Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Righthaven Defies Court In Domain Name Ruling

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the upping-the-ante dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Copyright troll Righthaven makes their money by coercing defendants of alleged copyright infringement into settling with them with threats of $150,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names. Now EFF reports that Chief Judge Hunt of the federal court in Nevada, which is overseeing more than 200 Righthaven copyright cases, has dismissed Righthaven's merit-less claim to seize its victim's domain names. Righthaven contended that the mere hosting of any infringing material meant that the entire domain name was forfeit but the judge rejected that claim, explaining that the 'Court finds that Righthaven's request for such relief fails as a matter of law and is dismissed.' But now Righthaven has filed a new copyright case in Nevada federal court that not only demands forfeiture of the domain name but has asked the Court to 'order the surrender to Righthaven of all hardware, software, electronic media and domains, including the Domain used to store, disseminate and display the unauthorized versions of any and all copyrighted works.' The new complaint also asserts that Righthaven holds the 'exclusive rights' to Stephens Media news articles, despite the Strategic Alliance Agreement showing that Stephens Media retains these rights."

12 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Proof Positive by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that "Righthaven" are even allowed into court any more, in any jurisdiction, is proof positive that the justice system is broken.

    1. Re:Proof Positive by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, of course not. It's entirely possible for someone to cry wolf 500 times, and then later suffer a legitimate injustice.

      It's entirely possible for them to think about that prior to crying wolf 500 times.

      It's entirely possible for them to be held up as an example to others, a warning against those who might feel inclined to similarly cry wolf.

      Particularly when their crying wolf is not a matter that's just between themselves and the judge, but involves the legal intimidation of innocents. All of these strong-arm tactics are over a relatively trivial matter like unauthorized copying, not gang violence or warfare or impending catastrophe.

      So now they are following the latest trend and trying to go after domains and equipment. They're following in the footsteps of what the government is doing in the name of safety and anti-terrorism, methods they no doubt admire. That's the latest escalation, then? Copyright cases need a "loser pays" system, where the loser of a case has to pay all of the opposition's legal expenses (perhaps times 1.5). Remove the profit from being a copyright troll and embolden the recipients of these threats to insist that the cases go to court. That's the best long-term solution to this kind of company. It also addresses the apparent rarity of such reasonable judges as this one.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Proof Positive by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm thinking they are really pushing their luck filing a new case with claims that the same court has already dismissed as being unenforceable under law. These guys have already pissed this judge off, if they don't watch out he's likely to go after their license. The judge has already admonished them that using the federal circuit as a business office is not the intent of the law, trying to refile the same claims he has rejected in a similar case is really just asking to have the hammer brought down on their heads.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Proof Positive by Svippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, of course not. It's entirely possible for someone to cry wolf 500 times, and then later suffer a legitimate injustice.

      Isn't the entire moral of Peter and the Wolf that you should not 'cry wolf' unless it is a legitimate issue, because then no one will care when it is real? Or did you miss that part?

      --
      Clicked pie.
  2. Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? by Zeek40 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, they need to start disbarring lawyers who repeatedly bring these meritless lawsuits to court. That's the only thing that's going to stop them from continuing to use the legal system as their own personal slot machine.

    1. Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. We need tort reform in a big way. Lawyers and plaintiffs that bring frivolous lawsuits to court should have to repay the defendant for legal fees and lost wages. Heavy punitive damages should be levied against the bastards for abusing the court system. Lawyers who still don't get it ought to be disbarred permanently. That would end this in a hurry.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    2. Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? by NevarMore · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously, they need to start dismembering lawyers who repeatedly bring these meritless lawsuits to court. That's the only thing that's going to stop them from continuing to use the legal system as their own personal slot machine.

    3. Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or just start actually enforcing the existing penalties for filing fraudulent suits and claims. Such penalties already exist, but getting the various state's to enforce them isn't always easy.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  3. With/without prejudice? by Shoten · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the original claim was dismissed "without prejudice," that doesn't preclude Righthaven from starting it all over again. If that's what has happened, then what they're doing isn't defiance of the court as much as trying to buy their way out of a bluff, proverbially speaking. Granted, it's not too likely that they'll succeed, but the idea of asking for all the "offending" infrastructure along with the domain name is to put a Sword of Damocles over the heads of the defendants so that if they lose, they'll lose everything.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  4. Trolls Trolling Trolls by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Righthaven is the copyright arm of the Las Vegas Review Journal...to give you an idea of the nuttiness we have to endure here in SinCity, keep in mind that the newspaper vehemently and viciously supported Her Wackiness Sharron Angle for Senate last year but then, in a grand showing of just how much they love their own wacky brand of libertarianism, sued her as a part of the Righthaven IP trolling campaign while continuing to donate money to her and devote editorial space to her campaign on a daily basis.

    It had a strange beauty...like watching two warthogs fighting over a rotting squirrel carcass while mating.

    --
    My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
  5. Thank You for Smoking by repetty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This reminds me of a bit of dialog from the movie "Thank Your for Smoking":

    Joey Naylor: Dad, why is the American government the best government?
    Nick Naylor: Because of our endless appeals system.

  6. What plaintiffs like Righthaven don't get... by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that the only thing that keeps people from shooting each other is the court system.

    If you remove the trust that society places in the court system for dispensing significant amounts of justice, then courts are no longer the barrier between people with weapons.

    Don't say it doesn't happen, because it happens all over the world.

    Go ahead guys, keep abusing the system. First ones against the wall and all that.

    I feel like I am living in France in 1788 and we are all arguing over mouldy bread and bad wine.

    --
    BMO