Slashdot Mirror
Senate Candidate Sued By Copyright Troll
The Iso writes "Las Vegas based company Righthaven found two articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle reprinted on her web site without permission, so it did what it always does: bought the rights to the articles from the Review-Journal and sued the alleged infringer, seeking unspecified damages."
Now we just need a Paul Allen to step up and sue a senator for patent infringement, and maybe we'll get an ear in the Senate to put a stop to this craziness.
Hopefully Righthaven finds more politicians to sue. Lots more. Then maybe - just maybe - will we get some consumer friendly copyright laws. In this case it would appear that Sharron Angle is indeed guilty of willful infringement, but if more politicians get hurt in their own pocket by copyright suits then the chance of them creating laws that states that damages must fit the crime may actually come into effect. That would kill the business model behind the *IAA cartel suits.
Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
It'd be nice to see what content was allegedly copied. If that material is freely available on the LV RJ website, I don't think there's much of a case here, it's just trolls grasping at straws again. But we don't know, because that's how trolls work: stay hidden, be vague, try to steal as much money as possible via government enforced monopolies.
In reality, how much would this possibly have cost? A print copy (if the articles are in print only) sitting in a doctors' office might get what.. 50.. 100 reads for the single copy? People get paper copies then give them away because they're just trash.. are they going to claim 100x the cost of the print times some "assumed number of page hits" as damages? I don't see that any reasonable estimate would be worth the time nor effort of buying a copyright then suing. They must be going for millions, when actual damages may be under $5000. Mmm.. gotta love them trolls.
I'm also curious why, when the articles were discovered and there was no permission given to copy them, why the owner of the site wasn't asked to take them down? Usually this is the first course, and if they don't, then you sue for damages. Do trolls not even have 1 shred of decency?
What's the name of the person in charge of Righthaven? Seems to me that there is an evil, profiteering son of a bitch in charge of this hot mess of a company.
We need to start suing his ass.
Let's call this a very interesting business model. Or should I say bizarre business model. Maybe one should start making a list of companies with bizarre business models, this should be on the top.
Also the Review-Journal publication should be careful to keep track of which articles they have sold off the rights, otherwise they may end up on the receiving end of a law suit.
Otoh as this troll appears to only handle Review-Journal articles, and obviously can easily buy copyrights from this journal (I can't think of many papers that are so happy to sell the copyrights on their articles - this must be a complete transfer of copyright, not just a license), it sounds like they are a related company one way or another, and basically suing on behalf of Review-Journal just under a different name.
At first I misread the headline as "patent troll". This is not too different. But at least these copyright trolls sue people that really should know better - it is after all much easier to unknowingly infringe on patents than copyrights. Copying stuff verbatim without asking permission is silly, especially when done by a public figure.
The party of trial lawyers isn't going to change without some feedback.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Righthaven did not create the article in question. They bought the rights from the creators solely so they could sue the infringer and profit from her. That sounds like copyright trolling to me.
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
I like to think that what I do at my job benefits other people. How can someone work a job where they harass people into giving them money, and nothing they do could possibly help anyone but themselves. Lawyers who file suits like these have the same effect on society as people who steal for a living. The only difference is they can't get arrested.
Its copyright trolling at its best. There are several amusing parts to this story. The smug smile on the Righthaven CEOs Steve Gibsons (new Darl?) face as he openly brags about his business plan being all about extorting settlement money which the victims generally would rather pay then spend more on legal fees and not being interested in ending infringements, on the contrary, the more infringements the better. The legally dubious tactic of not sending takedown notices or but going straight to the lawsuit, demanding $150,000 and then settling for a much smaller amount. Also, the fact that the Review Journal is generally seen as a newspaper with conservative/libertarian bias and it strongly endorsed Sharron Angle, and now (through Righthaven) is suing her for posting two articles which praised her on her website.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
This whole goddam thing has gotten out of hand. The U.S. has become far too litigious--it's not even a matter of suing for stuff you made anymore; suing for something that someone else made (wrote, in this case), and being able to do so simply because you gave them a few bucks for the rights to it...just ridiculous.
Honestly, if there's anyone who really, truly believes--on their own, not because a few pushy groups with money to finance campaigns--that the current system is the way things should be, then this country has really gone tits-up. Are there ways that some of these abuses could be curbed? Sure, there are; but it should not be, by any stretch of the imagination, be necessary. There is no way anyone with a hand in copyright law before this generation would have wanted this type of bullshit.
