Slashdot Mirror
Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use
Ponca City, We love you writes "TechDirt reports that a judge has asked Righthaven to explain why a non-profit organization reposting an entire article isn't fair use. The case involves the Center for Intercultural Organizing of Portland, Oregon, which was sued by Righthaven in August after an entire 33-paragraph Review-Journal story about Las Vegas immigrants was posted on the center's website, crediting the Review-Journal. The nonprofit says it was founded by Portland-area immigrants and refugees to combat widespread anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11 and it works to strengthen immigrant and refugee communities through education, civic engagement, organizing and mobilization and does not charge subscription fees or derive any income from its website. The interesting thing is that the defendant in this case didn't even raise the fair use issue. It was the judge who brought it up, suggesting that the Nevada judges are being inundated with hundreds of Righthaven cases, and that Righthaven has already lost once in a case that was found to be fair use so judges may want to set a precedent to clear their dockets."
Nice riposte.
Previous poster is correct. It is not fair use, and Righthaven will win. The judge will award them all of the non-profit's profits for the next year.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
So simply dunk it in baking soda and watch the fireworks.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Is it really necessary to quote every single sentence in order to refute it?
Only in an academic sense. Generally one picks out the most egregious portions and refutes those. Then one gets accused of hiding from the facts by taking quotes out of context. Then one slings mud, then one ducks mud slung.
You know. It's like the Internet.
He can't provide evidence of it because that would be a copyright violation.
They have previously sued for putting a sentance or two in a summary and linking to the article. That is, they would sue Slashdot in a heartbeat ;)
Since when have Slashdot summaries been remotely accurate, let alone actually contain text from the article?
One of the stupidest aspects of copyright "law" is this:
You can't quote to refute a work. Say you think Al Gore's science is wrong, Sarah Palin doesn't know what she's talking about, or Cheney's a liar.
Yes you can.
The best and most effective refutation would be to quote entire chapters, and refute them line-by-line or paragraph-by-paragraph.
No, it isn't.
Since your work would be possibly larger than theirs, you're not exactly just copying their work for profit. In fact quoting for refuting is probably the highest and best use for advancing the useful arts and sciences.
Hardly.
Yet copyright "law" can be and is used to shut down debate.
Not really.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
How is that hard to prove?
"Your honor, if this organization is allowed to republish this work without us successfully suing them, we will not get the money we would have from suing them!"
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Their entire business model is making money by suing "infringers". In this case, the economic value to Righthaven is INCREASED by someone else posting it in its entirety.
Under that model the value of the work is defined by their profit from a lawsuit. So if they win and get a settlement, the value is increased; thus, on appeal, they will lose. But now they expended all these legal fees, and have taken a loss. Their license on the article now has a negative value; thus, on a second appeal, they will win.
The question we need to ask is how many appeals will land this in the Supreme Court? If it's an odd number, Righthaven will spiral into bankruptcy. If it is an even number, Righthaven's business model will make them an unstoppable profit machine.