Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Troll Righthaven Ordered To Pay $119,000

Posted by timothy on from the why-don't-they-make-it-out-to-me? dept.

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Steve Green reports that newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit filer Righthaven of Las Vegas has been hit with an order to pay $119,488 in attorney's fees and costs in its failed lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase, who was sued over allegations he posted a story without authorization on a murder case by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. US District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed Righthaven's suit against DiBiase this summer because Righthaven lacked standing to sue him under its flawed lawsuit contract with R-J owner Stephens Media. The DiBiase case was noteworthy because his attorneys at the EFF said DiBiase's nonprofit website, 'No Body Murder Cases,' performed a public service by assisting law enforcement officials in bringing justice to crime victims — and that his post was protected by the fair use concept of copyright law. Case law created by the Righthaven lawsuits suggests DiBiase's use of the story would be protected by fair use as it was noncommercial and judges have found there can be no market harm to Righthaven for such uses since there is no market for copyrights Righthaven obtains for lawsuit purposes. Although this was by far the largest fee award against Righthaven, it will likely will be dwarfed by an upcoming award in Righthaven's failed suit against the Democratic Underground."

16 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Mixed news by Myopic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is great! I'm happy to have this decision, but I wish the ruling were on the merits instead of being dismissed for lack of standing.

    1. Re:Mixed news by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but I wish the ruling were on the merits instead of being dismissed for lack of standing.

      In this case, those *are* the merits.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Mixed news by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it is better this way. It is a ruling against the business model of being a troll. If argued on the merits this guy could of lost. It sounds like he cut and pasted a story onto his blog. Not the best way to run a blog. Kinda of sloppy when it just takes a few minutes to write up your own opinion with a few quotes from the original. Cut and Pasters don't deserve big lawsuits against them. But they are not perfectly innocent either.

    3. Re:Mixed news by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Sorry but even if he copypasta'd the whole thing it would have still be covered under fair use since it was a non profit public service. Sorry i can't remember the case ATM but I believe it was in Oregon that the precedent was set that even copying a whole article was considered fair use if it was for a non commercial public service. In that case IIRC the article was over an issue that they were organizing against and the judge ruled they were simply gathering data to a single point so they could better advocate their position, and in this case it is a prosecutor that is gathering as much as he can about 'no body' murder cases into a single area to help other prosecutors know how to deal with such a rare type of case.

      So I'm with the other poster that it would have been nice if there had been more precedent added in this case but at least there IS precedent for doing a large copypasta of even whole articles if the purpose is to inform and not for profit. funnily enough if my memory serves it was the Righthaven trolls that caused the precedent to be set in Oregon in the first place. Maybe we should have a "Righthaven Effect" for those that end up being better advocates for the other side than they are their own?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. it's not what you know... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    lawsuit against former federal prosecutor

    That was their first mistake.

    1. Re:it's not what you know... by jd · · Score: 2

      My AD&D manual says otherwise.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:it's not what you know... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2

      Sadly, if D&D taught me anything, they regenerate fairly quickly. Gotta burn them to ashes for them to be gone.

      Funny that, since NetHack taught me it's easiest to just eat their corpses (or feed them to my pets)... as an added bonus, it'd scare the bejeezus out of their fellow trolls as well.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  3. Don't you just love... by gstrickler · · Score: 2

    ...the smell of trolls roasting on an open fire?

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  4. Re:Punative damages by jd · · Score: 2

    Only if they have money.

    There are ways to circumvent that, of course - abolish the concept of a corporation as a person, treat all copyrights owned by them as assets that can be seized, and if the sum value so seized is less than the money owed, seize assets of management (within bounds, an individual should never be sued beyond the ability to function as an individual) including the business license for the corporation. If it's still less, ban all members of management from holding management positions or being able to obtain a license to run a business for X number of years.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  5. unauthorized practice of law by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are aiming at collecting from the newspapers. Defendents are filing motions that Righthaven was involved in the unauthorized practice of law. Basically the argument is that Righthaven is really a lawfirm representing newspapers in copyright cases on a contingency fee. That the contracts were an illegal attempt to shield the newspapers from liability. This ruling support that argument.

    1. Re:unauthorized practice of law by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2
      I am not sure what you are arguing. I am stating

      A) Rightshaven had no right to bring lawsuits against infringers because their contracts with newspapers were illegal.

      B) Because the lawsuits were illegal the defendant is owed attorney fees from the plaintiff.

      C) The actual plaintiff in these cases is not Righthaven but the newspapers that hired them.

      D) So the defendants will collect attorney fees from the newspapers.

    2. Re:unauthorized practice of law by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      IANAL, but it's a bit less clear than that. The newspapers contracted with Righthaven to pursue infringement cases on their behalf. However, the newspapers never transferred the copyrights to Righthaven, therefore, Righthaven had no standing AS the plaintiff. However, as a law firm, Righthaven did have the right to file the suits under the direction of or as an agent of the newspapers using the newspaper (copyright holder) as the plaintiff. The contract between Righthaven and the newspapers *could* be construed as direction from the newspaper, or that Righthaven was acting as an agent of the newspaper. If they were acting as an agent of or at the direction of the newspaper, and filed a defective lawsuit which was thrown out for lack of standing, then it *could* be determined that the newspaper is jointly responsible for the legal fees and/or penalties assessed against Righthaven. Whether or not it will go that way is TBD.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  6. Re:the? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 3, Funny

    "the" Democratic Underground? No, it's just Democratic Underground, or DU.

    -1 Overly Pedantic. Even for Slashdot.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  7. Re:Punative damages by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2

    Some are trying to convince a judge that Righthaven is really a lawfirm for the newspaper instead of the actual plaintiff. If they can do that it doesn't matter if Righthaven goes bankrupt. They can collect from the newspaper. Another tactic is to seize the copyrights as an asset.

  8. Re:Punative damages by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

    The problem is that you don't know which management to sue. The one that started the suit? The one that was in power in the middle, or the one that was in command when the suit was thrown out?

    The better way to handle this would be to eliminate the limited liability of a corporation. Make the stockholders liable for any debts not covered by the bankruptcy sell-off, but at the same time make the management liable for any liabilities not disclosed in a quarterly report.

    Doing this would fix so many things. The management would suddenly have a big incentive to tell the truth to their stockholders, while the stock traders would have to look at more then just the stock price history.

  9. Re:Punative damages by jd2112 · · Score: 2

    Only if they have money.

    There are ways to circumvent that, of course - abolish the concept of a corporation as a person,

    If a corporation is a person, wouldn't dissolving a corporation be murder?

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.