Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, March 4, 2011 | 7:49 p.m.
New evidence surfaced Friday in the Righthaven LLC lawsuits that attorneys say could undermine Righthaven’s entire copyright infringement lawsuit campaign over Las Vegas Review-Journal stories.
Attorneys for the online freedom of speech group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed heavily-redacted court papers in Las Vegas on Friday asking the federal court for permission to use the evidence against Righthaven and Stephens Media LLC.
Stephens Media owns the Review-Journal and a Stephens Media affiliate co-owns Righthaven.
Righthaven in the past year has filed 239 copyright infringement lawsuits against website operators and message-board posters, charging material from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post has been re-posted online without authorization.
The information filed Friday involves a Righthaven lawsuit against the Democratic Underground, which was sued after a message-board user posted on the Democratic Underground site four paragraphs from a 34-paragraph Review-Journal story.
The Democratic Underground fired back with a counterclaim against Righthaven and Stephens Media. Both the lawsuit and the counterclaim appear headed toward resolution with competing motions for dismissal by Stephens Media and Righthaven and for summary judgment by the Democratic Underground.
A key issue in the litigation is the relationship between Righthaven and Stephens Media and their arrangement in which Righthaven was able to file its lawsuits after obtaining copyright assignments from Stephens Media.
Key to understanding the relationship is that Righthaven obtains rights to the copyrights weeks or months after they are allegedly infringed on by defendants posting stories, photos and graphics on their websites. Then, weeks or months after that, defendants are sued.
That’s why critics call Righthaven a copyright troll. It finds alleged infringements and then obtains the copyrights — and after that files its suits.
Righthaven has insisted in many of its lawsuits that it has standing to sue in this retroactive fashion based on the copyright assignments covering both past and present infringements.
But in the counterclaim, EFF/Democratic Underground attorneys charged Righthaven and Stephens Media have been abusing copyright law and that “Righthaven does not rightfully own the copyright in question, in that the assignment was a sham designed solely to pursue litigation with rights being retained by Stephens Media.”
In Friday’s court filing, EFF attorneys suggested documents recently turned over to the EFF by Stephens Media back up their claim about the “sham” copyright assignment.
While not disclosing everything they had received because of discovery rules, the EFF attorneys said in court papers this recently-received material is “key evidence” and has never been seen in any of Righthaven’s lawsuits.
In asking the Nevada federal court to allow them to use it in the litigation, they wrote: “In particular, defendants submit that (redacted) demonstrates a compelling need for the court to adjudicate the issues raised by the counterclaim as to (redacted) as that issue may affect and dispose of hundreds of cases now improperly pending in this district.”
The court filing further confirmed this new evidence involves the copyright assignments when the EFF attorneys commented that the new evidence contradicts Stephens Media’s argument it was improperly named in the counterclaim because, according to Stephens Media, “complete ownership of the work being sued upon has been transferred to Righthaven without any ambiguity.”
The new evidence “eviscerates this argument and exposes the plain falsity of these assertions,” EFF attorney Laurence Pulgram of the law firm Fenwick & West LLP in San Francisco wrote in Friday’s filing.
As for prior rulings upholding the validity of the copyright assignment, the EFF attorneys said those rulings came because “Righthaven had withheld from the court” that redacted evidence.
The EFF attorneys also said this new information “further substantiates the impossibility of harm to Righthaven’s market for the work,” a key fair use factor. This suggests the new information shows Stephens Media maintains an economic interest in the copyrights Righthaven has been suing over.
The bottom line for the EFF attorneys is that the new information “substantiates the need to resolve the counterclaim’s allegations that the assignment is invalid, a sham and unenforceable.”
EFF attorneys aren’t the only ones challenging Righthaven’s copyright assignments. The same issue has been raised repeatedly by defendants, with no success so far. Most recently, the Media Bloggers Association raised the issue in another Righthaven case, but the judge in that case hasn’t yet ruled on its assertions.
It’s unknown whether the evidence revealed Friday would apply to Righthaven’s lawsuits over Denver Post material.
In the Denver Post cases, defense attorneys have not yet conducted discovery that may reveal the nature of the copyright assignment arrangement between Righthaven, the Denver Post and its parent, MediaNews Group.
Righthaven and Stephens Media attorneys have not yet responded to Friday’s court filing.
If this is true and these are sham copyright assignments then this is a conspiracy by Righthaven, Stevens Media, News Media Group, and anyone else aligned with Righthaven to defraud victims. If this is true there must be a federal grand jury empaneled immediately to investigate for the possible indictments of all media companies, their executives and Righthaven including everyone involved. This may blow up to be the largest scandal to ever hit the newspaper industry.
Yes, and it will serve them right. They opened up a can of worms. What I want to know is why the courts hasn't sanctioned RH for their abuse of the court system.
Again Righthaven and Stephens Media, looks dirty trying to pull a scam, I have never figured out how someone that does not own the copyright to begin with could sue after the fact.
I still tell everybody that I know never buy a paper off the RJ news paper, they allow you to Email the story to anybody and to tweet and share the story.Then they sue their readership when they post anything about the story, they never send a take down notice, what a way of doing business, they should be patting themselves on the back, what a pathetice way to make money.
If they can't come up with a better business plan then that they should get out of the news parer business. All their advertisers should drop them..!
Somewhat parallels the mortgage foreclosure mess. Who owns the loan? Who has the right to foreclose? But you sold the loan. So the company that owns it can foreclose...not the person that issued it...who owns it? when and so on...
Bottom line is much of the RJ content is mediocre, most of the opinion over their seems pretty stale and predictable...a lot of warmed over right wing talking points that where run through the ringer on talk radio and Fox until they're threadbare. Then the Cowboy hat and the "master-mind" of revenue enhancement chew on what's left a little more. Moreover, given the multimedia of today, neither of the two "philosophers" over there make much of a presence on radio, TV, the net or in person. Blandsville.
"What I want to know is why the courts hasn't sanctioned RH for their abuse of the court system"
Because they are properly using the court system. There is not anything for the courts to sanction over.
" I have never figured out how someone that does not own the copyright to begin with could sue after the fact."
