Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Righthaven Loses

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the if-only-this-was-the-end dept.

A month ago we noted that the legal system had put Righthaven on hold, but now redwolfe7707 noted that "A federal judge in Nevada says a Las Vegas law firm targeting unauthorized content on the Internet cannot sue others over a news company's copyrights. The Las Vegas Sun reported Tuesday the dismissal of a lawsuit by copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC against the website Democratic Underground. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Roger Hunt says copyright plaintiffs must control the rights to material in order to sue for copyright infringement."

8 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Re:My favorite line. by SirGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Where is THAT text found ? That doesn't appear to be anywhere on the submission or the original story.

    --
    UPS Sucks
  2. Re:My favorite line. by SniperJoe · · Score: 5, Informative

    By the way, Wired had a bit more information on the ruling also:

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/copyright-troll-sanctions/

    A link to the PDF of the judge's order can be found on the EFF's website as well:

    http://www.eff.org/cases/righthaven-v-democratic-underground

  3. Re:My favorite line. by DworkinLV · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a copy of the judge's order. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/06/huntsanctions.pdf

    --
    Browsing without an adblocker is like fucking without a condom - Mal-2
  4. Re:My favorite line. by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

    It doesn't appear to be included in the rather poor article Slashdot chose to link, but the much better Ars piece links the actual ruling [pdf], which includes that sentence on the last page.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  5. Re:My favorite line. by SniperJoe · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you would kindly go to the PDF that I just posted of the actual judge's order (through the EFF's website) and scroll to IV. Order to Show Cause (page 15 of 16), it'll be there.

  6. Re:This is confusing, a little by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course a company can hire a law firm to work on a lawsuit against anyone the company wants. When they do, though, the company's name, not the law firm's name, is attached to the case as the plaintiff. In this case, though, Righthaven is listed as the plaintiff, which means that they aren't the firm hired to work on the case, but that they are claiming to be the party that has been harmed.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion