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."

Comments

Why was the contract unsealed?

[mfarah]

"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.

Re:Why was the contract unsealed?

[Gaygirlie]

"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.

The whole point of trying to run a business with the sole purpose of making income by suing people is probably quite angering to judges. After all, courts are not meant to be used for business, they're meant for solving actual real problems.

Re:Why was the contract unsealed?

[ciaran.mchale]

"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.

You can find the answer to your question in the final two paragraphs of the first link in the /. summary. I'd like to quote those two paragraphs for your convenience. But then, according to the thrust of the article, I might be sued for copyright infringement.

Re:Why was the contract unsealed?

[arth1]

The whole point of trying to run a business with the sole purpose of making income by suing people is probably quite angering to judges. After all, courts are not meant to be used for business

Indeed, judges wants judges and lawyers to have monopoly on making money on lawsuits.

I have no problems with barring others from using the judicial system as a source of good income, but I do have an issue with how the golden business of lawyers makes a farce out of the blindness of the law by selling out to the highest bidder.
How about... The sides in a court case are allowed to pitch in as much money as they want, but half of it will go to your opponent, to allow him to buy exactly as good legal advice as you do.

Re:Why was the contract unsealed?

[UnknowingFool]

The whole point of trying to run a business with the sole purpose of making income by suing people is probably quite angering to judges. After all, courts are not meant to be used for business, they're meant for solving actual real problems.

No, what has angered judges in the Righthaven cases has been the conduct of Righthaven. Specifically in the Colorado case, the Judge did not like the Righthaven method of suing first then asking questions later. Righthaven sued all the defendants without notifying them of possible copyright material or giving them a chance to remove the material. That did not sit well with the judge. Righthaven apparently angered the judge by then asking for more time which he denied explaining: " . . . the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability." In other words, courts are to resolve legal disputes when no settlement can be reached by the parties. By suing first Righthaven was abusing the court system. It's the conduct of Righthaven not the intent.

Re:Why was the contract unsealed?

[v1]

There was one quote from the judge that basically said the judge felt the plaintiffs proceeded with litigation while knowing that neither the facts nor the law were on their side. THAT will land you squarely in "frivolous lawsuit land" and piss off the judge real quick.

Basically, cavalierly wasting the court and judge's time is a very bad legal strategy.

Re:Why was the contract unsealed?

[gonzo67]

She received the damages because McDonald's was found to have been purposefully negligent. That is they knew prior to this incident that the coffee was too hot (and had similar complaints/claims/lawsuits in the past), yet determined that the cost savings to them was less than the potential costs of medical bills (because the coffee was too hot to drink when initially given to you) than having to throw out and remake the coffee more frequently. THAT is what cost them, as the jury wished to send a message to the company that their profit margins mean less than the potential to injure.

The woman was parked (not driving), and was trying to remove the lid to add creamer and sugar when it spilled. If the coffee had been served at the LEGAL temp, no burns would have been caused, and if any had, McD's would have not been liable. The victim initially only asked for her medical bills to be paid, but was told to go away by McD's....which meant she had to sue to get recompense. And, McD's attitude cost them the large sum of money as a result.

pounding sand

[bzipitidoo]

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.

Re:Can this judge reverse all previous cases? (IAN

[gr8_phk]

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.

Not the only judge they've ticked off

[Fnord666]

Apparently Judge Hunt isn't the only one who is relatively fed up with them. According to an article written by joemullin on paidcontent.org, Judge John Kane slammed RH's business model, writing:

"[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.