In Righthaven cases judges have confirmed that assignment is legal and Righthaven can sue for infringement.
"still tell everybody that I know never buy a paper off the RJ news paper,"
You do know that hurts the Sun, too. I find this funny. The Sun hates the LVRJ. They hate it so much that they generate stories to cause others to hate the LVRJ and not buy their paper. In turn, they are hurting themselves because it reduces readership for the Sun paper, too. I guess they are OK if they are encouraging their own staff to hit the unemployment line.
"they allow you to Email the story to anybody and to tweet and share the story.Then they sue their readership when they post anything about the story,"
They don't allow you to email the story. They allow and encourage you to share a link to the story. Righthaven doesn't sue if one has just a few sentences of the story and a link back to the LVRJ site.
This is how almost every online newspaper does it including the Sun.
This is funny too. The Sun prints this agrument over and over again without rebuttal. So in a way, they are saying since they have buttons on the page that say to "share" the story then that is removing their claim to copyright to the story.
I guess the Sun is saying they no longer have copyright to their own stories because they have buttons that say to "share" the story.
@SgtRock - give us all a break. If this wasn't a scam, all the LVRJ and RH had to do was send a notice to remove the material. Cease and desist notices are a common professional practice. Then look at the fact that RH asks for over $100,000 in DAMAGES for several paragraphs of work and is then willing to "settle" for a few thousand and even then the damage sought is over valued. They go after people that can't defend themselves. This is all about making money - not about suing someone to remedy a wrong and that's been clear from the beginning.
You state, "In turn, they are hurting themselves because it reduces readership for the Sun paper, too." I don't see any printed advertising in the Sun. They make their money from on-line advertising. Call their advertising salespeople and that's what they tell you. They don't hurt anything - if the LVRJ went under then the Sun, and in all reality it's really Greenspun Media, would be the last one standing. They have nothing to lose. If anything, Stephens Media must find their parasitical relationship nauseating.
I've been a newspaper and a magazine publisher. You only go after people who "steal" your stuff if they make money off it. I've never seen a "lifted" story where the source has not been credited in any media outlet that has the public outreach to hurt the reputation of the originator by assigning credit to another source. Without such concrete concern, a lawsuit is counterintuitive and counterproductive otherwise.
"all the LVRJ and RH had to do was send a notice to remove the material"
It cost money to hire staff and purchase software and equipment to have the staff to monitor the Internet, to lookup who owns the website, to inventory the infringement, to see if the website has filed a safe habor with the copyright office, to send out a custom letter to that website, to follow-up on any returning correspondence, to follow-up to see if the website is in compliance, ect.
You should donate the some $100k plus or so that LVRJ can set up a shop to police infringement and send nice letters to people who have no ethics or brains who think that they can steal whatever material they want to for their own site.
" Cease and desist notices are a common professional practice." Wrong!!!! Most newspapers, like the Sun do nothing about infringement because A) have no clue that infringement is taking place because they can't afford staff to look for it and b) even if somebody tells them about it they just ignore because they can't afford to hire staff to manage the infringement cases.
"Then look at the fact that RH asks for over $100,000 in DAMAGES for several paragraphs of work and is then willing to "settle" for a few thousand and even then the damage sought is over valued."
The law, DOMA, sets the damages at $100k per incident. They are statutory damages not economic damages. Righthaven is settling for a few thousand dollars is a good business decision because it cost a lot of money to take a case all the way to trial.
"This is all about making money - not about suing someone to remedy a wrong and that's been clear from the beginning."
Yes it is about money. LVRJ is tired of people stealing its content. Righthaven is a law firm that's goal is to make money.
I hate to inform you Snow White but about every freaking law firm in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA and the planet has a primary goal is to make money.
Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny Rabbit or the Tooth Fairy either.
"I don't see any printed advertising in the Sun. They make their money from on-line advertising"
I guess you don't think that there printed version doesn't drive traffic to their online version. I am sure glad I don't work at a company that you own.
mred: the R/J has a point of view? So what? The LV Pravda does not? But I do agree that the whole Wronghaven thing stinks and the R/J should be ashamed of itself. But, because of the leftists mantra - "If it feels good, do it" - there is little shame left in the USA for any bad behavior! As a matter of fact, bad behavior is regularly excused and many times rewarded. Lohan, Hilton, Sheen, Spears, the Kardasians. Ugh! The list is endless!
This lame strategy reared its ugly head back in 2005. Right wing trolls started whining about copyright infringement on blogs and message boards whenever their talking points were smacked down. I have personally witnessed it on numerous occasions. It's much easier to go after the messenger when you can't effectively counter the message. So sad and pathetic, but par for the course for entities who deal in OUTRIGHT LIES and PROPAGANDA on a daily basis in this country.
With all due respect to all, with perhaps the exception of Rock who seems to be a shill for the fired Sherm Frederick and demoted Tom Mitchell, just minimal research (and there's not a lot out there) will show that relatively few newspapers send out even takedown notices, even fewer (from what I can see, just those "represented" by Righthaven) engage in copyright litigation.
While it's true that Righthaven has gotten settlements in some of these matters, my understanding is that the total of those settlements aren't anywhere near enough to carry the company, to make it a profitable venture.
More importantly, at least one of these cases is going to be actually litigated in court. That costs a lot of money, especially if it's back in North Carolina. Now, the RJ is going to have to contribute financially to that litigation, as is Righthaven. If it goes the wrong way for them, or the Court awards a token amount, a dollar or even a hundred, well, that may not be a "legal precedent," but my understanding is that Federal Courts tend to follow one another on these matters.
Because there are "statutory damages" in the copyright law, doesn't at all mean a Federal Judge has to award them.
As to print editions driving readers to online sites, I don't think that's true. I think we're in a time when readers go online rather than buy print editions, at least in papers this size and larger. I do think that bloggers who post articles in part or in full have the potential for doing, though.
At issue also is the option to "Share" in these stories. Sure, there are a number of sites that are listed when one clicks that option, but nowhere does it say that sharing is limited to these sites. It seems to me then that the option to "share" is in conflict with copyright notices, and others feel the same way.
This is a very difficult problem for the newspaper industry. The RJ is clearly suffering financially, having laid off at least a half dozen since new management arrived. Laying off an investigative team that, granted, hasn't won a Pulitzer, but has done some good work in the past, is a refusal to understand that which is understood in the industry to really drive readership: Investigative Reporting.
All of this, of course, is personal perspective and speculation, but perhaps the emulation of the nation's great newspapers for the RJ might be in order: The New York Times is going to a metered "paywall," the Wall Street Journal already has one and who knows what the LA Times or Chicago Tribune will do. All said, at least those papers are thinking about creative ways to generate revenues, as opposed to lawsuits which clearly don't work.
As a final note, I was critical of a Sherm Frederick blog post, as well as one of those "Reporters want to get paid" blog posts by Mitchell a few weeks back...I'm now unable to comment on the RJ site.
>> to lookup who owns the website,
something that in at least two cases Reichaven didn't do properly and filed against the wrong party.
>> to see if the website has filed a safe habor [sic]with the copyright office
something that in at least one case Reichaven didn't do.
>> You should donate the some $100k plus
a computer is $500 and an intern costs nothing. where do you come up with $100k plus? or are you naturally a drama queen?
>> like the Sun do nothing about infringement because
because they don't need to put their own gun in their own mouths and pull the trigger? or maybe they knew that Reichaven was a total PR and financial disaster?
>> Righthaven is settling for a few thousand dollars is a good business decision because it cost a lot of money to take a case all the way to trial.
lol --- your funniest line yet. Reichaven's major problem is that not all of their victims have laid down and played dead. There are two or three of the defendants that have gotten together and are now in the process of disemboweling Reichaven. Only a moron wouldn't of seen this was coming... people like Gibons and Fredrick, for example.
>> LVRJ is tired of people stealing its content. Righthaven is a law firm that's goal is to make money.
too bad neither will leave the table satisfied. Gibons will be lucky to get out with his license intact.
>> I guess you don't think that there printed version doesn't drive traffic to their online version.
It doesn't --- at the very best it _might_ go the other way ---- but a print publication is an island to itself.
I was so looking forward to your reply to the very bad week Reichaven's had --- and you didn't disappoint. The problem is your blind alignment to the flawed and soon to fail model. I think we both know why that is --- right Mr. former publisher?
lol --- you can't say you've filed with the copyright office and not really file with them. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. It's indefensible --- and now that three of the defendants attorneys, good attorneys, have gotten together Gibons is on the run. Unfortunately your boys Sherm and Gibons are on the wrong side of this thing --- all because of arrogance and greed. It's funny beyond pale.
>> The Sun hates the LVRJ.
lol --- kinda like Shermie's irrational hate for Ralston, eh? lol
>> They hate it so much that they generate stories to cause others to hate the LVRJ and not buy their paper.
LOL --- or maybe the Sun's got integrity that the RJ could only dream of. You're old enough to remember when guys like Morrow reported real news, bottom line be damned. They didn't sell their soul to keep the doors open another slimy day. But nice try making this the Sun's problem.
>> In turn, they are hurting themselves because it reduces readership for the Sun paper, too.
maybe. maybe not. what damages could the Sun recover if the RJ busts out on a fundamentally flawed business model? And lets not forget the Sun recently won an award for their online product --- yet another area the RJ is letting get away from them.
And who will touch the RJ online if there's a danger of getting caught up in their flailing around? The RJ is so busy isolating themselves on the internet they've lost the point of why they're in business. That's the RJ's problem --- not the Sun's.
Oh, keep up the good work Steve --- great material and great delivery.
Vegas_tom: Nice response. You might also think about the costs for Righthaven and the RJ. If both have any sense at all (and that's a real question), they'll retain outside attorneys to represent them. The average hourly rate for an attorney nationally is about $300. In Las Vegas, some at the better or more well known firms are $600+.
I'm told by a lawyer at one of those firms that it's a minimum of about 20 hours to get started on a defense (for the RJ or Righthaven) on one of these cases, so at least $12,000 each and that's just to get started. When you start thinking of at least two lawyers and a paralegal in a deposition that lasts a couple of hours and all else this entails, in the words of Everett Dirksen, "You're talking about real money."
As to these "five figure settlements." I've been told that at about a third of the settlements have been for less than a thousand.
sgtRock aka Righthaven apologist.
Many of the things you say are so close to things Steven Gibson has said he could sue you for copyright infringement. You have given yourself away. You are either from Righthaven or one of the organizations affiliated with them. If you are from Righthaven then to come on this forum and not disclose your affiliation is unethical. But then again Righthaven and ethics are strangers to each other.
> I'm now unable to comment on the RJ site.
lol --- silence those critics.
but I've been there done that --- they even blocked my IP. Now that I've got a proxy that reports a different location everytime I open it up it's harder for them to blanket block me. ;)
Another hint for those who still go to RJ online --- download and use firefox with the "adblock plus" add on. This way the RJ's online ads are blocked from your computer. Don't use it on the Sun's site though (you can enable / disable site by site). If you should go this route the RJ won't get "views" for their third party ads.
Technology is a two-way street. lol
>> You might also think about the costs for Righthaven and the RJ.
I think if you go back to one of Steve's first reports on this you'll note this is what I predicted would kill this "golden goose". While I'm not a lawyer I do know a dog with fleas when I see one.
>> If both have any sense at all (and that's a real question),
I think their arrogance and greed would preclude them having even a lick of sense.
> they'll retain outside attorneys to represent them.
That's what they did in SC and it made matters far worse. If you haven't clicked on the links in Steve's story at http://tinyurl.com/4pj5sap you'll see the rocket scientist Reichaven hired out. He's the one in the second embedded link in the story. You've got to read the bit where Reichaven's angle for getting the domain name --- it's a hilarious take on case law.
I sent the above link to an attorney pal of mine who laughed his butt off at Reichaven's underwhelming positions. He also noted that it's outfits like Reichaven who give all attorneys a bad name.
You should also click on that third embedded link in the story --- and read the last line of the letter. These boys aren't dicking around. lol
> You are either from Righthaven or one of the organizations affiliated with them.
