Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, March 13, 2011 | 5:56 p.m.
Newspaper copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas is fighting challenges to its business plan and assertions lawsuit defendants are protected by the concepts of fair use and implied license.
Righthaven, the copyright enforcement partner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, has filed at least 249 lawsuits in the past year charging website owners, bloggers and message-board members re-posted material from those newspapers without authorization.
The suits lately demand $150,000 apiece in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names.
The lawsuits are a departure from the usual newspaper industry practice of resolving copyright issues out of court.
Righthaven says the suits are necessary to deter extensive online infringements of newspaper material, but critics say the suits are part of a settlement shakedown scheme since defendants find settling with Righthaven is far less expensive than hiring attorneys to fight the suits.
Righthaven won a clerk's default in one of its cases after defendant Bill Hyatt failed to answer the suit over a Review-Journal column and Righthaven is now seeking control of Hyatt's 1ce.org website domain name, $150,000 in damages and $1,850 in attorneys fees and costs.
The Media Bloggers Association is trying to intervene in that case as a friend of the court and has urged the court to award Righthaven only minimal -- if any -- damages, charging Righthaven is running a "get-rich-quick" scheme.
In challenging Righthaven's business model, the bloggers' group said Righthaven's litigation campaign is "inimical to the purpose of the Copyright Act, which was intended to protect the intellectual investments of creators, rather than creating lawsuit mills that use registered copyrights — only after their infringement was discovered — as a source of income, rather than a shield against others’ misappropriation."
The Media Bloggers said Righthaven's business model is "cynical and ethically questionable" as its copyright transfer arrangement with Stephens Media LLC, owner of the Review-Journal, is "impermissible" as an exclusive ownership interest in copyrights is required for lawsuits.
In the Righthaven cases over Review-Journal material, attorneys say Stephens Media appears to maintain an economic interest in the copyrights at issue, something being explored in another Righthaven lawsuit against the Democratic Underground.
In preliminary rulings denying motions to dismiss, Nevada federal judges have upheld Righthaven's right to sue based on the copyrights it receives from Stephens Media. Democratic Underground attorneys with the Electronic Frontier Foundation say new evidence supports its claim these are "sham" copyright assignments -- assertions disputed by Righthaven.
The Media Bloggers Association also said the court could find Hyatt was an "innocent infringer," limiting damages to $200, since "Hyatt may have believed he had an implied license to share the article, as there was a link encouraging viewers to e-mail the article to others on the page where it appeared."
In disputing these assertions last week, attorneys for Righthaven urged U.S. District Judge Kent Dawson to not allow the Media Bloggers Association (MBA) to participate in the case as a friend of the court.
"MBA is by no means a friend of the court. MBA is clearly acting in an adversarial capacity in defense of a defendant against whom default has been entered," said a filing by Righthaven attorney Shawn Mangano. "MBA’s proposed brief reads like it was disseminated on an anti-Righthaven blog – not by counsel for an alleged association of Internet bloggers."
Righthaven also filed papers last week opposing efforts by message-board poster Wayne Hoehn of Bowling Green, Ky., to have his case decided on a motion for summary judgment on fair use grounds, which would bypass the evidence-gathering procedure known as discovery.
Hoehn's attorney said his post on a message board of a Review-Journal column about public employee pensions "was identical to a man cutting out a newspaper article and posting it on a community bulletin board" with the goal of encouraging discussion and debate on a matter of public importance.
Mangano, however, argued last week that Hoehn's post was more like a book club "where the participants were given unauthorized, free photocopies of an author’s book to read and discuss."
"Or, under (a) bar patron scenario, topics contained in a news article would have been photocopied from a purchased copy of the newspaper and distributed to all in the bar free of charge and without the newspaper's consent," Mangano wrote in his filing.
"Under either of the foregoing scenarios, the author or source of the copyrighted work is deprived of the right to control its dissemination and enjoy the benefits associated with such control. Defendant misappropriated a copyrighted editorial piece, cut and pasted it on another website and made it available for all users of and visitors to the website to read," Righthaven's filing said. "In this regard, defendant did not write his own synopsis of the editorial piece or merely post a link back to the editorial as it appeared on the source publication's website. Defendant simply took the easiest path for accomplishing his stated goal – he took it without permission and used it for his own benefit."
Righthaven argued summary judgment is inappropriate at this stage of the case since it hasn't yet had a chance to contest or explore Hoehn's contentions through written and oral discovery.
In a third case that Righthaven responded to last week, it asked the federal court in Charleston, S.C. to throw out a counterclaim against Righthaven filed by blogger Dana Eiser.
Eiser was sued after a Denver Post column was re-posted on her website and in her counterclaim her attorneys said the post was protected by fair use, implied license and the First Amendment.
Eiser's attorneys also attacked Righthaven's business model, saying it had no authority to sue over the copyright in question; and accused Righthaven of violating South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act by wrongly branding Eiser a copyright infringer.
Righthaven attorney Edward Fenno, in seeking to have these claims dismissed, said in court papers: "It appears that Eiser simply filed these counterclaims in an attempt to divert the court and the parties from the true issue at hand – Eiser’s infringement of Righthaven’s copyright."
"Eiser’s alleged losses, while perhaps appropriate in a defamation cause of action, do not trigger liability under the Unfair Trade Practices Act," Fenno wrote. "The gravamen of Eiser’s Unfair Trade Practices counterclaim is that her `reputation and good name' were harmed by allegedly false statements filed in Righthaven’s complaint contending that Eiser was a copyright infringer," Fenno's filing said. "However, allegations made in a lawsuit complaint or otherwise in a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged against defamation claims in South Carolina.
"Eiser fails to allege sufficient `public interest' to state a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act. While Eiser alleges that Righthaven has `brought more than 239 claims for copyright infringement throughout the country, and will undoubtedly be filing many more,' Eiser fails to allege that any such claims have or will impact anyone in South Carolina besides Eiser. The Unfair Trade Practices Act is not available to address a private wrong where the public interest is unaffected," the Righthaven filing said.
The judges in the Hyatt, Hoehn and Eiser cases haven't yet indicated when they may rule on the pending issues in those cases.
In a fourth Righthaven case, defendant Thomas Neveu filed an "official complaint" with the federal court in Las Vegas about Righthaven's litigation tactics.
Neveu, Thomas Richard and an entity called Climate Change Fraud were sued in September by Righthaven over allegations Review-Journal material was posted without authorization on the website climatechangedispatch.com.
Neveu, of Dorchester, Mass., hit Righthaven and Stephens Media with a counterclaim in December.
Neveu represents himself without an attorney. In his most recent filings, he said he told Righthaven in January that for medical reasons he couldn't participate in discovery conferences for at least six months and that Righthaven then used "threatening tactics to supersede my legal rights."
"Since December 2010, Righthaven, and more specifically Mr. Mangano, have engaged in continuously unprofessional behavior in an attempt to take advantage of my pro se status and squeeze a settlement out of me," Neveau complained to the court. "Mr. Mangano even had the audacity, after being provided with documentation from my doctor, to grant a discovery extension for two months if I dismissed my counterclaim. In other words, he tried to blackmail me into dropping my countersuit."
An email attached to his complaint from Mangano to Neveau notes: "Please keep in mind that YOU filed a counterclaim against Righthaven LLC and a third-party complaint against Stephens Media LLC. As such, this is not a case where you were merely defending claims brought against you. Rather, you have chosen to seek affirmative legal recourse against Righthaven and Stephens, both of which have incurred and will continue to incur legal fees defending your baseless claims."
The Jan. 14 e-mail indicated Righthaven offered to stay litigation in the case for 60 days if Neveau would drop his counterclaim against Righthaven and his complaint against Stephens Media with prejudice, meaning they could not be re-filed.
"These are not points open for negotiation," the email said. "You have until the close of business today to respond to this proposal."
Righthaven and its attorneys have not yet filed papers responding to Neveu's complaint.
In a fifth extensively-litigated case, Righthaven asked for a clerk's default against New Hampshire blogger Christopher Malley and his website EMTCity.com, serving the emergency medical technician community.