To summarize, the extent of copyright should be to protect your work from other people making a profit off of it; if no one else is making money (DIRECTLY) off of it, then STFU, you're not losing anything you wouldn't have already not gotten already; if they are, then you get a) a nice injuction, and b) the sum total of what they made off of it (that you should have)...and maybe attorney's fees. And if you didn't make it, but you acquired the rights to it later, then STFU about anyone having used it before you had the rights; if the original owners didn't care, then you shouldn't either.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
They cannot empathize with others, they cannot feel the emotions of another. They are totally and completely self centered. So long as something is good for them, they do it.
Most people associate the term with serial killers and it is true, all serial killers I'm aware of are sociopaths, but there are actually a surprising amount of them. Nearly 10% of the population is like that. Most are just inconsiderate assholes, the sort of people that just don't seem to care when they cause problems for others.
That's what happens with people like this. They seem to have no morals because they don't. They'll act perfectly justified in their actions, After all, it is all within the law, why shouldn't they do this? You are stupid for not doing it! Etc, etc.
You will also find, that when someone does something to them the same as they do to others, they get PISSED. It is COMPLETELY different when done to them and they can't see the irony in that.
Happened to a spammer some years ago. He got interviewed by a local paper. He justified his spamming as being no big deal, people could just delete it, didn't cost them anything, etc, etc. What he did was 100% fine according to him. He also bragged on his new $800,000 house. Enterprising Slashdotters figured there couldn't have been many houses sold in that area at that price in the timescale talked about. They were right: There was one. As a result he was signed up for more or less every mailing list there was. A postal truck full of mail would show up every day.
He was livid, threatened to sue any and everyone, hissed, spitted and screamed about how big a problem this was. No recognition, at all, that this was just like what he did to others. In his mind inconveniencing other people was fine, but him being inconvenienced was a crime of epic proportions. Reason is he can only understand his own emotions and needs. Other people are just objects to him.
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK?
Nobody actually said that except you. Btw, Righthaven sued plenty of left wing sites too. They are apparently averaging several lawsuits per day so I don't really think there is a political agenda here.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Yes it baffles me that you can buy into a situation like that will full prior knowledge and still be allowed to even raise an action in court. In most situations if you knowingly put yourself in a position of harm in order to benefit through legal action (for instance, throwing yourself in front of a car so you can sue the insurance company) and were stupid enough to admit it, you'd be looking at prison time.
http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/03/sharron-angle-hit-r-j-copyright-lawsuit/
Unfounded libel much?
Actually, TFA says that it's their business model. You can read about it in Wired: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK?
Don't malign conservatives like that and don't malign slashdotters like that either. This woman is not conservative. She says she is, but a more precise classification would be "delusional." And those slashdotters like myself who find this a little amusing aren't saying it's okay, this is still a symptom of an incredibly broken copyright system and overly litigious society. Still, it sure as shit ain't sad when slightly bad things happen to dangerous politicians. She's going to a fraction of her warchest to this. If Fox news picks this up, it will probably be spun as a conspiracy to keep it down, will rally her supporters, and she'll come out ahead.
he openly brags about his business plan being all about extorting settlement money which the victims generally would rather pay then spend more on legal fees
That might be a pretty fatal mistake. In a lot of jurisdictions, that would qualify as barratry. Even the RIAA make an effort to maintain the pretence that they want to end infringement and get fair recompense from pirates, and they're skirting dangerously close to the edge.
I really hope they try this in Texas, where barratry is a felony.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Unfortunately copyright law is not all that sensible these days. Big media has pushed for, and got, a lot of changes made, all of which make things more of the "zero tolerance" kind of setup. One example would be statutory damages. One would think that copyright damages would have to be actual and punitive only. After all, the whole point of copyright is so you can make money on your work. So to succeed you should need to prove damages. In the event of willful infringement, a court might then also impose punitive damages, that is pretty common. Tripling the actual damages is often the case.
However that'd mean someone downloading 100 songs online might get sued for like $400. You'll notice that's not the case, they are sued for millions. How's that? Because the law specifies statutory damages. That means that doesn't matter what the intent was or if there was any harm, you can get hit with a ton of damages. Up to $250,000 per incident.
Makes no sense at all in the reasoning for copyright, which according to the Constitution is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." However it is real useful to step on people.
So while the case may be bullshit in the logical sense, it may well be on the up and up with regards to copyright law. I have no idea, it is far, FAR too complex for anyone who isn't a legal expert in it to understand.
No, that makes it sound like the LV Review Journal aren't party to it. In fact the owners of the NVRJ also own Rightshaven. They set up the arrangement to pursue copyright infringers.
http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Copyright_theft_Were_not_taking_it_anymore.html?ref=164
There's no copyright trolling here. Just a case of setting up a separate company to do the pursuit of copyright infringement. A company which can then also offer that service to other content creators.