He's with Stephens Media --- though at a greatly reduced position from when he inked the deal with Reichaven.
Right "Sarge"? or should I say "my little friend"? LMAO.
Have you been served papers yet, Sarge? And I'd of thought that after the SC attorney admonished on trying the case in the media you'd take a lot lower profile. You do know that if the Sun is asked for your IP they'll have to provide it, right? Same as your street address my man --- and they'll be able to know right where that Vette is parked.
Oh yes, arrogance and greed. I forgot. ;)
Oh, I've read all the stories, including the one on the SC attorneys (I did call it NC earlier). And, I did read all the correspondence.
Aside from the obvious, what's disturbing for me in all of this is that I hope we all live long enough to see one of these cases in court.
It's going to be a fascinating trial, if it comes to that. More importantly, it's obvious that the copyright law has to revised in some manner and only Congress can do that, so it's going to be a while despite some minor hearings on it recently or to come, I can't recall which.
As I've said before, in most, if not all the cases that have been brought, the defendants did violate the copyright law. It's my view that given the history of these "violations" on the Internet for so many years, most, if not all were unaware that was an issue for them. We may even see a historic verdict here that will be one of the few that runs counter to the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" issue.
>> And, I did read all the correspondence.
great stuff, isn't it?
>> As I've said before, in most, if not all the cases that have been brought, the defendants did violate the copyright law.
On this we can agree. I also think we both agree that using a sledge hammer to hit a finish nail is overkill. But time will tell the repercussions of this approach. I seriously think that Gibons may have exposed himself and his clients(s) to great harm. Who knows -- maybe Stephens will sue Gibons for malpractice when all is said and done?
Yep. A dog with fleas.
Dear SgtRock...
I swear Rock.. your thinking is so concrete I see where you get your nick name. Perhaps you should change it to SgtCaliche.
>>>>It cost money to hire staff and purchase software and equipment to have the staff to monitor the Internet<<<<
Waaawaawaaa... Too bad for them -- (can you hear the tiny violins playing?)
They are in the business of licensing free content... as long as you use only use a small portion. They are as much responsible for hiring their own security guards as ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
Traditional newspapers are a dying industry (technology has killed many industries)... but just because they are not creative enought to figure out a way to survive doesn't mean they get to SPAM the Court System with brainless boiler plate lawsuits... which IS stealing from the public. Righthaven & the RJ are giving our city a black eye (which is HARD to do in our case).
But... what goes around comes around.... and as Bill Cosby said... the Beatings are About to Begin!
Prepare to get your butts handed to you!
SgtRock
If you are with Steven's media you may want to update your resume because if Stevens Media and Righthaven colluded to defraud victims there will not be a Stevens media much longer and your executives will be sharing a cell in a Federal Penn with Bernie Madoff along with your buddy Steven Gibbs.
Steven Gibson not Steven Gibbs. Not only a cell with Bernie Madoff but also some guy called Bubba.
For Murrayburns The "newspaper" expert...
"just minimal research (and there's not a lot out there) will show that relatively few newspapers send out even takedown notices"
Thank you for agreeing with me and disagreeing with Green.
Most newspapers let people steal their stuff at while because most newspapers can't afford the staff to detect, monitor and manage infringement cases.
"As to print editions driving readers to online sites, I don't think that's true"
And you call yourself a newspaper expert.
So that might be like 1 or 2 or like 100,000 or so people who would never know that the Sun even existed as a operation unless they read the paper.
Once that happens, they probably know to look for an online edition.
"At issue also is the option to "Share" in these stories. Sure, there are a number of sites that are listed when one clicks that option, but nowhere does it say that sharing is limited to these sites. It seems to me then that the option to "share" is in conflict with copyright notices, and others feel the same way."
When they click on the button it then gives them options to share like via email or Facebook or whatever. When they click on the option then it opens email or whatever with the link to story.
What you are saying is that nearly every newspaper is giving away their copright because they have a button that says, "Share" dispite that they all have copyright policies and symbols on their website.
Yes, you are a newspaper expert. You smart and all the newspapers and their lawyers are dumb.
"is a refusal to understand that which is understood in the industry to really drive readership: Investigative Reporting."
Hey newspaper expert.....you do know that many newspapers have laid staff like investigative reporters including the Sun.
Again....you smart....and the entire newspaper industry is dumb.
".I'm now unable to comment on the RJ site."
This may be true. Just a FYI their comment system is very flaky and has bugs and is dependent on staff approving comments which sometimes that don't do right or get behind. So sometimes you may think they are censoring you (which is their right to do) when it is really the system is failing.
**** CALL FOR ACTIVISM AGAINST THE RJ AND RIGHTHAVEN ****
While defense lawyers are building legal arguments to fight them in court... regular folks can join a campaign of grassroots activism to add further pressure to squash their behavior!
Step One:
Get a free email account from Yahoo... Register and Log into the RJ and post the following comment in every story you read. When they ban your email from commenting further, simply go to Yahoo and get another email account and start all over.
Step Two:
Post the following as many times as you can for every article on the RJ's web site:
LAW SUIT WARNING -- DO NOT POST THIS STORY TO ANY OTHER WEBSITE.
The Review Journal and their bullying lawyers WILL SUE YOU for $150K (yes... one hundred and fifty thousand dollars) AND your DOMAIN NAME if you post more than the headline and one paragraph. Even if you are Mentally Handicapped and Destitute, they will STILL SUE YOU FOR One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars AND your Domain Name, regardless of the circumstances. We recommend avoiding the Review Journal until they suspend this despicable practice.
LAW SUIT WARNING -- DO NOT POST THIS STORY TO ANY OTHER WEBSITE.
Step Three:
Repeat the process!
for Vegas_Tom:
"a computer is $500 and an intern costs nothing. where do you come up with $100k plus? or are you naturally a drama queen?"
First you complain that a law firm can't do it right then you present that an intern can do it.
So you would like an free intern send out legal notices that could trigger DOMA lawsuits back upon the newspaper if not done right.
Thank God I don't work at a business ran by you.
