada election law charges against ACORN was re-posted on the Lone Star Report website on Nov. 29, with the information credited to the Review-Journal. Righthaven says in its lawsuit it now owns the copyright to the story and that it was posted on the Lone Star site without authorization.
As in all its recent lawsuits, Righthaven demands $150,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendant’s website domain name.
William Lutz, managing editor of the Lone Star Report, said an inquiry from the Las Vegas Sun was the first he had heard there was any concern about the publication using the Review-Journal story.
Lutz said a simple phone call from the Review-Journal or Righthaven — as opposed to a lawsuit — could have resolved the problem.
"It wasn’t our intent to plagiarize anything. It wasn’t our intent to violate any copyright. We hope this can be resolved amicably," Lutz said.
This lawsuit lifted to at least 196 the number of copyright infringement lawsuits Righthaven has filed since March.
Righthaven is the Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner. Righthaven has also been offering its services to the newspaper industry and at least two of its suits were filed over Denver Post material.
Two defendants sued earlier by Righthaven, in the meantime, have filed court papers denying the allegations.
One answer was filed by lawyers for attorney John Leighton and his firm Leighton Law P.A. in Miami and Orlando. They were sued in November after Righthaven said a Review-Journal illustration of the Vdara hotel "death ray'' was posted without authorization on Leighton's website resortinjurylawyerblog.com.
Leighton's answer includes assertions made by some other defendants who are challenging Righthaven's procedure of detecting copyright infringements, obtaining copyrights to the infringed material and then suing the alleged infringers on a retroactive basis.
"Plaintiff's alleged copyright is invalid and/or unenforceable,'' said the answer filed for Leighton by Las Vegas attorneys with the law firm Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux.
Leighton's attorneys also said the re-posting of the graphic was allowed by the "fair use'' doctrine -- an argument that has been receiving more attention since one of the judges handling Righthaven cases has ordered Righthaven to show cause why a lawsuit against a nonprofit should not be dismissed on fair use grounds.
Leighton's attorneys also asserted the "implied license'' argument in which another judge ruled the Review-Journal may have provided a license to users to reproduce its material by encouraging its readers to share its material online.
"Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of misuse of copyright or failure to give proper statutory notice,'' Leighton's attorneys added in their answer. The "give proper statutory notice'' argument could relate to Righthaven's practice of suing website operators without first asking or demanding that infringing material be removed and/or be replaced with links, which is the standard practice in the newspaper industry.
Righthaven has not yet responded to Leighton's answer. The company insists its lawsuit defendants are not protected by the fair use and implied license arguments.
And while critics complain about Righthaven's policy of suing without warning, Righthaven points out in its lawsuits the defendants it sues also didn't bother to make a phone call or send an email to seek permission to post the material at issue.
Also responding to a Righthaven lawsuit was Michael Scaccia of the Southern Nevada town of Pahrump, who was sued in September after a Review-Journal story about problems at a private prison in Arizona was posted on his Pahrump Life website.
The Pahrump Life website has been active in opposing a private prison in Pahrump.
Scaccia, who represents himself in the litigation, said in his response that the story about officials resigning from a prison after prisoners escaped "is a recitation of facts consisting of less than 300 words and lacks sufficient originality of expression to be protectable by copyright.''
Scaccia also argued the post on the Pahrump Life site fully credited the Review-Journal and its writer, the post was protected by fair use and "defendant's purpose in publishing the article was to educate people in Pahrump and elsewhere about the dangers and other problems associated with private prisons.''
Scaccia noted the story was available for free on the Review-Journal website and wrote: "Since plaintiff suffered no damages and defendant made no profits, plaintiff should be awarded no money even if plaintiff were to prevail in this action.''
Scaccia asserted that if an infringement occurred, he was an unwillful infringer as he "had no reason to believe that the publication of the article in the Pahrump Life blog constituted an infringement of any copyright.''
If statutory damages are awarded, they should be the minimum $200 rather than the $75,000 demanded by Righthaven in its lawsuit, Scaccia wrote.
The Sun always notes: "most news organizations send demand letetrs". Why don't they practice what they preach?
http://www.lasvegasinfonewspaper.com/cat...
Chunky says:
Like a herpes virus the Righthaven saga just keeps coming back again and again! Glad reporter Steve Green is staying on top of it though!
It's so sad our judicial system can be misused in such a way that someone with a law degree and license to practice can use the system in a totally unjust manner to create a money racket!
Hopefully someone or a larger group will turn the tides on Righthaven and make them pay the true victims who are the defendants in these cases.
That's what Chunky thinks... at least that can be printed!