It's perfectly reasonable. Neither LV RJ nor Rightshaven are at fault here. The only people who are at fault are those who steal their content rather than create it themselves; who copy and paste rather than link; who go beyond fair use, and just reproduce the whole article.
The copyright infringer has done exactly the same wrong, no matter who legally owns the rights. All we have here is the newspaper outsourcing their pursuit of copyright infringers to a separate company. And they've decided between them that the most effective way to do that is to assign the rights to the company that's doing the pursuing.
I use an article, you buy it, then you sue me for using it before you owned it? Sorry I do not understand - the system that allows this is seriously fucked!
Yes, it seems pretty sensible. Righthaven was not harmed at the time of publication. They clearly looked for an infringement and then brought the harm upon themselves.
On the other hand, it could be said that the Las Vegas Review-Journal had suffered harm, and Righthaven bought the rights, thus relieving LVRJ of the harm and taking it upon themselves.
I think for barratry the lawsuits would have to be generally without merit. These copyright infringements seem perfectly real. There might be a defence against them in cases where the copyright material has been posted in user forums. Safe harbour defence would work. But where a blogger has posted a news story from the paper, in full, and the blogger is the one being sued, then there seems nothing legally wrong with persuing them in order to extract recompense.
An image comes to mind of an old lady erratically weaving down the road at 7mph in her Buick Roadmaster and I deliberately run out in front of her (I know, inaccurate analogy)...
Yes it baffles me that you can buy into a situation like that will full prior knowledge and still be allowed to even raise an action in court. In most situations if you knowingly put yourself in a position of harm in order to benefit through legal action (for instance, throwing yourself in front of a car so you can sue the insurance company) and were stupid enough to admit it, you'd be looking at prison time.
Wrong metaphor. Suing for copyright infringement isn't about compensation for harm, it's about enforcing a property right. The equivalent "real" transaction is buying a house with a sitting tenant, and then expecting them to pay rent even if they haven't been paying the previous owner.
There's some deep irony here. After the Nevada primary Angle changed her website to make her seem more consistent with the mainstream values of the Republican party. The Reid campaign, sensing an opportunity, archived her old website and put it online at http://www.therealsharronangle.com/ This, of course, really irked the Angle campaign who attempted to use copyright law against the Nevada state Democratic party to squash the publication of the site.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
The Righthaven/Stephens Media copyright trolling was covered by a lot of the conservative blogosphere a few weeks ago. Righthaven (the trolls) has a deal for all of Stephen Media's 70-odd newpaper properties (including the Las Vegas Review-Journal). Wired had a story about their business plan.
A trademark lawyer blogged about why their business plan isn't a good one (hint: most bloggers don't have deep pockets).
Finally, Clayton Cramer posted a blacklist plus some links to BlockSite and SiteBlock to block all Stephens Media properties from Firefox/Chrome.
It was a bit of a cause célèbre for about a week, but I'm sure this will kick it up again...
Makes no sense at all in the reasoning for copyright, which according to the Constitution is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." However it is real useful to step on people.
Well, a number of historians have pointed out that copyright (and patent) laws have never produced such progress. Historically, they have only been used to block progress. And it's quite clear that this is usually intentional.
This is pretty much all that copyright laws can do, since "progress of science and useful arts" requires information, and the only function of copyright is to prevent distribution of information. Copyright laws never require distribution of information; they only deal with when such distribution is prohibited.
We do have examples like the GPL, which does require distribution of information (specifically the source code to software). But this isn't anything mentioned in copyright law; it's a license provided by the copyright owner of their own volition.
It's quite likely that the people who wrote that "promote the progress of science and useful arts" phrase into the US Constitution were aware of the inhibiting effect that copyright and patent law usually has on such progress. They tried to restrict the use of copyright and patent law in the US to only actions that would produce progress. But the legal system has pretty much ignored that phrase, and the US has copyright law that's just as anti-progress as in the rest of the world.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Copyright is about my right to publish.
My right to control publication can be infringed whether or not I make a profit.
Under what circumstances does society have an interest in granting you this artificial right? Generally, the justification is that without the ability to make money off of the work, fewer works would get created, because the would-be creators (not to mention the supporting roles such as editor, QA, audio/video technician, etc) would be busy doing something else that pays the rent and keeps food on the table. The goal is not (or rather, should not be) control in and of itself.
That right, by itself, is worth something. Hence the statuatory damages.
Is it worth $250,000? Is it worth the loss to society of the ability to make full use of the work?