"Reichaven's major problem is that not all of their victims have laid down and played dead. There are two or three of the defendants that have gotten together and are now in the process of disemboweling Reichaven. "
Those that go to trial do so at their own risk and that is for both sides.
These "victims" (yeah the people who are stealing copyright are victims) are having to spend money in lawyer fees and court cost.
If they lose the court could award up to $100K for damages. It they win they might get nothing but a statement that it was not copyright infringement.
"And lets not forget the Sun recently won an award for their online product"
You must not know that the LVRJ gets more online hits than the Sun.
I wonder why?
Vegas_Tom: "I also think we both agree that using a sledge hammer to hit a finish nail is overkill. But time will tell the repercussions of this approach. I seriously think that Gibons may have exposed himself and his clients(s) to great harm. Who knows -- maybe Stephens will sue Gibons for malpractice when all is said and done?"
Oh, of course we agree. This whole thing becomes increasingly fluid with additional counterclaims and the Carolina law firm, it's hard to tell where it's going. My guess is, though, nowhere good for Righthaven and the RJ.
I like reading newspapers, though I subscribe to no print editions except "The New York Review of Books." However, I do subscribe to the Wall Street Journal Online, which is about $100 a year and will do the same with the New York Times, which I guess would be about the same.
If the RJ and the Sun both had online paid subscriptions, I'd skip the RJ's and opt for the Sun. I could say I might feel differently if the RJ continued with an investigative staff, but I'm not sure that would be true. I just think the Sun's a better newspaper online (I don't see the print version).
StgRock
Most newspapers don't mind and actually see the value in bloggers, message boards etc posting their stuff because it drives traffic to their sites which in turn attracts more adverting dollars to them. The vast majority of posters do give link backs and having content become part of the general internet discussion helps the newspapers considerably.
As a newspaper you can be a total butt-head with your copyrights but it will come at a tremendous cost. Just look at Rupert Murdock's times of London. He divorced the paper from the general internet and the paper has lost all relevancy. Even the dead-tree addition has suffered because of it. People won't even return phone calls to Times reporters because who wants to do interviews with a paper that no one reads.
So the LVRJ, The Denver Post and the other papers can hold their copyrights with an iron fist but they will soon find that is all they have as traffic stops and advertisers go to greener pastures.
SgtRock
You are wasting your time apologizing and trying to spin things to Righthaven's direction. Righthaven is now the most hated company in America. They are up there with Westboro Baptist Church as pariahs. You might as well be defending Fred Phelps too because you are defending the indefensible.
Righthaven's days are numbered even if the EFF's allegations are false because the client newspapers cannot sustain the massive PR disaster this has become. Newspapers require public support and trust to stay in business and this is undermining both. Infact, LVRJ and Denver Post may already have stopped supporting them. Righthaven has not received any new copyrights from either paper of any import for a while and the number of lawsuits filed in February fell by 70% from January. Righthaven is doomed as a company.
Fink, the RJ has a point of view, I'm just saying the two people over there are boring. A big guy with a cowboy hat has a high squeaky voice, it doesn't go over in the media. Get down where the money is.
Angle lost. According to national and Nevada polls, people want to increase taxes on the rich, and they don't want cut backs to infrastructure and education.
SgtRock
Do you think I started reading the Las Vegas Sun because I am interested on the happenings in Las Vagas? No, I don't even live in Las Vegas. I started reading because someone posted a story about Righthaven and I went to the source. Now I am a regular reader. If the Las Vegas Sun were as butt-headed about copyrights as the LVRJ (which I never will read) then the Sun not only would have missed out on my visits but all the traffic I have sent it by blogging about Righthaven and linking to the Sun.
Also anyone who wants to make a statement I created a graphic that you can put on your sites stating you do not link to newspapers aligned with Righthaven. You are welcome to go to this site and post the graphic on your sites.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34064949@N0...
This image is featured on PBS blog also.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/03/wi...
"the client newspapers cannot sustain the massive PR disaster this has become"
There is absolutely no indication that negative PR has impacted either newspapers.
Also the negative PR is very small.
The Sun of course harps on this topic every week but not that much people read the Sun.
There was one..one AP story. The only reason why that story was generated because the copyright thief had mental deficiences.
Most people that read that story or even the Sun stories can't connect the dots back to the newspapers.
Most people don't care.
Most people get bored reading these stories because it is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo.
The story is too complex to understand.
The only people who tend to get in a huff and puff about it either already hate LVRJ for other reasons or they are people who want to steal copyright so that they can drive people to their own website because they lack the skill or imagination or too lazy to write original content.
They are shocked....shocked that an owner of copyright material wants to protect it.
There is one way to put Righthaven to go out business.
People should stop stealing copyright material.
End of story......
It is interesting to see the difference in quiet conversation/discussion here and the near rabid support, albeit minimal, supporting Righthaven.
Sherman Frederick "retired," though most I've spoken to at the RJ and outside the RJ believe he was fired, though there's debate on why. Some believe it was because of unprofessional and, well, abhorent commentary on Senator Harry Reid. No matter how one feels about Senator Reid, I think if read Frederick's commentary you should have been appalled.
Some believe it was poor management. This could be true, as the RJ's been declining for at least a couple of years and recently the new editor told the staff the paper, at this point, isn't profitable. Not really unusual for a newpaper these days, but that came shortly after the staff was told otherwise. When company's go into a decline, it's not unusual for top management to find its way to the door.
Some believe it was the Righthaven suits, which have cost the RJ/Stephens quite a bit of money and possibly profitability, as well as community standing.
While I'd like to think it's all the latter, I think it's a combination of them. And I think Righthaven will continue to cause the paper problems well after that association is severed, if it ever is.
There is a general thought that Sherm Frederick, though these things, has left a newspaper that is severely damaged and could well be sold, at a distressed price.
As I've said before, people broke the law, however, I think that the approach taken by the RJ and Righthaven was wrong, and virtually unheard of in the industry. My guess is that the price that will be extracted from both will be severe and possibly enterprise ending.
SgtRock
I flagged your comment and reported you to the Las Vegas Sun for violating their terms of use.
" Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed."