Righthaven has so far prevailed in motions for dismissal filed by Malley's attorneys and on Friday asked for the default, charging Malley hadn't filed an answer to the lawsuit that Righthaven says was due on Feb. 7.
This caused Malley's attorneys with the Las Vegas office of the law firm Lewis and Roca LLP to respond the same day, alleging Righthaven violated a rule in the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.
The rule says that when an attorney knows a defendant is represented by counsel, the attorney must "not take advantage of the lawyer by causing any default or dismissal to be entered without first inquiring about the opposing lawyer’s intention to proceed."
Righthaven is well acquainted with Lewis and Roca, which has represented several Righthaven defendants.
"There is no excuse for Righthaven’s filing of the present motion without first contacting defendant’s counsel. Righthaven’s disregard of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and its surprise `gotcha' motion flies squarely in the face of Rule 3.5A, this court’s Local Rule 10-7(a), and local practice. This type of sharp practice should neither be rewarded with an entry of default nor tolerated by the court," said the filing by Lewis and Roca attorneys, who asked the court clerk to hold off on the default petition until Wednesday so the attorneys on both sides could "confer."
Malley says he didn't willfully infringe on Righthaven's copyright to a Review-Journal story since the story at issue was posted by a third party message-board poster, "Dust Devil;" and his attorneys have repeatedly called Righthaven's lawsuit "nothing more than a bad faith attempt to shake Mr. Malley down for a settlement."
Righthaven hasn't yet responded to the latest Lewis and Roca filing.
Also, a Righthaven lawsuit against CustomerThink Corp., Robert Thompson and Joseph Michelli; allegedly associated with the website CustomerThink.com and over a Denver Post TSA pat-down photo, was closed after a confidential settlement was reached.
But Righthaven voluntarily dismissed a June 4 lawsuit against The Prescription LLC and RX Advertising Inc. with no mention of a settlement. Righthaven voluntarily dismissed that case, saying the defendants hadn't responded to the complaint. It was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the allegations can be reasserted in the future. Records show one of the defendants, RX Advertising, was served with the lawsuit in July. Those defendants were accused in the lawsuit of posting a February 2010 Review-Journal column on the therxforum.com website, which focuses on sports betting.
Elsewhere, Righthaven observers are waiting for two recent high-profile defendants -- Citadel Broadcasting Co. and Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. -- to answer the Righthaven lawsuits against them over the Denver Post pat-down photo.
Righthaven also faces a hearing this week in Las Vegas before U.S. District Judge James Mahan, who has ordered the company to show cause why its lawsuit against the Center for Intercultural Organizing in Portland, Ore., shouldn't be dismissed on fair use grounds. That case involves an entire Review-Journal story about immigrants that was posted on the center's website without authorization.
I guess the RJ has to get its income from some where.....So now they sue for no reason at all....Idiots..I for one hope they lose...
RH needs to be sanctioned by the courts for filing all these frivolous lawsuits.
When is Sherman Frederick going to send NBC $150,000 and the LVRJ's domain name when he stole a Saturday Night Live skit and put it on his blog?
Sherman Frederick is a copyright thief, right Sgt Rock?
http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=she...
It is a link to YouTube.
It was YouTube user that did the infringement.
YouTube has filed for Safe Harbor under the US Copyright office.
NBC sent a take notice to YouTube.
YouTube complied.
Sherman linked to YouTube which is allowed according to YouTube rules.
The video is streaming from LVRJ. It is coming from YouTube.
According to so
Correction...The video is not streaming from LVRJ it is streaming from YouTube.
Many Rigthaven victims got the TSA image not from the Denver Post but a site called deadseriousnews.com http://deadseriousnews.com This site features the TSA image with absolutely no attribution of its original source. Infact doing a Google search for deadseriousenews the first item to come up is the post they did in November that uses this image. There is absolutley no way anyone could know that image's orgins after looking at this site.
The strange thing is it as been widely publicized that many Righthaven victims got the image from this one site but as of this date deadseriousnews has not been sued by Righthaven. Why?
If there ever was an example of copyright infringement this is it. This site not only posted this image but gave no link or attribution whatsoever to the image. This is not just copyright infringement but out and out plagiarism.
The use of this image cannot be justified even with the widest interpretation of fair use. The users are not using the image for parody or satire. They are not using it for criticism. They are not commenting directly on the photo. Infact there is no justification at all for deadseriousnews to have used this photo. It is merely to embellish the article. But they are not being sued by Righthaven. Why?
Deadseriousnews domain name cannot be traced to the owner of the site. They use a web-hosting service called Namecheap.com which blocks the website owners whois registration with a service called "whoisguard". This means no one can know who the owner(s) of deadseriousnews.com are. Why would a news parody site need to hide themselves like this? The Onion does not hide their owners information?
A close look at deadseriousnews.com reveals many interesting things. This site uses fake names as their "staff". This site has a comment section but every single story the comments are closed. The TSA image is still on their site and I am sure the owners of the site are aware of Righthaven since any Google search of the site also includes references to Righthaven.
Why hasn't Righthaven sued this site even though this was the source of many people they are suing and would be justified in doing so? Perhaps because this site has been the source of so many people they have ensnared and they are using deadseriousnews.com as a honeypot to trap unsuspecting bloggers.
Rock
That doesn't matter how the video got there. The fact is Sherman Frederick put copyrighted material on the lvrj blog? Are you saying it would be ok for me to put the TSA image on my blog if I only use code that embeds the image from Denver Posts server without actually downloading it? Would Righthaven make that destinction when deciding to sue me. I doubt it.
Seems like you can justify copyright theft Rock. Maybe because you are Sherman Frederick perhaps? And even if you are not you show your total hypocrisy.
I am a technical person and I know that copyright law makes no distinction on whether you post copyrighted material by streaming or by downloading it. Lately there have been a number of illegal streaming sites for TV, movies, and music that have been shut down so don't give us this crap that putting copyrighted streaming on your site is not copyright infringement.
Where are the ethics?
Where are the ethics?
Who in their mind thinks it is OK to right click and download an image from another site to re-use on their site without permission?
That is stealing......plain and simple.
Don't have to have a law degree to understand that.
Did these thieves ask permission to use the image?
Nope....they just stole.
Did Sherman Frederick ask permission from NBC to use their Saturday Night Live Video. He probably could have gotten permission but no he just stole. Where was his ethics Sherm, I mean Rock.
Every time I read these articles about Righthaven and it's lawyers, I think of Stromboli, one of the main antagonists in Pinocchio. Then, I want to go take a shower and rinse off the filth. IMHO, it's just absolutely disgraceful that they would sue an autistic kid.
The "video" on Sherman's blog is not hosted on LVRJ website nor is it streaming from the LVRJ website.
It is just an IFrame that is displaying the YouTube page. YouTube is hosting the video and streaming the video.
The video even does not go through LVRJ network.
It comes directly from YouTube site over the Internet to your home.
Rock you remind me of the original Star Trek episode where a robot was programmed to destroy anything imperfect so it started killing people. Once Captain Kirk demonstrated to the robot of its own imperfections did it turn around and destroy itself.
Why hasn't the RJ blocked the right click option on their website? It is very easy to do.
So if I put the TSA image inside an iframe and embed it on my site using Denver Post's servers then I am ok huh Rock. That would come directly from Denver Post's server to my home. Neither you nor Righthaven would have a problem with that?
Well, we know what most folks think about the ethics of Squirmy Shermy & his little sidekick the Shyster, certainly as it pertains to this nonsense, don't we....
Not an ethical or moral fiber in the whole business.
Ruling of same forthcoming.
Pretty awesome that this "sgt Rock" is not a trusted commenter, so I can filter out his nonsensical drivel. Anyways, Righthaven = Shermy = LVRJ = scumbags.
Rock
I actually feel sorry for Sherm. He is a pathetic character. He worked his whole life creating his reputation and then being unceremoniously fired and not appreciation by his peers. Just put out to pasture and reviled by the public. He will be a footnote in history without a friend in the world. Righthaven will cast his legacy in stone and it won't be pretty.
"So if I put the TSA image inside an iframe and embed it on my site using Denver Post's servers then I am ok huh Rock."
I am not offering legal advice but general advice.