When will Righthaven show the $150,000 in damages they have incurred by someone posting an R-J story?
nrs49275,
Just what is your point? The site you link to is obviously harvesting and re-posting full articles from the Sun. I know that the full stories are not available from the Sun's RSS feeds, so there is some kind of other software in use.
To be honest, I would consider what that site is doing as copyright infringement. They post a teaser on the front page, and only after going to the full reproduction on their site do you see a link to the original story at the bottom. Even worse is that there appears to be little or no original content provided by the site itself.
Are you saying that the Sun has sued that site without sending a takedown request first? Or that the Sun hasn't bothered to try to stop the infringement at all?
Contrast the example you gave to how I present the Sun RSS feed (which I obtained written permission to use) on my site: http://www.abovetheaisle.org/aggregator/...
"most news organizations send demand letters"
False.....most news organizations do not actively have programs to look for copyright infringement and therefore do nothing about it.
Even when they detect it they usually do nothing.
Too bad....there is false reporting here.
this just shows the true character of the review-journal's publisher, bob brown.
Anybody other then the Las Vegas Sun actually think this is relevant?
.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. The RJ should just tell the Sun to go sell their own paper and be done with it.
'And while critics complain about Righthaven's policy of suing without warning, Righthaven points out in its lawsuits the defendants it sues also didn't bother to make a phone call or send an email to seek permission to post the material at issue.'
The 2 wrongs don't make a right issue...
Chunky says:
He thinks it's kind of interesting that some commentators here rage on the police for not firing "warning shots", using Tasers and other non-lethal force, yet they think it's okay for a law firm to overuse the legal system without so much as saying "stop or I'll shoot". A $150,000 suit against an individual is the equivalent of shooting someone who cannot defend themselves within the system; they're forced to hire lawyers. Righthaven knows that and abuses the system.
Chunky respects the intellectual property rights of all creators / authors and it seems most other people do too.
Where the rub comes in are the aggressive tactics of Righthaven and using the system to create a business model; albeit a sick one.
As to the valuation of their intellectual property at $150,000, it would be Chunky's guess that the RJ probably doesn't earn that much revenue in a day for their print and online media, much less one article.
That's what Chunky thinks!
Where is the Righthaven office? I think I might just pay them a visit...with some fire...
Oh, Chunky, I couldn't resist this: "As to the valuation of their intellectual property at $150,000, it would be Chunky's guess that the RJ probably doesn't earn that much revenue in a day for their print and online media, much less one article."
You've made a great point and to me these suits were brought to develop revenues. Thinking about the RJ's circulation, under 200,000, and it's declining ad revenues over the years, as well as the awful condition of the newspaper industry in general, I have no doubt that you're right.
I think that Stephens Media has put itself in a very bad position. First, it has to defend at least two countersuits, no doubt with outside lawyers who are going to cost them at least $100,000. Second, the newspaper's reputation as a "newspaper," and standing in the community has deterioriated to a point where if they want to sell it, it could well be at even a more distressed price than it would get in this economy.
At the end of the day, none of this really matters much because probably many of those sued can't afford even a minimal settlement and those who have settled have done so at amounts so low, at least those reported, as to make this a very losing proposition financially.
I never thought I'd say this, but I am at point where I wouldn't at all mind seeing the RJ just go out of business.
Your "warning shot" analogy was masterful, by the way. Thanks.
Does anyone know if any newspapers other then the RJ are doing this? I am just curious.
Last Sunday I traveled to California. I stopped in Baker and I wanted to buy a newspaper to read during lunch. The Sunday RJ was either $3.00 or $3.50 (I can't remember which), and the Sunday LA Times was less then $1.50. No contest here. It is time for the RJ to go.
TheKash: A Colorado paper is with Righthaven and it may also be associated with Stephens, but I'm not sure. As to other papers, while I would think probably so, but I have Google Alerts for "Copyright" and I don't recall any other than those mentioned.
As for Sarge's comment, "most news organizations do not actively have programs to look for copyright infringement and therefore do nothing about it.Even when they detect it they usually do nothing." I believe it's correct.
And, so, by the way, are those newspapers that do nothing about it, which I attribute to smart management that recognizes the benefits of not offending their community, among other things.
I have, however, read several stories about newspapers issuing "take down" notices and being very successful with that tactic.
Of course, the RJ isn't all that successful and apparently must seek out revenues that are external to the news business. What creative management, don't you think? Oh, Sherm was effectively fired and Mitchell demoted and they brought in an editor from a two bit Arkansas paper to work under a publisher who comes from the ad business, at which he apparently wasn't very successful, given the RJ's ad revenues.
What a wonderful lesson in how to accelerate the death of a newspaper.
RJ needS the money, they even provide medical insurance to people with preexisting conditons who only write one column a week.