You personally attacked my friend Brian Hill. By calling him "copyright thief" and "mentally deficient" you have libeled him as well.
Interesting you use the term "copyright thief" The same term Gibson used. No one is buying your spin and everyone knows you are an industry insider so you are not fooling or convincing anyone. Infact you are proving our sides case with every word you utter.
>> First you complain that a law firm can't do it right then you present that an intern can do it.
No. I'm saying that Reichaven can't do it correctly. An intern with a computer could easily send notes to bloggers noting infringements; which would cover 98% of "heisted" content.
>> Thank God I don't work at a business ran [sic] by you.
I wouldn't need an inflammatory cut and paste hack, thank you very much.
I suspect you'll hear about my new ad company in a few weeks though --- the one that's going after RJ advertisers, showing alternatives and will mediate the obscene pricing the RJ thinks its pages are worth. Hell, two of the guys have been sued by you -- I mean the RJ / Reichaven and they're very energized and have produced some very compelling content for our proposals.
>> If they lose the court could award up to $100K for damages.
dude --- the SC lawyer has an opening price of $500,000 settlement offer. How many crap $3k or $6k nuisance suits do you have to settle to recoup that? There are now people filing "friend of the court" briefs, EPIC is pro bono and the kid in NC is paying nothing for his attny. Why do you think that is? Hmmmmmm? Let me tell you clueless one --- they see Reichaven's soft under belly ready for feasting. There are 3 direct parties coming after you --- and 3 more indirect.
Ah, I'm wasting my time with you --- you've got it all figured out. Now sit back and deal with your decision.
>> You must not know that the LVRJ gets more online hits than the Sun.
lol --- really?
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/lvrj.co...
no wonder you lost your job.
He has admitted to using copyright material without permission.
He has admitted to being a copyright thief.
As being mentally deficient he has described himself as having mild autism which is a spectrum of neuropsychiatric disorders characterized by deficits in social interaction and communication, and unusual and repetitive behavior.
I would flag you as being an
>> The story is too complex to understand.
so that means it shouldn't be reported? what's wrong with you? arrogance and greed will skew your judgment, "Sarge".
If one of your pursuers rings the bell there will be lots of interest and negative pub. And you assertions that AP only ran one story ignores that CNN and Forbes both have --- you know, the ones where Gibbons exposed himself to further litigation.
The Sun should be commended for their work --- despite the fact you don't like the spotlight on your idiotic idea.
but what am I saying --- you've got it ALL figured out. lol
To call him a thief is an act of libel because it has yet to be determined if his posting of the TSA image falls within fair use which there is an excellent chance it will because he used the image in the context of a political statement in protesting the TSA pat-downs. The fact that image became a symbol of the TSA's enhanced pat-downs makes this not only an argument for fair use but freedom of speech as well. By the Denver Post and Righthaven taking their action they are effectively denying the freedom of speech of others. So in the Denver Post trying to assert their rights they are trampling on the rights of others.
Getting back to the topic of this article it may very well be that Righthaven has absolutly no standing in this case and has no legal claim to being the copyright owners. As I mentioned if this is they case and Righthaven has falsified a copyright registration with the United States Copyright Office and that the papers in question colluded with them in order to defraud people like Brian Hill then several Federal Laws have been violated and if this is the case your friends at Righthaven, Stephens Media, News Media Group and others are about to face some severe criminal charges that could potentially see the downfall of everyone of these media empires.
You say this is only a small story and not too many people have taken notice. Well within the last couple of weeks the news reports on this story have begun to skyrocket. When the EFF presents their case and if illegal activity and collusion is shown then this story will explode as the lead story in every news outlet in the world.
vegas_tom....so 10 months out 12 months the LVRJ beats the Sun and for total traffic for one year LVRJ beats the Sun and you think you won an argument.
Wow.....you are the smartest person the entire planet....NOT!!!!!!
Ken...he has admitted to it being copyright material.
He admitted to having on his site.
He removed it from his site.
He admitted taken the picture from Google images which has several warnings that the material maybe copyrighted material.
for Ken...."Righthaven has falsified a copyright registration with the United States Copyright Office "
Now you have libel Righthaven.
I have reported you to your mother.
She will contact you later and give you a spanking.
lol -- not much between your ears, is there, Sarge? did you look at the "normalized metrics"? you couldn't of or you'd see the the Sun is up by over 43 for the year and the RJ is down over 21%. Or is growth not a factor in your world?
wait, what am I saying --- you've got it ALL figured out. lol
SgtRock
I included a big IF when I said they MAY have done these things. you on the other hand have already tried and convicted him, but of course that is the Righthaven way. Righthaven don't even want a trial. They want to use the most unethical and extreme intimidation and lies (allegedly) to coerce settlements out of people even if the victims are well within their rights to use the material. They want to deny every defendant their day in court and make it as difficult as possible for the defendants to ever see a court room.
Sgt Rock,
You are pulling my words out of context. Selectively parsing my sentence to not include the if statement? That is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
vegas_tom....you have a Math problem....has the Sun stats gone up...yes....has the LVRJ stats gone down...yes....but the LVRJ has been beating the Sun for so long that still for 10 months out 12 the LVRJ beats the Sun and if you add all the numbers for 12 months....the LVRJ is ahead of the Sun.
Ken...It a statement is true it can't be libel.
He admitted to taking copyright material and posting to his own site.
He also took it down.
There is no "if" around this statement: "They want to deny every defendant their day in court"
Now that would be libel for it is not true.
They don't have the power to deny anybody their day in court nor do you have any ANY A N Y evidence to support your claim.
Asking for a settlement is not denying anybody anything.
The person can decline the settlement and proceed with the case.
>> but the LVRJ has been beating the Sun for so long
yawn. is that the sales technique you use with your advertisers? I sure hope so. lol
media isn't a game of "what was" --- it's "what have you done for me today". you know that -- or you should.
kbingh
There is such thing as fair use even though you Righthaven people deny that it exists. It still does. Infact you got your butts handed to you in a couple of cases over fair use. This is not stealing so you cannot call Brian a thief, the status of his case will be determined by a judge and not by you or Steven Gibson or the Denver Post.