You could put the TSA image in an in-line image link. However, the image can't be displayed as a full-blown pristine image. It has to be distorted or a reduced view of the image. The link has to clearly display the Denver Post as the source of image and when a person clicks on the image it takes it back to the Denver Post.
But you have said before that an image can never be used. You are contradicting yourself Rock. Did you just have an epiphany that there are legal ways to display a copyrighted image on a blog without permission?
It used to be that embedding an image from the original server was bad nettiquette but now that may be the only way to legally display a copyrighted image. Somehow I don't think that would stop Righthaven from suing because I doubt they even check how an image is displayed. The flunkies they hire to do Google searches most likely can't do anything more than a screen shot and that is probably even a stretch for them.
The reverend is talking through his...
"But you have said before that an image can never be used."
I have always said that a full displayed of a copy of the image can never be used without permission.
Again, it is simple ethics.
If one goes to a website. Highlights and copies the story and then pastes most of it or a significant part of it or all of it then that is stealing.
Not a very hard concept to understand.
It does not require a law degree.
Just use your brain.
The same is true with images.
One right clicks on an image on another website and downloads it.
One then uses it on ther own website as if you purchased it or created it.
No, the thief stole it.
I think 5 years old can understand that.
Did the person create the story or image? No
Did the person pay somebody else to create the story or image? No
Don't steal.
It will put Righthaven out of business.
Rock
You know nothing about technology. If you embed an image through an inline link <a src="http://theImage.com" /> it would come in as the original image would display. You can change the image size but not its quality.
http://www.w3schools.com/htmL/html_image...
That is good.
You should display a reduced image.
Rock
But you just said a couple of comments ago that you can copy an inline image from the sources server. So which is it? You are contradicting yourself again.
Rocky/Shermy did Righthaven create the story or the image NO, so why do they have the copyright for it? ONLY to sue. They are probably trying to get that NBC video copyrighted as we speak!
Infact you know if they got a hold of a video that ended up on Youtube they would keep it on Youtube and sue every last website that embeds it on their site. Just like they will not sue deadseriousnews.com because their link has been so valuable for them.
No, Ken, you just have a reading problem.
I clearly stated that one can do an inlink image link if they display a distorted or reduced view of the image, clearly display the source of the link and when a person clicks on the image it takes them to the source of image.
What you say cannot be done Sherm, I mean Rock. An inline link will display the image in the same quality as the source. You cannot "distort it" except change its width and hight. You are talking to a programmer here that knows how these things work. The only way to distort an image or put it in a reduced view is to download it and run it through Photoshop or some other image editing tool. You cannot do it in an inline link. So what you are suggesting shows your technical ignorance.
It is possible to do what you are suggesting using some kind of programming language like Javascript but that would be well beyond most website operators ability.
"Just like they will not sue deadseriousnews.com because their link has been so valuable for them."
There could be two reasons why they have not sued DeadSeriousNews.com.
1) It is very hard to determine who is the owner of DeadSeriousNews.com.
2) DeadSeriousNews.com is a satire site. A satire site has a better shot at successfully using Fair Use as a defense.
So tell me Rock. Why hasn't Righthaven sued deadseriousnews.com when that was the source of the TSA image of many of the people that Rigthaven is suing? Is Righthaven using this site as a honeypot?
Sgt Rock. You just proved yourself to be a Righthaven insider because you just gave us inside information.
So what you are saying then is Righthaven follows the least path of resistance. Which means they will only go after easy targets. So you have just proven that Righthaven is not about stopping copyright infringments but preying on people they believe will not resist.
Yes DeadSeriousNews.com is a satire site however only the article itself is satire not the image. For the image to be fair use in a satirical context is for the image itself to be used in the Satire. The image in this situation is not embellished in anyway. There are no captions or anything to make the image part of the satire. Infact there is not even any link or attribution to the Denver Post. There is nothing in the way DeadSeriousNews.com is using this photo that is in the category of fair use.
You also just told us we should all go out and get whoisgaurd to protect us against Righthaven.
Ken, it is not very hard technically to display a reduced view of inline image link.
Of course, one can choose not to display a inline image link at all.
Sgt Rock
So tell me how you reduce the quality of an inline image link without some additional program that your average web user could easily and readily use?
"You also just told us we should all go out and get whoisgaurd to protect us against Righthaven."
If I was a copyright pirate then yes I would use whoisguard.
Generally it is probably a good thing for various reasons especially personal safety to use whoisguard.
Every single story on DeadSeriousNews.com is not serious. They are all satire and are meant to be funny. Are they immune from lawsuits or copyright infringement lawsuits? No but it would be a tougher battle to win.
I am sorry Snow White to clue in you on how things work in the legal field.
Yes, they make decisions like most people do with their brain. They add up score and do the odds and if if X case is harder to win then they will focus on the Y easier case.
Displaying a full blown copyright image on a non-satire site that does not have its owner hidden is a easier case.
Also, another shocker for you Snow White, is that most law firms are in business to make a profit.
Shocking is it????? A company wanting to make money.
filthy lucre is more like it. There are many other ways you can make money that does not involve ruining people's lives. Infact Righthaven is not showing any sign of making money and their outlook does not look good.
"So tell me how you reduce the quality of an inline image link without some additional program that your average web user could easily and readily use?"
They should not display the inline image at all if they can't do it right.
This is the real world.
Go to court and try to use this defense: "Judge, I am just dumb and I don't how to run a web site even though I run a web site." It will not go far.
So if you don't how then don't display it all it.
It is that simple.
Don't steal.
On on sidee you have the newspaper industry that is struggling just to survie to the next day and they are laying off staff left and right.
But the Sun, LVRJ, LA Times and NY Times have laid off staff. They are still bleeding red ink and will all probably have to lay off even more staff and even perhaps including Mr. Green himself.
On the other side are lazy and unethical website owners. They are too lazy to come up with original content. They lust after the content that is provided by the newspaper business. They don't care that a newspaper is paying some guy $10,000's of dollars to write stories or take pictures. They lust after the traffic that is going to the newspapers and they want that traffic to be directed to their site. They ignore the explicit policies of the newsaper sites and they steal the content for their own pleasures. If they follow the policies of the websites then they can display some small version of the content but send the traffic to the newspaper site. They don't care. They want all traffic for themselves.
Enter Righthaven. They are just lawyers with an idea. They are providing a service for newspapers. They will protect the newspapers property at little or no cost to the newspapers. They will get the pirates to pay for the operation.
Sounds like a win-win for me.
Newspapers win.
Righthaven wins.
Pirates lose.
Rock
So you don't know how to do it. I didn't think so. Your suggestion is impractical and wouldn't stop Righthaven from suing anyway.
You admitted Righthaven only go after easy targets. Better yet people who don't know their rights and will settle for a few thousand dollars even if they are well within their rights.
Those that take away rights from others in pursuit of their own rights are undeserving of rights.
Despite his almost perverted logic and base canards, keep going at him Ken...he's got to live with himself mired in inhumanity and a touch of idiocy...and you've got the high ground. Unfortunately, I fear you'll be like Sisyphus, pushing that stone, or a ration, humane person trying to have a conversation with a rabid evangelical...in the long run, frustrated but with the knowledge that you've fought the good fight. I hope you keep it up...I've almost lost the energy for debating the lunacy of these suits.
Rock
Yeah it looks good on paper but it assumes that bloggers posting articles and iamge are responsible for newspapers demise. Yes the internet has changed the game for newspapers but so did the automobile for the horse and buggy industry. I am sorry you are part of an obsolete industry. When an industry goes obsolete it must either adapt to the new paradigm to survive or go the way of the dodobird. The internet has changed the way people digest the news. They do not want to read a single source of news and they only want to read the parts they are interested in. They want to go to a news aggregater and look through headlines then go to the source to read the full article but only that article then they leave for something else. Newspapers have not adapted well to this paradigm but it is exactly why blogs thrive because they only give people the content they want to read.
Rock
Why don't you become a trusted commenter so your posts don't disappear after a couple of days. However after tonight I can see why you might want your comments to disappear.
High ground.....when does person who defends pirates have the high ground?
It is funny to see Murrayburns who considers himself to be a newspaper expert who is on the side of pirates who steal newpaper content.
