The Rise of the Copyright Trolls

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the new mass filesharing suit brought in Washington, DC, on behalf of a filmmaker, Achte/Neunte v. Does 1-2094, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and two ACLU organizations have filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a motion by Time Warner to quash the subpoena. EFF commented: 'We've long been concerned that some attorneys would attempt to create a business by cutting corners in mass copyright lawsuits against fans, shaking settlements out of people who aren't in a position to raise legitimate defenses and becoming a category of 'copyright trolls' to rival those seen in patent law.'" And reader ericgoldman notes a case that arguably falls under the same umbrella: "Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, wrote a blog post declaring 'Copyright theft: We're not taking it anymore.' Apparently upset that third-party websites are republishing its stories in full, the newspaper 'grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven ... a local technology company whose only job is to protect copyrighted content.' Righthaven has brought 'about 22' lawsuits on behalf of the newspaper, including lawsuits against marijuana- and gambling-related websites. Frederick hopes 'if Righthaven shows continued success, that it will find other clients looking for a solution to the theft of copyrighted material' and ends his 'editorial' (or is it an ad?) inviting other newspapers to become Righthaven customers. A couple of months back Wendy Davis of MediaPost deconstructed some of Frederick's logic gaps."

Comments

Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[mcgrew]

If one equates copyright infringement with theft, he or she is either trolling of ignorant. The same goes for "think of the poor starving artists, homeless in their nansions", "I don't just have a monopoly, I own the work itself", etc.

Of course, many of these aren't trolls but astroturfing. Sadly, the trolls seem to be winning on all fronts -- copyright trolls, patent trolls, and slashdot trolls.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[cornicefire]

But it can have the same effect on a newspaper or a blog. They make money when people look at ads or buy subscriptions. If you reproduce a large part of the article or somehow intercept the readers, it has the same effect as stealing some money directly from their bank account. So you can quibble over the word "theft", but the comptroller who needs to issue the paychecks and the people who have to write their mortgage checks feel the same thing.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[kalirion]

How about the "information wants to be free" trolls, who insist that just because something can be digitized, it has to be freely available to the masses?

Seems everyone is in either one extreme or the other. Whatever happened to moderation?

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[betterunixthanunix]

You know, I can still remember a time when the Web and the Internet in general were being hailed as the coming of a golden age of information availability, where people would be able to find information faster than ever before. What happened to that view of the Internet?

Oh, that's right, a group of people whose businesses are based on information not being available started suing people left and right.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[postbigbang]

For the sake of argument, consider that search engines aren't perfect, and people often click based on SE captions of hits.

You're a newspaper that uses GoogleAds. You're also the original author and copyright holder of an article. Some other site with a name that suits someone better-- for whatever reason-- has the same article and that person clicks on that third party site-hosted article, instead of the 'original'. The newspaper loses the revenue associated with GoogleAds or whatever clicks that add to their advertiser demographics. They were robbed of the click. Clicks==revenue.

The other site has no license or authority to reproduce an article in whole. Fair use portions are perfectly acceptable. In the case where articles are lifted wholesale, attributed or not, in lieu of an authorization to do so, that site is misappropriating the copyrighted content.

The proof is in the dilution of money-producing clicks. Do you understand it now?

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[brit74]

Yes, "information wants to be free" trolls like Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson supported copyright. Yes, he supported a shorter version of copyright than we currently see, but don't try to co-opt Jefferson into some extreme "information wants to be free" supporter - which, by definition, requires that Jefferson opposed any form of copyright.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

This has been said a thousand times over, but somehow, nobody ever seems to get it.

Well actually the newspapers have been losing money from the loss of ad sells. This has been very well documented and the primary reason being that advertisers will not spend money when readership is in decline. The reason readership is down is because the articles can be read elsewhere for free.

The reason newspapers are going to the "pay wall" system is that the only ones that benefit from banner ads is Google and bloggers with very little expenses. After all, how much does it cost to cut and paste? Google is like a casino. They don't care who wins or loses because they always get a share of the money. Bloggers are happy with the small amount of money they get because they don't have the expense. Newspapers are screwed because they spend money for the articles, and watch other people benefit from their work.