Righthaven does not "ask for a settlement" they threatened to garnish his disability check (allegedly) which is illegal. They have put tremendous amounts of stress on him and risked his health over this. Other victims are now speaking out as well and all tell of extreme abuse on Righthaven's part in the lengths they go to get settlements out of people. Righthaven tried to deny Brian more time to file his answer to the court after he obtained legal council but luckily the judge denied Righthavens request to deny his legal council the time to file an amended answer.
The thing about Brian Hill's case is on Righthaven's part this is pure vindictiveness because legally they cannot take a dime from Brian since his only form of income is his disability check. So instead of money they are going after a pound of flesh in different ways.
Here I am back to defend my grandson. Yes, I am Brian Hill's grandmother. Never once did my grandson admit to any guilt because he is not guilty of anything. You can always tell when Righthaven people are on these sites. They are the only ones who are insulting to my grandson or to the other victims of Righthaven. First, he did not get his TSA information from the Denver Post. He got his information from another source, and he linked back to the source. We have all of our proof. He told the reporters this. There is a big difference between stealing something and to link back to the article where you got your information so others can see this information too as well as other information. I get a lot of my information from google search too. Also, I have seen 2 sources on this article and photo, both of them say, "share, email, print". One of them says it is copyright to not be used on commercial sites. My grandson's website (www.uswgo.com) is a hobby site, not a commercial site. Righthaven people, I want for you to know that there is a true God out there and there is justice. Have fun in this life because each and every one of us have to answer to God when it is our time to say "Bye, bye" to this earth. When you openly bully someone who is as disabled as my grandson is, (and you have the proof of this as he sent the proof to you), well, you know exactly what my thoughts are here. My grandson has suffered from brittle type 1 diabetes since the age of 18 months old and from mild autism his entire life. He is human and has made mistakes as all of us humans have. "Stealing anything" has never been one of them. Sharing is not stealing, my friends (especially when you make no money off from this). Thank goodness, there are some wonderful, supportive people out there, then there are the Righthaven employees. Need I say any more about that. Las Vegas Sun, you have done a great job in reporting. Thank you so very much for keeping all of us informed. Some people (Righthaven employees) would rather you keep quiet, but people who believe in freedom of speech and keeping things out in the open (and not hidden in the dark) appreciate what you are doing. In every new development about Righthaven, we see their employees trying so hard to insult the newspapers reporting and to fight, using various names, of course (that too remains in the dark with these people), but you can always tell who they are as they insult their victims, insult the newspaper reporting and defend Righthaven's cold tactics. Wonderful developements and news all this week. I feel very happy about all of these things being uncovered and brought out in the light!
Sun salesman....last month we beat the LVRJ by a small amount and another month we beat them by a small amount...we are really kicking their butts.
LVRJ salemsan: We beat them 10 out 12 months and for one month we almost had twice as much hits as them and we have nearly a million more hits than them over the entire year.
Yeah....you rock Vegas_tom.....strong case you got there genius.
Let's say there is Bob who owns a website.
He scans the Internet and sees an image that looks cool and also a story that he really likes.
He takes his cursor and highlights the items and right clicks and download the items to his hard drive.
Does he consider that maybe perhaps somebody spent a lot time and money creating the image or story? No
Does he consider that maybe that owner of the image or story prefers people to come to his site to read the story or view the image? No
Nope...Bob does not care. Bob takes the image and story and posts them to website.
Bob is proud. He thinks now he has some content to improve his hit rate to his own site. Bob is selfish.
He could have just had a byline that said, "Hey I found some cool story and a cool image. Click here to see it" and it would drove that person to the image owner and story owner websites.
To be nice, he does link back to the originals. He is feeling a little guilty for copying the entire story and also somebodyelse's image.
The people who come to his site have no real motiviation to view the image and then click to the original website or read the story and click to its origin website.
Why do that the reader asks? I just read the freaking story they say. I just saw the image. What would be point of clicking and just to view the exact same thing twice?
Maybe that's how you do it, Rock. That's not how I do it. I go back to the link and read that. From my grandson's link, I have read many more stories and found another site I really like. On my grandson's page, he only has this one article (Did - his website is history now, thanks to Righthaven). When I go to the link, I find many more articles. I read many different articles just following his one link to his source. He has led me to many different sources just through one story he is telling or sharing with us. I have found this to be true on other's links as well. He removed his entire website after he got that lawsuit filed. Righthaven even said in the court papers that he had the link on his page on Dec. 1st and they got the copyright on Dec. 8th. My grandson has many articles he has written himself and many of his own photographs. He's afraid that as long as Righthaven can get the copyright after the article or photo is on the website, he could later get sued for his own work. Righthaven is a lawfirm who is getting copyrights of other people's work, then suing people after it is on their website. Sorry, Rock, respectfully, your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all!
StgRock
Once again you show your ignorance. Very few Righthaven cases have been by people who took an image just to decorate their sites and even fewer who posted an entire article but even that has to be taken in context since a judge may soon rule that in certain circumstances even that is fair use.
Most the people Rigthaven as sued have been over snippets of articles. They stopped after a judge ruled one fair use but they are now appealing that. What is interesting about that is the LVRJ and the Denver Post's state terms of use allows for a few paragraphs. Righthaven is now appealing to be given the right to sue for just a few paragraphs so in other words Righthaven wants to sue you for following the papers own terms of use.
Righthaven is walking on thin ice with Brian Hill. They can gain nothing out of him but they could potentially lose everything over him. Brian's health is already compromised and this added stress will have long term consequences. Righthaven is risking liabilities in the millions of dollars if Brian's health is effected by this.
The best thing Righthaven could do is apologize to Brian. Pay him some amount along with his lawyer for the trouble and then learn from this experience. They won't do that though because their hearts of made of stone.
Stg Rock or should I say Bob?
You have parroted almost the same arguments in other forum under a different name. I have noticed there is one Righthaven defender in almost every forum and you are all virtually identical which leads me to believe you are the same person or you are working together or you all just aren't capable of an original thought.