Yes, ken, the Internet is a boom for pirates at the expense of others.
There is a way for new sites to promote newspapers and to get a share of traffic and to share the traffic.
Unfortuntely, your pirate friends insist on stealing that traffic.
Like your friend Sherman Frederick stole NBC's content?
Sherman did not steal NBC's content he only linked to YouTube who stoled NCB's content but thank you for recongizing that content can be stolen.
It is a little step for you but an important one for you to divorce yourself from your pirate friends.
I don't defend pirates. I think Righthaven or better yet the Denver Post step away from Righthaven's skirt and sue DeadSeriousNews.com who of above all the people who Righthaven has sued theirs truly is copyright infringement but since DeadSeriousNews is providing so much fodder for Righthaven I doubt that will happen. DeadSeriousNews is Righthavens honeypot and sugardaddy.
Those people stole the image from DeadSeriousNews.com.
Did they ask permission from DeadSeriousNews.com? No
Nobody put a gun to their head.
They right click and stole and then used the image for their own purpose even though they did not purchased it nor paid the photographer to take the picture.
I don't feel sorry for them one bit.
I'm guessing this was already thought out before the lawsuits. But wouldn't it be beneficial to side with the "pirates" or at least be allies with a demonstration in proper linking? Drudgereport can bring in thousands of views. Many newspapers would DIE for their photo to show up on the main page, and when you click on that photo, a properly linked story right back to the source. I just can't understand why they took this route?
Every blog sued, big or small, is a lifetime ban from any of those stories getting posted again. Who knows what website they piss off next, but in lawyer terms they are losing an infinity views for a measly $5 grand.
At this point in time you turn every "criminal" into an ally. If they show just an ounce of interest, LVRJ need to find ways to keep that interest intact and properly channeled..
Many organizations and companies turn a blind eye to copyrighted content on youtube. Others have found ways to channel the illegal nature and big music companies have teamed up with youtube to allow that content (Itunes "Download" link shows up below the video). Other companies are not working with youtube and that content becomes MUTED on those videos. The NFL at one point was trying to take down every single video and highlight on youtube. I guess they saw the benefit of having some Devin Hester highlight video remain on youtube. It builds excitement for the brand. It's essentially free advertising. Videos aren't exactly like news, but these companies have found ways to harness the "views" into working for their company and product.
LVRJ is thinking too highly of its content. These blogs don't need LVRJ stories and content. They will be fine without them. But the LVRJ needs these potential viewers. I've been asking again and again, do the LVRJ advertisers know that thousands of potential views over a 5-10 year span are being jeopardized for a couple thousand bucks.
The RJ-Righthaven shakedown scam is being successfully challenged by the Democratic Underground. The scheme always had a limited shelf life and its short run as a profit generator is near.
It's not a matter of "being on the side of the bloggers," it's a matter of those who reposted being unaware of the law, as the reposting of articles had gone on for years without suits; and the fact that Righthaven sues without warning, when most law firms use litigation as a last resort, because, among other things, its cost.
The spurious arguments that it would cost the RJ "too much" to send out takedown notices and the characterization of those who posted articles as contributing to the demise of the newspaper industry are, well, nuts.
The newspaper industry is making changes to survive, not the least among them is improving their online presences with new components and features, as well as charging. I'm looking forward to how the New York Times will roll out its "metered paywall."
Many newspapers in the industry will survive long past me, but they will have changed. If their online ad sales are enough to do it, that's great. If they have to charge for their online presence, so be it, then readers will just have to get used to it. Suing for copyright violations, again, makes little sense and is unlikely to be profitable, but quite likely to reduce a newspaper's following.
The idea is to make the newspaper so compelling that it's a "must read" every morning. The Sun showed its creativity the other day with a story about Japanese living in Nevada who have relatives in Japan impacted by the tragedy there last week. The RJ had nothing. I think that's good newpapering.
Also, the cutting of the Business Section of the RJ on Monday's about a year ago was an imprudent move, as this is an important section and well-read in markets of this size. Today, the RJ has no "local" business stories, the Sun about 5.
The newspaper industry is struggling and it's going to take creative management to save it. I think that the Sun has that and is constantly improving its online presence. The RJ, after firing its investigative staff, shows, in my view, it's only interested in the bottom line and in business, that bottom line is going to be negative unless consumers are respected and provided a compelling product.
"The spurious arguments that it would cost the RJ "too much" to send out takedown notices and the characterization of those who posted articles as contributing to the demise of the newspaper industry are, well, nuts."
Thank you, Murray.
I am sure that LVRJ will look forward toward your contribution to setup their anti-infringement unit.
You are surely an expert on this matter.
How much do you think it will cost?
How much daily labor will it take to monitor and look for infringment?
How much daily labor to find the owner the of website that is doing the infringment?
How much daily labor to check to see if there are in a Safe Harbor (you are the expert, surely you know the legal ramifications of sending an improper take-down notice to a website that has Safe Harbor)?
You do know that one can get sued if an improper takedown notice is sent. Of course, you do, being an expert and all.
How much daily labor to type up the take down notice and send to the pirate?
How much daily labor to check to see if the pirates will comply with the take down notice?
How much daily labor to response to letters from the pirates?
Will this staff have software? How much does that cost?
Will this staff have desks, chairs and phones? How much does that cost?
Can you add up the cost, being the expert that you are?
You do know that the Sun does not have an anti-infringement unit because they can't afford one. Of course, you know, you are an expert.
Can you send the check to the LVRJ, being so small for all the above?
We need your input, Mr. Expert.
"I think that the Sun has that and is constantly improving its online presence. The RJ, after firing its investigative staff, shows, in my view, it's only interested in the bottom line"
You do know that the Sun cut a big chunk of its investigative staff.
Of course you do, you being an expert and all in the newspaper business.
Also, you do know that last year, the LVRJ had almost a million more unique vistors to its website than the Sun did.
Of course, you know being an expert and all.
I've been reading Steve Green's articles with great interest, as I was a defendant in one of Righthaven's copyright suits; a defendant who chose to settle, as Mr. Green pointed out in one of the stories, rather than expend the time and resources fighting the case.
I watched Mr. Bingham and Mr. Burns rather level headed comments in debate of those issued by "Sarge." These lawsuits to me are a ridiculous pursuit by any newspaper and as far as I can tell only a couple are doing it.
It doesn't take much for a newspaper to handle takedown notices, in fact, many do, but do so sparingly because they just don't see it as a threat to revenues or product. And, lest "Sarge" come back with an "Are you an expert on newspapers?" comment, the answer is yes. I worked for nearly two decades as a reporter for one the three major papers in this country and for five more at a couple that were the size of the RJ or maybe a bit larger.
I speak with reporters on almost a daily basis, around the nation, and to a person, they find this tactic harmful or potentially harmful to their ability to collect and report the news, as well as the industry as a whole.
I agree with Mr. Burns that newspapers must find compelling ways to make their products "must reads," and that they should always serve the community, not attack it. This business about the cost of "takedown" letters is rather a silly argument.
There's not been any valid data that reposting of articles has had a financial impact on a single newspaper. I could certainly understand noticing republication of syndicated columnists or magazines that have a degree of timelessness, but even then, a takedown notice would suffice, at least that would be my surmise.
That the Sun dropped some reporters is not the issue; most newspapers are doing that today. However, it still has investigative reporters, which my understanding is, the RJ, though it says it will continue investigative reporting, does not.
I have seen complete articles from The New York Times, The Miami Herald, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post reposted in toto on blogs, yet I've yet to hear of one of these newspapers taking legal action.
Beyond that, considering the amount of money the RJ put into this venture and Righthaven's cost of doing business, and the estimates of recovery by Righthaven, it has to be a losing venture at this point and one has to wonder how long it can continue.
Mr. Stern,
Are you are liberty to disclose the circumstances surrounding your presentation of the allegedly infringing material? That is, can you tell us how much of an article was reproduced, if there link backs, etc?
Given your extensive experience and background in the industry I would not think you would knowingly cross any lines.
