Slashdot Mirror
Righthaven Loses
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."
My favorite line from the judge's ruling?
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Righthaven show cause, in writing, no later than two (2) weeks from the date of this order, why it should not be sanctioned. "
Kudos to the Judge on this one.
Much more detailed than the submitter's link: techdirt's article.
I am sure that the newspapers will just grant full copyright to RightHaven, for a right to share in the spoils of the lawsuits.
Or another variation: sell Righthaven the exclusive right to sublicense articles to other web sites. This would make Righthaven more like a copyright clearance agency such as BMI or iCopyright.
I am sure that the newspapers will just grant full copyright to RightHaven, for a right to share in the spoils of the lawsuits.
A newspaper giving away their asset in order for someone to enforce the asset doesn't leave it an asset of the newspaper, does it? So, why would the newspaper do that? Would you sign over the title to your home when you hire a firm to install and monitor a security system?
This might have been RightHaven's plan all along...
I have a plan for everyone in the world to send me $100. The fact such plan exists does not mean anyone will be dumb enough to do it...
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
The catch is that Righthaven and Stevens Media have now amended their contract. So expect new lawsuits, possibly against some existing defendants.
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.
So a company can't hire a third party law firm to blanket sue? Based on the previous slashdot story and TFA, that's the gist of what this is saying. A copyright holder can't have a generic contract with a litigation firm; they must hire them under contract to sue on their behalf in a specific case.
As I understand it, the ruling is that you can't split off the "right to sue" from the actual copyright - either you have the rights to the property (and can thus sue to defend those rights), or you don't.
You misunderstand this case. The actual publishers did not want their names associated with the law suit, so they set up a dummy company (Righthaven) to sue for them. This was not a case of a law firm bringing a case on behalf of the copyright holders. This was Righthaven bringing suit on behalf of themselves. If this had been what you understood it to be, the case would have been Las Vegas Review Journal vs. John Doe (or whatever the name of the defendant was) rather than Righthaven vs John Doe.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Reminds me of the old tale about the woodcutter and the layabout. The woodcutter is just doing his job, out there splitting logs for the village, working along quietly. Along comes the layabout, who sits down, makes himself comfortable, drinks a couple of beer, all the time making grunting and puffing noises in time to the work.
At the end of the day, the woodcutter goes to collect his wages from the village clerk. The layabout tags along. Then, just as the bag of coins is brought out, he pipes up, "Hey, I'm entitled to half of that, because I did half the work. I made all the sounds."
The clerk says, "Right then, let's be fair. I'll count it out." And he carefully counts it into two piles.
The coins make a satisfying clinking sound as each pile grows. The layabout rubs his hands in anticipation. Then the clerk gathers the two piles together and gives the lot to the woodcutter, who cheerfully departs.
"Hey, what about my share?", says the layabout.
The clerk replies, "You've just been paid in full. You made only the sound of work, and so you have received only the sound of payment."
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
I am sure that the newspapers will just grant full copyright to RightHaven, for a right to share in the spoils of the lawsuits. This might have been RightHaven's plan all along...
Doubtful, considering that Righthaven is partly owned by members of the Stephens family. Warren Stephens is the founder of Stephens Media, the rights holder. It sounds like Righthaven was set up as an additional revenue stream for the family (and others), not as a rights holder. Stephens Media still retains the rights. It seems like they wanted to prove their case with their own works first before offering their services to others.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Comment removed based on user account deletion
First, news-oriented websites may not like having their material blatantly stolen, but they do love being referred to, with appropriate credit. Assigning their rights to RightHaven would almost certainly have a chilling effect on their website's popularity, and that equals dollars lost, not dollars made.
Second, as part owner of the copyright, RightHaven would have a right to part of any proceeds the website might generate by authorizing a third party to use the copyrighted materials.
Third, as part owner of the copright, RightHaven would have the authority to forbid such third party use or impose their own conditions on such use.
Now, if the news agency in question were to hire RightHaven, that would give RIghtHaven the standing they need to refile the (recently dismissed) lawsuit while preserving the news agency's undisputed ownership of the copyrighted materials. However, even this could have a less than desirable effect on their readership. Once more, we're talking about dollars lost (although the news agency in question could see this issue differently).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is one of the things that the judge found, but not the only thing.
The Righthaven suit failed because they are not the copyright holders, non-holders can't sue, and their attempts to arrange otherwise failed.
They are at risk of being sanctioned because they failed to disclose the arrangement between themselves and the copyright holders.
Careers should combine three things: what you can do, what you want to do, and what you can get paid for.
The thing is that Righthaven is owned by Stephens Media so they wouldn't really be giving up anything. Righthaven is basically a front company for Stepehens Media to sue people and funnel money back to themselves without having been themselves named as the plaintiff. One of the issues, amongst many, that the judge had was the fact that Righthaven didn't disclose the fact that they were acting as a plaintiff in place of Stephens Media who did not want to be named in the suit.
I wonder if this case would have gotten as much press if Righthaven didn't rile up Democrats & bloggers by suing Democratic Underground. They had sued several other bloggers before this, but the DU lawsuit is what really riled people up and got this in the news.
They also went after emtcity.com, a forum run by a retired EMT. He has limited resources and this has been financially (and emotionally) draining. All because ONE forum user posted a few paragraphs from an article and linked to the article.
Righthaven is the worst kind of troll. And I hope the Las Vegas Review Journal staff are utterly disgusted with themselves.
(hand written letter usually gets better result.)
Clearly, you've never seen my handwriting.
So the FSF can no longer enforce the GPL, unless they own the content?
The FSF has never claimed to be able to enforce the GPL except where they own copyrights. What made you think otherwise?