Slashdot Mirror
Judge Reveals Secret Righthaven Copyright Contract
Hugh Pickens writes "Judge Roger Hunt has unsealed the confidential agreement between Righthaven and the Las Vegas Review-Journal that has allowed Righthaven to sue over more than 250 charities, impoverished hobby bloggers, reporters, and the newspaper's own sources, for $150,000 each in damages and forfeiture of the sites' domain names, and the contents of the agreement could end up being ruinous for Righthaven's campaign of copyright lawsuits. The problem is that Stephens Media, the company that owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal, didn't actually assign any of the rights related to copyright to Righthaven except the right to sue — and that has been found in Silvers vs. Sony Pictures to be illegal under case law. In other words, none of the important things that come with a copyright — such as the right to make copies of a work, or distribute it, or make 'derivative works' — were handed off to Righthaven. Only the right to sue was given, and that makes the copyright transfer bogus, argue lawyers for the Democratic Underground, which is being sued for one of its website users posting the first four paragraphs of a 34 paragraph story."
If the summary is true, could all the aggravated parties become part of the same suit, or parts of a class action suit or something?
What I'm asking is: what are the required steps now to undo Righthaven's damages?
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer
"Angered at Righthaven’s behavior, a Las Vegas federal judge unsealed the company’s heretofore confidential agreement [...]"
Not that I'm complaining, but... what did Righthaven do to anger the judge? Were their lawyers being dicks? Was the contract itself what angered the judge? Truly, I'd like to know.
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer
Oh, come on. TFS bases its conclusions on the concept of "illegal under case law" ("there a legal precedent against it, therefore it's 'illegal'"). what do you think? :)
Caveat Utilitor
Sounds like Righthaven is very, very wrong. So wrong that they might have to pay the defendents' legal costs. From my limited understanding of the legal system, only exceptionally unwarranted cases, cases with no legitimate basis that were only brought to scare, harrass, and damage other parties, are subject to such sanctions. Except they don't have the assets to pay those costs. Strikes me as a sneaky way to shield the real prosecutors from such an outcome. Set up a shell company to do the dirty work and to fold like a house of cards if it backfires. But it looks like that's not going to work. The judge is not going to be fooled by this cute corporate trickery to evade responsiblity, and will rope the real prosecutors into the cases.
If the outcome is that the newspapers have to pay for the damage their sock puppet corporation caused, will that be enough to deter others from ever again trying such a heinous scheme? I doubt it. For instance, MS wasn't punished for the mess SCO made. These newspapers will conclude that Righthaven wasn't circumspect enough, and may well try again with another organization that is less obviously their sock puppet, same as SCO was a real separate party that began with no MS affiliation or support.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I thought the first thing one should do in a copyright case (as defendant) is have the plaintiff prove that they have the right to sue. That can not be given to them in a sealed document. If defendant can't see that document, there should be no case since that is the basis for the case. IANAL, but this seem pretty straight forward to me. It also makes sense that assigning the right to sue isn't enough, because that company has nothing to lose should you infringe - they haven't been harmed.
I thought more than 250 was a lot, but over more than 250? Now that's really a lot!
Hmm, I guess they meant screw over more than 250.
While that sounds like it could work, judges don't like it when you try to work around the law and Righthaven may have to prove actual harm and not theoretical harm. If Righthaven never actually sublicenses any work then even if they can prove infringement, they can't prove actual harm for damages. In cases where plaintiffs have to prove harm, the harm must be tangible and certain enough to calculate damages.
If someone totals my van, I can get damages for the value of the van. I also sue for the loss of business due to my delivery business. However, if I haven't started such a business that portion will be thrown out. If I've started a business and have no customers, that is also thrown out. The only way I can get damages for lost business if I had regular customers or can prove with certainty that I would have had a customer had it not been for the vehicle's destruction. "I was to start delivering for Bill on Tuesday but since the van was destroyed on Monday, he went with a competitor."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"[W]hether or not this case settles is not my primary concern. Although Plaintiffâ(TM)s business model relies in large part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort, the purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of controversies and disputes. Plaintiff's wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability."
Since Judge Kane is presiding over all of RH's cases in Colorado, that probably does not bode well for them either.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Correcting apostrophe errors on Slashdot is, in the words of Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
This is a very good reason for all contracts to be open to public inspection. Courts cost the tax payers large sums of money. If all of the suits are reversed the expense incurred by the public will be severe.
It is an interesting concept that a business or an individual might be able to sell the right to sue for another parties losses. For example what if a private investor were to contract with me to get all benefits from any injuries I might sustain in a traffic accident in exchange for a lump sum in hand? The possibilities seem sinister and endless.
They sued Arstechnica over an image they used, Ars will tell you of the legalities Righthaven got wrong.
The question is, if you had licenced the material in question properly, would Righthaven have got any money out of it? The answer is no, so Righthaven has no capacity to sue.
Disney could claim that it was harmed because infringing copies of Song of the South compete in the market with lawfully made copies of its newer works.