I can understand how one would rather settle instead of get into a long fight, but I am happy to see that there are some who have the resources to do so. I am very happy to see the EFF not backing down but insisting on taking this to judgment so that precedent can be set.
It has occured to me that righthaven and the Review journal have filed a large number of thier lawsuits over one picture. Has anyone challenged them to prove they have the right themselves to publish the picture. It involves two people a TSA and a ordinary citizen whos photos were used I suspect without thier wrtten consent to publish in a printed paper who's solo pupose is to make money. DO they have the right??? Comments on this would be most enlightening.
Botfx: Sure. I posted an article from the RJ about a client and a year later I was sued. Like many who were sued, I first found out about it when Steve Green called me for comment (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jun...). To say the least, I was surprised, as both the editor and publisher of the newspaper were fully aware of my posts because they were on my newsletter list.
As soon as Steve Green notified me, I removed all posts from the Review-Journal and called Mr. Frederick who did not return my call.
Now, not to be immodest, I'm a fairly intelligent and informed fellow. However, I, like most of those sued had no idea we were violating the copyright law, as such "reposts" are so ubiquitous throughout the Internet.
At this point, with the exception to the Sun articles on this matter, and a recent reference to a profile that simply says the RJ has a profile of so and so with a link, I no longer post anything from the RJ.
In the case of my post, which had a link and appropriate attribution, more than 70 percent of those who viewed it clicked on the link and went to the RJ site.
Mr. Rock: Intellectual discussion is one thing, innuendo that is borderline libelous is another. I would like you to remove that comment.
Thanks for the info, Steve. It would have been very interesting to have seen your case defended by EFF, but we can hope the Democratic Underground case is strong enough.
You mention something many might not be aware of. You can track the click-throughs and show that you actually performed a service for the RJ by sending them traffic. What people might not think about is the the RJ also has a record of how many clicks were referred by your site, or any other site that links to them. That could be one way that Righthaven is finding potential targets.
In fact, that is probably the easiest way to find them, certainly much easier than trolling through Google. The irony is that by using referrer logs they are going after people who actually help them gain exposure that they might not otherwise have.
Boftx: My site does track that way, which is how I knew exactly how many had seen the article and the percentage that clicked through. With regard to the EFF, I thought about this fine organization, however, it seemed more prudent just to deal with it and go on.
Libelous statements have to be false.
You admitted in your post that you reposted the material which probably means that you pirated copyright material which is not only unethical but most likely illegal.
Which is even worst because you are in the business and should have known better.
Linking and citation are not valid defenses when one copies all or most of a story or work.
SgtRock, So we're back to the "wrong is wrong is always WRONG and illegal" arguments? I hope one day a cop pulls you over for going one MPH over, or have someone you know driving their pregnant loved one to the hospital and getting stopped by the cops for speeding and the cops having no sympathy, because WRONG is WRONG and ILLEGAL is still ILLEGAL. I take it you don't have very many friends in your corner.
You do realize why LVRJ and the Post are some of the only newspapers doing this in the ENTIRE COUNTRY, right? It's not because they are revolutionary and changing the world.. All these other places realize the benefit or if not for the benefit, they dont see where it negatively impacts them, by these simple ILLEGAL reposts. They let that stuff slide not because they don't care, like you say happens with the SUN. They let some of it go because ruining their papers reputation is not worth the mere pennies they would be getting back.
"innuendo that is borderline libelous..." is what I wrote and I say this for who take the time to actually read comments and consider their responses. For the record, that which I admitted to is one thing. My case was not litigated, it was settled. As I have said before, my experience notwithstanding, I truly did not know the impact or stretch of the copyright law. From what I understand from other defendants, they didn't either because of, as I said, Internet history. I'm not being defensive here, just pointing out that there could be a wide range of court outcomes, not the least of which is an overruling of the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
I've spoken with a number of lawyers, and as we all know each has a different opinion. However, they all seem to agree on a single issue: The litigation of the copyright cases and counterclaims are going to be frightfully expensive and complex -- and, it may well cost Righthaven and the RJ much, much more than their recoveries.
The next big question for me is that with the new gaming ruling on Oscar betting, with the casinos be making book on these cases?
On a personal note, I had an interesting discussion a few minutes ago with a person who posts here. He's on the other side of the political aisle from me, but it was a pleasure to briefly discuss various issues with him.
I reviewed the exhibit in your Righthaven cases.
You copied and pasted the whole article from the LVRJ to your own site.
You are in the PR business right? I just want to make sure I am not talking to some blogger who lives in his mother's basement.
You have no clue.
I get it.
You are clueless.
You had no clue copying and pasting the whole article is wrong. I am pretty sure that a 6th grader would have said that is just plain wrong.
LVRJ paid a reporter to type up the article.
They posted to their site to draw traffic so that people would pay for advertising on their site.
They use that ad money to pay salaries so they don't have to layoff people.
You had no clue that it would be wrong to copy and paste LVRJ property onto your own site as if you own that property.
There is no need to link back to the LVRJ. What person wants to read the same story twice?
Anyway, linking and citation is not a valid defense when one copies and pastes all or most of a copyright work.
You have no clue that like in 99.9999% of copyright cases that copying and pasting the whole article is illegal. I think most if not all copyright lawyers would have told you that you had absolutely no defense in that case.
It was a good thing that you settled.
Rock
Copying and pasting an entire article has not yet been shown to be a copyright infringement. Infact a Federal Judge is deciding a case right now where he may very well rule it is fair use in some situations. I don't know the details of sdsterns case but he may also have been within his rights. We shall see how the judge rules. But until he does you are not in a position to decide the legality of it.
Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic
Free Republic was copying and pasting whole articles from various newspapers.
The LA Times, Newsweek and Wash Post sued them and won.
But you don't have to listen to me or the US Court system.
Go ahead.
Copy and paste an entire LVRJ story on your website.
Roll the dice.
Just a FYI......even if was legal....it would still be unethical and wrong.
SgtRock,
Have you ever thought that people would read the article from the blog, steal the views from that one article, and maybe just maybe the story be so good that those viewers will go directly to the source next time for future articles? Not everything is so cut and dry. Think about the future.
"Hey. I really like that article about paramedics on strike. Thanks for posting the story here (BLOG NAME here). You have informed me that this newspaper has some decent writers and articles that are interesting to me. I shall go back DIRECTLY to the source for future news on all sorts of topics. I don't specifically need you or your blog anymore posting these stories. Getting the word out is enough."
But I guess that is too far fetched to believe a blog that steals one article won't steal others... Right? So cutting off any future views doesn't matter in your eyes because they would have been stealing all of the other articles and views away from LVRJ. There is no middle ground where people actually talk and communicate and work out a plan.
Innocent infringement does happen and its out there. Tell these people once that it's wrong and they will be forever grateful and properly link to thousands of stories.
Sue them first. You are cut off.
Not everyone is evil, crazy, and out to rip others off willingly
"There is no middle ground where people actually talk and communicate and work out a plan."
There is already a middle ground.
It is called, Fair Use.
The middle ground is listed in almost every single newspaper site in the country.
You can view the middle ground by going to here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/about/useragr...
The middle ground is: "It is acceptable and approved to link to any of our materials, including "deep links" to our site. Text from our stories can be quoted when linking to our content, but it must not be more than one-tenth of the total word count of the story or 100 words, whichever is lesser. Quoted content must contain a direct link to the story from which it is taken. If an image is being used in the link to lasvegassun.com's content, it must not be larger than 300 pixels wide and must link to the exact page on our site in which the original image can be found."
Yes, you can do a "Great news story here. Blah...blah " Then list a few sentences from the story to get people interested in it. The list the newspaper that spent the money to generate the story and then provide a link to the source.
Good middle ground to me.
Sounds like a good plan.
Don't copy and paste all or most of the story.
That is wrong.
That is unethical.
That is illegal.
Don't be a pirate.
I agree great plan in theory. But no first chances or warnings to get people on the straight and narrow?
I visit many of the messageboards and blogs that were sued and they have all bit blacklisted LVRJ/Stephens Media related content. I think the list goes 50 deep.
Many have even used this lawsuit as educational, learned the proper way to cite, and are now going by the method you described above. A few sentences and a link... Every single website but RIGHTHAVEN backed sites are benefiting from these lawsuits.. Righthaven is doing some good but it's at their expense and ultimate demise.