The problem is not the lack of proof.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[mcgrew]

Information doesn't want to be free, but when it isn't, neither are you.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[cornicefire]

The information-must-be-free folks have already put a number of newspapers out of business and reduced the headcount at many others. So who's really reducing the available information.

Paywalls don't restrict access to paying customers, just those who don't want to pull their weight.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[LordAndrewSama]

The fact that they have a revenue stream from the adverts is the evidence you need that people would otherwise have read the original work.

Re:Different kind of copyright trolls on /.

[andymadigan]

Would you go to the original site more or less if BoingBoing didn't exist? I'm subscribed to the BBC RSS feed, I'm sure I go there more because of the feed even though I skip most of the articles after reading the summary.

heh

[Pojut]

Frederick hopes 'if Righthaven shows continued success, that it will find other clients looking for a solution to the theft of copyrighted material' and ends his 'editorial' (or is it an ad?) inviting other newspapers to become Righthaven customers.

So, is this possibly a Glenn Beck/Goldline type of situation?

Copyright trolls or enforcers

[abigsmurf]

The summary seems to be abusing the negativity around patent trolls and the actions of the companies in question.

This isn't companies sitting on pools of copyrighted content they've no intent to distribute. This is companies hiring a third party to protect their material.

Lots of small companies can't afford their own legal teams to protect themselves so it makes sense to outsource this type of thing.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Here's the (PDF warning) complaint in case anyone's interested.

Here's my favorite quote:

Thus, a Defendant's distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people.

Re:Copyright trolls or enforcers

[AlexiaDeath]

You try to make it sound like its a fair game. Its not. Guilty or not, a lot of small people people cant afford to fight these attacks and why would they when everybody that has tried has gotten statutory damages awarded to the bullies in amounts that equate direct bankruptcy and do not even resemble fair compensation in way way. Smart legal people see a low cost moneymaking machine in these cases. Sue crap-ton of people on dubious proof, get a contact to go with that IP, that does NOT represent an individual in any way, shape or form and then extort settlements from as many as possible. Legal extortion. Retarded.

But it still hurts the newspaper

[cornicefire]

I know it's a complement and it's not as horrible as giving someone a complement by making out with their girlfriend, but it's still something that hurts the paper. If they don't get ad revenue, they die. If someone really wants to give someone a complement, they'll give a short teaser link with a suggestion to the reader to follow the link and read the piece. A long quote may not seem mean, but it still hurts.

Re:But it still hurts the newspaper

[Rusty KB]

I don't know. If you complement someone by making out with their girlfriend, aren't you initiating a threesome? I'm not sure what that has to do with paper, bit I compliment you on your creativity!

"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

It is interesting that you use the word "protect" to describe the activities of these companies. What exactly are they protecting? It is not the works themselves -- the works are protected by being distributed as widely as possible, so that they do not become lost or forgotten.

What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment. Now things are different, and less than a week's pay at minimum wage is sufficient to make perfect copies of music or movies, and the practice is widespread. Instead of updating business models to reflect the reality of the 21st century, what are these companies doing? Attacking people and attacking technology, hoping to turn back the clock.

Why should we feel sympathy for companies that engage in that sort of behavior? These companies are not protecting anything, they are just trying to scare people away from modern technology through malicious litigation, and trying to turn a profit in that process. I feel no sympathy for them, and I certainly won't defend their abuse of the American judicial system by suggesting that they are "protecting" anything.

Re:"Protection"

[Bill_the_Engineer]

What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment.

You've seem to left out the part that includes money being spent to pay the reporter's salary and his travel expenses. Not to mention the salaries of the support staff that doesn't include distribution.

It appears that the business model that you support involves taking someone else's work, republish it, garner web hits for free, and cash the check from Google. This doesn't sound like a sustainable business model. Of course, you are preserving the work itself by helping it being distributed to a wider audience. This is a flimsy moral argument that ignores the original author's intent or the need to sustain the actual sources of these articles.