@SgtRock I was going to say you probably work for Righthaven, but after reading your articles and noticing your spelling, it makes me wonder where you received your education. If you are trying for an award for comedy, you're getting pretty close. Tell me why it is illegal to copy a photo or article and link it back to the original owner of the photo/article? Wouldn't that be considered fair use? I guess righthaven doesn't know the meaning of fair since that is beyond their comprehension. People are getting tired of their bullying, they are getting tired of the left bullying them, and finally they are fighting back. If Righthaven continues these lawsuits, other states will eventually do what Nevada has done and finally get tired of them. Have a good day Sgt(very debatable) Rock (more like sand).
sgt Rock
OBTW did you ever find any references to akabrutus?
>> strong case you got there genius.
I suggest you continue to rest on your laurels and watch the world go by. but lets check back in a year and see who's right -- about a whole bunch of stuff.
" Tell me why it is illegal to copy a photo or article and link it back to the original owner of the photo/article?:
Ray....you need to go do your homework and research DMCA.
There is not any copyright lawyer worth their salt that would say that copying and pasting an entire piece of work without permission is fair use.
It does not matter if one links back to the original site.
SgtRock
Even though I don't believe it is necessary to copy an entire article there may be some situations where it may be fair use as a judge may decide that soon. However, Righthaven has sued people for very short snippets and is now seeking through an appeals court to allow them to sue for short snippets even those that are allowed by the Newspaper's own terms of use.
Righthaven would sue for one single sentence if they thought they could get away withit. Infact a couple of years back the AP started, then abandoned, the idea to charge bloggers for as little as 6 words. So don't give me this crap about Righthaven and these newspapers honoring fair use. They do not, and as the Reporters Without Borders eloquently stated they have no regard for free speech either and are acting like the authoritarian dictators this group is trying to fight against.
Most newspaper sites, including the Sun, have copyright policies that are easily found that describe how much one can copy and paste an article.
The Sun's is the lessor of 10% or 100 words.
Why would a person want to violate a newspaper's policy on copying the material that is own by the newspaper?
It is their material.
The owner paid somebody money to generate it.
It is not your property. It is the owner's property.
So if they say only copy and paste 100 words or 10% then why violate that?
You don't see that as unethical and uncivilize?
US Law says, "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole."
In other words, obviously, one can't copy the whole work.
Also, they can't copy most of the work.
Also, they can't a substantial part of the work.
It gets gray between 0% of the work and "substantial" part of the work.
US Copyright Office gives these words of advice, "The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."
SgtRock
Wrong again SgtRock, fair use is different than the stated policy of the newspaper. Their policy is simply a guideline. If a paper said no amount of copying is acceptable we could ignore their request because fair use is decided by law and the courts not the copyright holder.
Whenever you make property available to the public you do lose at least partial control over it. For instance with your house you can gate it up all you want and there is no expectation of fair use. I cannot come in and use your bathroom without your permission for any reason. However if you own a business that has public access there are certain implied ways that the public can use the property. The same as there are limited things the public can do with copyrighted works simply by virtue of the copyright holder making it available to the public.
News outlets have a responsibility to the public to make the news available to people. This is why there is a part in the Constitution that applies specifically to the press because without them it we cannot discuss the important topics and be informed voters. If newspapers decide to hoard the news and keep it all locked up democracy will suffer.
Like it or not the Internet is now the primary medium that people discuss the news, politics, current events etc and it is impracticable to do this without at least some copying of at least the relivant parts of the story.
The funny thing about this is that the most likely scenario with all these law suits is an expansion of fair use, not a narrowing as Righthaven would like. The courts that have heard cases so far have taken a very broad view of fair use. The Congressmen that I have talked to about this issue unanimously agree that Righthaven is abusing the spirit of the law and that laws need to be changed to reflect the Internet age. Righthaven in their heavy handedness could actually hasten this since eventually there will be a legislative response when the public outcry gets stronger. In the end newspapers will have less copyright protection and they will only have themselves to blame.
SgtRock
You have trolled this forum to death. The topic is that there may be evidence the EFF has uncovered that may show Righthaven does not own the copyrights in question and therefore have no standing in these lawsuits. If this is the case all of your arguments are moot. So stop being a forum troll and get back on topic.
Now you creating your own set of laws. Too bad you are not the king of the USA.
"For instance with your house you can gate it up all you want and there is no expectation of fair use. I cannot come in and use your bathroom without your permission for any reason. However if you own a business that has public access there are certain implied ways that the public can use the property. "
So if one does not have gate on their house, according to you, anybody can come in and steal stuff from it.
So according to you, shoplifting is legal because that is the business fault for displaying items in the public view.
Ok....I get it.
You think EVERYTHING on the Internet is for the taking and there is no such thing as copyright.
You have a very good understand of copyright law.
Keep up the good work.
I see why people like you want everything to be for the taking because people like you can't come up with original content that is worthy of viewing.
So people like you have this need to steal other people's content (you know the content that somebody work hard to create or somebody paid money to get created).
People like you have this need to steal it because people like you find it valuable and because other people don't find that stuff that you create to be valuable.
If people like you had some decency and some ethics then there would be nothing for Righthaven to sue over.
So go out and steal other people's content.
Beware...just don't steal from LVRJ or the Denver Post.
I just wanted to thank you, Rock for all the comments you are posting. It sure is helping the Las Vegas Sun. People can't wait to come on this site to see what kind of stupid comments you're going to come up with next. Thanks again, and keep up the good work!!
Rock
I have stolen nothing. As a blogger I do try and stay within the guidlines of the Newspaper when I feel they are reasonable and do not violate my rights to fair use.
The problem with Righthaven as they are an extremely narrow view of fair use, and in fact is now appealing to narrow it even further. They will lose the appeal though. The 9th circuit is the most liberal court in the country and I would dare say they will take a broad view of fair use and could possibly even expand it.
Righthaven's abuses will have an effect on fair use but it is going to backfire on them.
Rock
My point is that the internet cannot work wit some a lot of sharing. I agree the sharing should be voluntary but all the same if everyone had a hardnose view of copyrights and put up a paywall the internet would not be a viable medium as a source of information.
Sorry for my first sentence. It should read cannot work with at least some sharing.