You might be correct.
Very few newspapers, can't afford to have anti-infringement units that send out take-down notices.
Plus take-down notices can trigger lawsuits if they are improper or if invalid.
It is safer to just sue.
It is cheaper from LVRJ and the Denver Post point-of-view to sell the copyright to Righthaven.
If they did the take-down notices then they would have to hire staff, software, desks, phones and computers.
With Righthaven they have no cost.
With Righthaven they don't have to worry about legal liable of sending improper or invalid take-down notices.
Rock
In the long run it will not be cheaper for the LVRJ nor the Denver Post. Infact by dealing with Righthaven they are putting themselves in extreme risk of going down with them. People are not just counter suing Righthaven, they are involving the papers as well. If EFF's allegations are correct and these are sham copyright assignments then these papers may be in deep trouble. They will be held responsible along with your buddies at Righthaven.
One thing will come out of this. People will know that wholesale suing is not a very profitable business model and suing in general is often times more trouble and costlier than it is worth. You cannot sue a bunch of poor people and expect a big return. You either can't collect because the people have no money or you force them into bankruptcy. Either way you get nothing for your troubles. This was a problem the RIAA faced and it is the same problem Righthaven is facing now.
Suing doesn't pay.
Maybe I'm just too simple minded or don't know enough.
I can do a google search right now and find hundreds of infringements. I could then easily find contact info on those websites. Maybe I need to register and then message a MODERATOR. It appears a courtesy email stating, " We are aware some copyright issues are at hand here. Please take down or properly link the content before this case gets picked up by lawyers. This is a simple courtesy". Is that what essentially a take down notice is? How can there be invalid take down notices or improper ones?
An intern could find a hundred copyrighted stories on blogs or forums within an hour. And then get courtesy emails out within that same hour. Is that too simple minded to work?
I have done the job Righthaven wont do and sent warning emails to people who have posted the TSA image about the lawsuits. Guess what it didn't cost me a dime to do it. Hopefully my efforts will cost Righthaven some potential victims. They were all high on Google's search too so the people I sent emails to were at risk but now possibly saved.
You know Gary Larson of Far Side Fame will go down as having the best idea to thwart copyright infringement and he did not have to send hundreds or thousands of take-down notices. He wrote an open letter to Far Side fans asking them politely not to post his "children" on their sites. It was non threatening and both witty and courteous and did not accuse anyone or call anyone thieves.
Guess what happened? Almost everyone complied. Infact it was so successful that Far Side fans actually policed each other and would come down on sites that posted Far Side images.
This was a man that really did want his work protected and was not interested in making money off of it. Righthaven, LVRJ, and Denver Post on the other hand do not care about stopping it. They only want to monetize it. Infact it is now in their financial interest to encourage and perpetuate it.
There are a remarkable number of issues here, but one that as a former reporter I don't think we've addressed or discussed. "Everyday folk," however you want to describe the person who calls a reporter with a legitimate tip, one that could tilt an issue one way or another
Newspapers are important, very important. The RJ has good stories, the Sun, according to those who hand out awards, probably better. If you have a story in which you want to be anonymous, who are your going to trust. It doesn't matter that the RJ has good reporters, although I think that the termination of the investigative staff reduced those by three, it matters that a reporter's sources feel comfortable with the newspaper maintaining whatever barrier is required for the story to run, assuming all's checked.
What seems like a very long time ago, I wrote a piece based on the comments of a resource who I trusted without any reservation. When I say "a long time ago," I'm talking the 70s...to give you an idea, the market went down 14 points on the story, which was a lot at the time. The newspaper was threatened with litigation. It simply said, in the words of a President for whom I didn't vote, "Bring it on." They did and my paper, after two depositions, won.
Resources have to trust reporters, trust them to the hilt. For Rock, yes, maybe I "should have known better." I didn't as I'm not in the habit of reading the law. I'm not an attorney. However, my firm is quite successful. My clients, all of them, about this suit, "Huh?"
Again, it is not the issue of the violation of copyright here, it is an issue of simply not knowing the law and following what has occurred for years.
My name's available, you can find my websites. I'm quite visible. Certainly there may have been a reason why I should have known the copyright law more comprehensively. Mea culpa. I didn't. There's no reason, from my perspective, that I should have.
On the other hand Sarge, I don't post comments under a pseudonym. Granted, I didn't post them during the settlement negotiations as I was precluded from doing so.
While I understand some people posting under pseudonyms, if you're going to be insulting or issue base canards regarding someone, it seems to me to be incumbent upon you to let us know who you are. Otherwise, your comments are simply those issued in a cowardly manner and meant only to injur others, as opposed to adding value and enlightening the argument.
Also, I'd like to know what your experience in the newspaper and publishing business has been. You seem to have very concrete ideas about it, however, we have no idea if those ideas are based on experience, or, frankly in your case, simply anger and an extraordinary need for attention.
If you'd like to discuss this personally, I'm more than happy to accept a phone call from you...after all, it's rather simple to find my number from my two websites.
Rock
You talk about integrity but then fail to admit who you are. You cowardly hide behind anonymity. The problem here is it is obvious to EVERYONE that you are not just an interested observer but someone from either the inside of Righthaven or the LVRJ. If you had integrity you would disclose this information. In fact if you are an insider and are not disclosing this information then you and your company you represent are guilty of serious ethics violations.
There have been several posts both at the Sun and LVRJ that have speculated you are either Steven Gibson or(I have strong suspicions) that you are Sherman Frederick. I don't believe you are Gibson because he is too busy and has too much of an ego to stay hidden. Frederick Sherman is a has-been washed-up reporter who now has tons of time on his hands so you being him makes a lot of sense.
Come clean Rock. Tell us who you are. If you are Sherman you can't get fired because you already have been. Until you come clean there will be an ethics cloud above your head and you will have no credibility. Show you really do have an ounce of integrity.
Come clean. You'll feel better.
"With Righthaven they have no cost." Please explain then the $300,000 the RJ/Stephens "invested" in Righthaven.
Did you copy and paste that from some site?
And we all thought you were clueless.
It is an investment and like all investments they can either lose or make money or break even.
As oppose to operating expenses, they are not investments.
So do you have other similar ethical challenges, too?
Do you know it is wrong to take candy from children?
Do you know it is wrong not to pay your taxes?
Do you know it is wrong slam dunk on a five year child?
You are clueless.
You had no freaking clue that copying and pasting an entire news article to your own website was wrong.
And you are proud to announce to the world that you once worked in the newspaper business and now are in the PR business.
Lol....Lord Almighty
They used part of that $300,000 to pay Rock and people like him to go berserk on blog sites like this one.
Rock
Answer the question Rock. Who are you and who do you represent? Until you answer you are unqualified to comment about ethics.
This is my thought about Righthaven as a family member of one of their victims. I am Brian's grandmother, also disabled, and I can tell you that this effects the victim in very bad ways. Brian's brittle diabetes has gotten worse. Not in going high, but moslty now in going very low (don't know if he's so worred that he's not eating much). Usually when he's upset, his glucose goes way up, so is he taking insulin for this, then not eating much because he's so upset and not getting much rest at all? This time it's different, it is taking a lot longer for his mom to bring it back up with snacks and is happening mostly at night and in the early morning and is happening a lot. This morning early he fell twice from glucose being so low and perhaps broke a toe during the second fall. His foot was red and he was in a lot of pain when I saw him today. As Righthaven's victims 6 weeks into this, it's causing a big toll on Brian, his mom and his grandparents. Not resting well at all and very tired. Righthaven does not care what type of pain they inflict on their victims and their victim's families and friends. They feel like if you have a photo on your website or even a few lines, then you are a thief, so they sentence you as they are now acting as the judge and jury to a life of torture. Of course, did you "steal" anything? Last time I checked, these photos are still on the Denver Post site, asking everyone to share, print or email. This was for the purpose of Brian's answers to the court, that was the only reason I was there. I will never go to any of the newspapers that have hired Righthaven to sue for them. Wait until you, your family or friend are the next victim, you will know exactly what I mean. Did anyone steal this photo? If someone "steals" something, you can't see that product anymore. There is a true Judge out there, sorry, Righthaven, it is not you. He is God Almighty. He in the end will have the final judgement. Sorry for all of the pain you have inflicted on innocent people on the Internet because you will have to experience every one of these pains in the day of Judgement. Sorry too that you are causing loss of freedom of speech because of your lawsuits. In the end, you and all of us, will reap what we have sowed! I don't think God will judge us as "thieves" since sharing is an act of "love and kindness" not a crime, and we have all been doing this since the World wide web started!! What Righthaven is calling "Stealing" and trying to get $150,000, I call "Sharing" with a link back to the original source. I have not made a penny, but have shared with others links to some interesting sites. I prefer just links, so they can go to the page or video themselves because there are usually more interesting subjects on the page (and I'm too lazy to do more work than just link to the article) plus I want to spend more of my time checking out other articles or links that others have shared with me.