Why does it appear that the "new business model" is parasitic? How does this model continue when the host dies?

Re:"Protection"

[rattaroaz]

This was the model for creative art for hundreds of years. There were patrons, who sponsored commission on a work. Afterwards, the patron owned the work, but the rest of the world got to appreciate it. In other words, the patron could use it for whatever purpose they wanted, but the rest of the world could only use it for viewing (modern equivalent of non-commercial purposes imo). The flaw in using this model in the modern era, is that neither group can make sick money. Honest living, yes. Sick money, no.

Re:"Protection"

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.

The whole "GPL is built on copyrights, so free software supporters should not opposed other uses of the copyright system" is misleading and attempts to portray the GPL as another case of "creators get to decide the rules." The point of the GPL is to improve the public's access to software, and the philosophy is based on improving the public's access to information and creative works in general. Sure, dismantling the copyright system entirely, without creating a new set of laws protecting the public's access to creative works, would be a problem for free software supporters. Replacing the current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing and increases the ability of people to find information, that is perfectly fine for a free software supporter.

Re:"Protection"

[jdgeorge]

Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.
 

Baloney. Fundamentally, the copyright system works as intended as a protection for the creators of publishable material. I only see problems in two areas: Duration and enforcement.

This argument about "improving the public's access to information and creative works" suggests that that ONLY appropriate model for managing publication rights is the GPL model. Even the FSF doesn't promote this view, as evidenced by the various FSF-created licenses (various GPL versions, LGPL versions, GFDL). What the "replacing tthe current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing..." arguement appears suggest is that it is not the creator of the content, but the government that should determine how published material is distributed.

Consider that MOST of the copyrighted content being created is not source code. If the creator of the work doesn't have the right to control distribution of his product, the incentive to create is seriously damaged.

The patent system is problematic, but a completely separate issue. The abuse of the copyright system to extort payment wrongfully is a problem. However, the basic copyright system, which gives publication control to content creators, is NOT a problem.

Re:"Protection"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

the system whereby creators can get paid

A system whereby creators can get paid ... just not very well. This doesn't mean it's the only possible system.

Most of the payment currently goes to people who have nothing to do with the creation. This is one of the reasons why it's hard to take the IP lobby's "rights of the artists" cant seriously -- anyone who pays any attention knows that "the artists" are the last people to get paid under the MAFIAA system. I don't know about journalism, but it wouldn't surprise me if it works the same way there; certainly reporting isn't known as a high-pay profession.

Plaintiff is no member of the MPAA

[Mojo66]

Obviously only Hollywood companies are allowed to sue american citizens for file sharing.

Moderation?

[mister_playboy]

Whatever happened to moderation?

Moderate posts tend to go unmoderated on /. Where's the fun in that? :)

How can a blogger belive he can just copy an artic

[TheSunborn]

I really think the newspaper is right in this case and I can't belive why the blogger belive he is allowed to just put a copy of (large parts of) an article online on his own page. What he should do is to put a snippet(Normally the first paragraph or so) and then link to the newspaper. (Like google news does).

But when that is said, I still think that suing without even sending a warning is a bit aggresive.

Oh and the reason this kind of lawsuits are so seldom seen is that if the newspaper just send an takedown email, the article will normally be taken down, simply because the guy who put it up there normally know he has no right do so, so he will just take it down when asked.

From the blog post...

[ThisIsAnonymous]

Look at this way. Say I owned a beautiful 1967 Corvette and kept it parked in my front yard. And you, being a Corvette enthusiast, saw my Vette from the street. You stopped and stood on the sidewalk admiring it. You liked it so much you called friends and gave them my address in case they also wanted to drive over for a gander. There'd be nothing wrong with that. I like my '67 Vette and I keep in the front yard because I like people to see it. But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away. I'm absolutely, 100% not OK with that. In fact, I'm calling the police and reporting that you stole my car. Every jury in the land would convict you. Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.

The part in bold is my emphasis. Is he saying that facts, meaning news, can be copyrighted? That if his paper is the first to publish an article about the outcome of a sporting event, that that should be copyrighted? I agree that an article about the game shouldn't be copied verbatim to another site but copyrighting the facts is ridiculous.
Also worth a laugh is the entire analogy of the Corvette and the "news." They are very different. With the Corvette, he would no longer physically have the Corvette. With the news, he has a copy and now the thief has a copy. What has actually been stolen is the possibility that someone might only see that article on his site. It's now available in two places. This is a lot different than the Corvette. I'm not saying it makes copying articles verbatim OK, I just think the analogy is incorrect.

What is and isnt ok

[morphotomy]

Its ok to try to protect something you poured your blood sweat and tears into, even if copying it only costs a few pennies. Whats not OK is trying to claim that each infringement costs them thousands of dollars. If youre going to sue for a few MP3s, then do it in small claims court, and do it often. Don't blame one person for the crimes of 10,000.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[morphotomy]

It doesnt protect the information, it sustains the creator. The fact is that it takes time and energy to produce intellectual property, and if the rightful owner decides to charge a license fee, thats fully within his rights. Trying to claim that illegally downloading it has caused 1000 dollars worth of damage when its sold for only $10 is ludicrous.

Re:What is and isnt ok

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Its ok to try to protect something you poured your blood sweat and tears into, even if copying it only costs a few pennies. Whats not OK is trying to claim that each infringement costs them thousands of dollars. If youre going to sue for a few MP3s, then do it in small claims court, and do it often. Don't blame one person for the crimes of 10,000.

Its too easy to defend yourself in small claim's court so they don't want to sue there. They want a lawsuit where its cheaper to just fork out the money and pay them off than it is to fight.

that's the wrong issue

[circletimessquare]

the issue is not the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the enforcers, the issue is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of what is being enforced

the very concept of copyright itself is coming under question as to its validity due to technological progress (the internet)

there is an entire body of legal status quo that was developed in an age of vcr tapes and vinyl records and xerox machines. much of it is fundamentally at odds with how the internet functions

such that renegade nongovernmental organizations exploiting this disconnect between legal status quo and technological status quo is genuinely dangerous

we are talking about the financial victimization of individuals of limited legal means who have committed no moral crime, but are simply riding the wave of technological progress... while being pulled down by an undertow of legal anachronism

much of ip law needs to be junked, due to the rise of the internet and the new status quo for how media is distributed. understandings of what is "right" and "wrong" based on dead technological eras are not valid. of course, they are still legally valid, and that's the whole problem with these free enterprise legal goon squads

How many deaths?

[stephenn1001]

Interesting study would be to see how many deaths are caused by these mass court orders. I know at least one person that could "tip over the edge" if they are hit with a $5,000 lawsuit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How attorneys can print money

[Picass0]

1) A lawyer copies a story from your newspaper and posts it anonymously on a blog or user aggregated news site. Then that same attorney runs to you and says "They stole your story! You should sue!!!"

2) Repeat

3) Profit.

Re:Patent Troll vs Copyright Troll

[Chowderbags]

And when shoplifting a $20 item results in a fine of $150,000 or more.

I think these lawyers are in for a surprise

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I think these lawyers handling these small bogus cases on a contingent basis might possibly be in for a surprise. Maybe they thought the RIAA was 'making it up on volume', but I doubt it. I have a strong hunch that the RIAA spent more on prosecuting the cases than it received in settlements and other recoveries.

I'm guessing that these lawyers will be laying out a lot of money, and a whole lot of time, and their fees won't even come close to what they expend.

Which of course, serves them right for being involved in extortionate, champertous, unnecessary litigation.

Re:What a tool

[WillyWanker]

If he was really interested in "protecting" his copyright he would just issue cease and desist letters. These guys aren't in competition with him, so it's not like they are causing any kind of financial harm. Hell, they aren't even in the news business.

No, this is all about extorting money from these schlumps in order to generate revenue to save his dying newspaper empire.

Why bother trying to reinvent yourself for the 21st century when you can make up for lost profits thru extortion?