There's another thing: Why am I not hearing any more about "Reporters without Borders"? For the first time they are issuing letters that they are now seeing in the United States that Righthaven and their newspapers are now trying to stop freedom of speech by lawsuits!!!
Stella
You are going to have one Hell of a lawsuit against Righthaven, The Denver Post, News Media Group, and Steven's Media for any health problems caused by Righthaven's evil tactics. Sue them for gross neglegence and intentionally causing physical harm on Brian. Any Jury will award you millions over this.
Got that Rock? Tell your buddies at Righthaven they have a multi-million dollar lawsuit on their hands and their worst nightmare will be a sympathetic autistic person against a heartless group of sociopathic lawyers. Juries eat that stuff up big time.
Thank you for the articulate and sensitive story. And thank you for being "visible." Finally, should there be anything you think I can do to help Brian, please let me know. All my hopes for his recovery.
ALso in this letter from Reporters Without Borders, they said that this is the first time they have ever had to issue this letter in the USA. It's usually in other coutries where freedom of speech is an issue, not in the USA. That should be embarrassing to all Americans and especially to Righthaven and the 2 news papers they serve. Rock, you are so concerned about what you call, "thief" or "stealing" like it is the worse thing that can happen. I'm not referring to stealing a car here or a computer, but using a photo or a few words on a website where the first photo is still on the Internet. You act like it's the worse thing that can happen. If you have some time, look up the words "Brittle insulin dependent diabetes" "Mild or high functioning autism". I think there can be a lot worse things than that. How would you like to do a budget living off from $674.00 a month because you have such serious health problems that you can't work. Think of what it means to be disabled, then having false accusations about you. Think about the victims of Righthaven. Which is worse, sharing a photo and linking back to the article or being severely ill from the age of 18 months to the age of 20 years and hearing people like you making fun and calling you a "thief" when you would never ever steal anything, even with such a limited budget because you do believe in God and always trying to do the right things!!
Thank you, Ken and Steven. One very important thing that could help Brian are your prayers!! I had no idea how painful something like this can be. Brian is just constantly worried about it. One minute he wants to fight and the next minute he wants for this to just end and has asked the courts to dismiss this case. Ken, people who are involved in causing all of this hurt will face God. They will find out all of this money they are making, they will not be able to take with them. They will have to face God with the hurt they have caused to others!! Not only Brian, but all of Righthaven's other victims.
Just a thought: Sarge, et al, but particularly Sarge, and not without Sarge, who'd like to get together at a saloon (preferably near be because I abhor driving), have a drink and a discussion about this. I'm sure we'd all like to meet Sarge and I'll be sure that I'm available when he is. In fact, I'll buy the first round.
Something I learned early in life, never turn down free food or free booze (but be sure you see the unopened bottle first.)
I hope for Brian's sake that the judge will just simply dismiss the case.
Ken, that's what I hope too. Brian is not guilty of anything at all. When I first saw the lawsuit, I was afraid that maybe he did do something wrong (Because when his glucose is too high or too low or on the days or times when the autism is worse), I thought maybe he forgot to put a link or something. Then we discovered he did nothing wrong. Had his link there, etc. His attorney is hoping to get it dismissed this week, especially since Brian did everything right, and we can and have proved it with the papers we emailed to his attorney today. That's exactly what Brian told his attorney. I don't really think Brian can take much more. If something really bad was to happen to Brian, then for sure, we would sue Righthaven!
There is a concept that is much more important than guilt or innocence in the case of Brian, specifically that of "in the interest of justice."
Without having seen the actual webpage with the image that Righthaven is suing over I don't want to form an opinion. But based upon everything I have read (and I have no reason to think the reports are not factual) I would say that at the very least this should have been handled by a simple take-down notice, whether or not Brian had registered for a safe haven.
If there are grounds for a strong counter-suit then I hope that Brian's attorney or the EFF can step up and drive it home.
Copyright is essentially an action in equity, and in days very long gone-by there was a requirement that before you could bring an action in equity you had to have "clean hands." Though such rules do not apply to our legal system (and in fact we do not have "equity courts" as such) the principles permeate our courts and I doubt any judge could view Righthaven as having clean hands.
I was wondering what does a website domain name have to do with any damages Righthaven wants to collect? They are seeking not only a monetary award, but the forfeiture of the website domain name, or in the case of Bill Hyatt, the control over the domain name 1ce.org. What does any of that have to do with copyright infringement?
jfucci
There is no basis in law to seek such a forfeiture. This is simply an extortion tactic to scare victims into settling. This is an unethical demand and most likely will prove to be very damaging to them once court decisions start coming out.
Judges are taking their time on these cases. No judge has yet made a final decision on any one of them. This should make Rightaven lose sleep at night because If these cases were so cut and dry there would have been quick decisions but we are seeing the opposite which suggests the Judges are moving cautiously. They would only do that if the decisions are against Righthaven because they are making sure their rulings are iron clad. My prediction is that these rulings are going to be devastating to Righthaven.
This from http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2011/02...
"The Defense of Implied License
Judge Navarro also found that Klerks had made a plausible argument that his use fell under the doctrine of implied license, pointing to the fact that the newspaper publisher "encouraged people to save and share the article with others without restrictions, and permitted users to "right-click" and copy the article from its website." Judge Navarro found that Klerks had made a plausible argument that there was an implied license "especially in light of the established and accepted custom of users freely and openly sharing certain information posted on the Internet.""
It is interesting to note in this very story of Righthaven's attempt to blackmail a victim into dropping is counter-suit against Rigthaven and Steven's Media.
"An email attached to his complaint from Mangano to Neveau notes: "Please keep in mind that YOU filed a counterclaim against Righthaven LLC and a third-party complaint against Stephens Media LLC. As such, this is not a case where you were merely defending claims brought against you. Rather, you have chosen to seek affirmative legal recourse against Righthaven and Stephens, both of which have incurred and will continue to incur legal fees defending your baseless claims."
The Jan. 14 e-mail indicated Righthaven offered to stay litigation in the case for 60 days if Neveau would drop his counterclaim against Righthaven and his complaint against Stephens Media with prejudice, meaning they could not be re-filed.
"These are not points open for negotiation," the email said. "You have until the close of business today to respond to this proposal."
More proof of Righthaven's unethical behavior. More for the Nevada State Bar to look over.
The fatal flaw with Righthaven is they are counting on the lack of court precedents over fair use to sue even those that logically would fall into it, but by doing so they are creating precedents for fair use and it is not going in their favor.
"There is no basis in law to seek such a forfeiture. "
It is very much basis in law and plantiffs often seek to attach judgement against known assets in pre-trial motions. It happens often.
"Judges are taking their time on these cases. No judge has yet made a final decision on any one of them."
They are suppose to take their time. Some cases take a over 10 years to finish a trial. Most cases take over a year to complete and the they get appealed with also can take years.
It could be 5 to 8 years before anything might be decided in the higher courts.
" plausible argument that his use fell under the doctrine of implied license, pointing to the fact that the newspaper publisher "encouraged people to save and share the article with others without restrictions, and permitted users to "right-click" and copy the article from its website."
All the judge said was that the defendent had a possible plausible defense. He did not say it was a winning defense.
The writer of the artice stated it is fact that the publisher wanted to share without restrictions. "Facts" like that are not established during pre-trial motions. I am sure that LVRJ like most newspapers including the Sun would dispute that "fact".
""These are not points open for negotiation," the email said. "You have until the close of business today to respond to this proposal."
More proof of Righthaven's unethical behavior. More for the Nevada State Bar to look over."
Demands with deadlines between parties are often made and they are not unethical behavor. Righthaven has the legal right to continue litigation. They made an offer to the defendant. The defendent can choose to accept or decline.
Righthaven may be engaging in Internet Vigilantism. Righthaven is a quasi-law firm that acts as both client and attorny. They do not represent a damaged party except for themselves. When the ACLU sues they must first get a client to make a claim, they are not able to just file a lawsuit on their own. How does Righthaven get away with this? Even on their own website (possibly the worst website on the Internet) they call themselves the "Pre-eminant copyright enforcer". What they really are is engaging in vigilante activities. They have taken upon themselves to be the enforcers of law.
Wikipedia mentions one particular attribute of an Internet Vigilante:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_vi...
"Profit
Some companies engage in internet vigilantism for profit. One such example is MediaDefender, a company which used methods such as entrapment, P2P poisoning, and DDoS attacks."
MediaDefender is an organization that took it upon themselves by illegal means to hunt and punish music and movie downloaders. In September they were hacked and a number of emails were leaked detailing MediaDefenders activities such as DDoS attacks and submitting fake files with virus' and other illegal activities.
Righthaven may possibly be engaging in similar tactics.
You are saying that Righthaven is doing DDos attackes, faking files with viruses????
You are one crazy bird.
Vigilantism is working outside the law.
Righthaven is working inside the court system.
Just the other day, you were saying that the whole Internet will stop working because of Righthaven.
If you want to shut down Righthaven then convince your pirate friends to stop stealing.
They may be working outside the law which was my point about using popular websites as honeypots which I thought I made a very good case. Righthaven only works within the Court System when defendants force them too. Otherwise they use very strong arm and even unethical tactics such as extreme intimidation, heavy stress inducers, and fear tactics. No one deserves to be treated like Righthaven does. Since Righthaven is also acting as the attorney they have an obligation to keep everything absolutely professional. They cannot use threats or any intimidation tactics. They especially cannot use illegal methods like threatening to illegally garnish a disability check.
Rock
Even planting a commenter without disclosing that information as a means of swaying public opinion is an act of vigilantism. Not to mention extremely unethical.
Federal Judge in Massechussettes Ruled that the RIAA award against Joel Tenenbaum for downloading 7 songs was unconstitutionally excessive at reduced it 90%
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2010070...
Righthaven is far exceeding this rate of $150,000 for a single occurrence which has already been ruled to be unconstitutional but they threaten it all the same. Another illegal tactic used to extort money from people.
Rock
I bet you would love us to go back to indentured servitude and debtors prisons wouldn't you?
Infact these excessive awards are close to indentured servitude because for an average person to be saddled with $150,000 judgement would be tantamount to slavery since a good chunk of their income would go to paying the debt.
In reality though having such a high damage award almost guarantees most plaintiffs file for bankruptcy in which case the debtor gets nothing so really these excessive awards are completely counter productive for the plaintiffs except of course to use as a club to extort settlements which only encourage these kinds of nuisance lawsuits..
Rock, take time to read this scripture, then you will know exactly what God thinks: Psalm 35. Also Rock, as far as the court system is concerned. Stop being the judge and jury. Not one of Righthaven's victims have been found guilty by the courts. Save your judgements for later. Let the courts decide and the jury if they are guilty or not. Anyone can file a lawsuit on anyone. It is up to the courts to decide. I really don't like your calling all of these Righthaven victims as being "a thief". Speaking of thief, when Jesus Christ was on the cross being convicted of doing a terrible thing, like healing people on the sabbath day, he told a thief beside of him that this thief would be with him in paradise. God is the final judge for all of our deeds, not man! Everytime you say this, you are publicly using defamation of character to at least 250 people. That could be a good lawsuit and with proof as well.
" Not one of Righthaven's victims have been found guilty by the courts."
It is true that no victims have been found guilty for there is no such thing as a Righthaven victim.. Victims don't go and steal other people's property.
And yes, the court has already rule in summary judgements for Righthaven.
So you are wrong on two counts.
Those people should read Exodus 20:15.
It is wrong to lust after another person's property.
To say, "Hey that would look cool on my site.".
They think "I will just copy it."
Do they ask, "Did I pay for it?" No
Do they ask, "Did I create it?" No
Do they think, "Should I at least ask to use it?" No
They just think, "I am just going to take it."
They just think, "I don't care if somebody else paid somebody to create it. I don't care if somebody else worked hard to create it."
It is wrong.
Don't steal.
Sin has conquesenses.
Don't be a pirate.
Don't steal.
It will be put Righthaven out of business.
AGAIN, not one of these Righthaven Victims have been found "Guilty" by the courts. They have not been found guilty of stealing, being a thief or being a pirate!! YOU are the only one who is saying they are!
Oh, you know your Bible, and I know who you really are!
This is one issue that has united both conservatives and liberals. Righthaven meets no one's sense of justice. Even other lawyers find Righthaven to be reprehensible. They are not even bottom feeders they are the refuse of bottom feeders and that is even an insult to the refuse of bottom feeders.
There are only one other group I can think of that lives in such an absolutist world like Rock and Sherman Frederick (if they are not one in the same) and Steven Gibson and that is Osama Bin Laden and his bunch. The only difference is they have differing means of trying to bring down America and enslave us all.
In Civil court, you are not found guilty or not guilty but awards, motions, relief, etc are given to one party or other.
Righthaven has been given summary judgement on cases that it has filed.
You guys want people to steal property that is not theirs .
You can call yourself righteous but thieves are not righteous.
You defend pirates.
Rock
Excessive punishment for little or no damage is not an award. It is legalized plunder and a bastardization of justice. Excessive awards have already been deemed as unconstitutional and Righthaven is going against the Constitution by demanding excessive rewards. They are plunderers and thieves and spit on the Constitution every time they file a new lawsuit.
I think you have a problem with the law.
You should contact your Congressman.
Righthaven is following the law and working in the court system.
The law says that statutory damages are $150k per incident.
According to the Sun, Righthaven has been offering deals in the $5k to $8k range.
What would Christina say of your behavior?
Offering deals to people who may have well been in their rights and never saw their day in court because of the extreme cost.
The average person no longer as any real access to the courts anymore. That needs to change. This is called tyranny of the courts when those with money can control the people because they have access to lawyers and courts while the average person does not. There are just not enough pro-bono lawyers to handle every case. It may be time to extend public defenders in cases that involve the potential for large judgments.
Yes I have a huge problem with the law and have talked with my Congressmen and Senators. They have all been very receptive and fully understand that the Internet has changed the paradigm on copyrights and laws need to change that reflect that paradigm at the same time respect the copyrights of others. Fair use needs to be clearly defined so the average person does know what is and is not permissible. Also penalties need to reflect actual damages and any punitive damages should be in proportion to those damages.
I have yet to talk to a member of congress who does not agree that Righthaven is abusing the system and if anything Righthaven has exposed the major flaws with the law. Righthavens abuses may be the catalyst Congress needs to make changes.
"Offering deals to people who may have well been in their rights and never saw their day in court because of the extreme cost.
The average person no longer as any real access to the courts anymore. That needs to change. This is called tyranny of the courts"
That is how it works.
It is even worst in criminal courts.
They will make this offer in criminal. You plea to being guilty for XYZ and you will get 6 months probation or we will take you to court and you might get 10 years in state prison.
That is an hard offer to pass up.
"Also penalties need to reflect actual damages and any punitive damages should be in proportion to those damages."
Statutory damanges in DMCA were created to scare potential pirates away from even thinking of stealing copyright material.
Maybe they could create a virtual electronic small claims court.
The fee to go court will be $500 for each person. The loser will have to pay the fee for both parties. The loser will have to pay a $1,500 award on top of the fee.
Each party will have to post $2,000 to access the court.
If one party doesn't part take then the other party can sue them for $150k.