Slashdot Mirror


US Marshals Ordered To Seize Righthaven Property

An anonymous reader writes "Troubled times ahead for Righthaven, as Ars Technica reports that the U.S. Marshals have been instructed 'to use "reasonable force" to seize $63,720.80 in cash and/or assets from the Las Vegas copyright troll after Righthaven failed to pay a court judgment from August 15.'"

38 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. take their servers and router by swschrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and sell them at sheriff's auction.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:take their servers and router by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

      and sell them at sheriff's auction.

      Ooo. Lemme know when the auction is. Then I can share the secrets with /. =)

      It's a victory, small, but a victory no less.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:take their servers and router by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Holy shit, is this Righthaven storyline the most satisfying nerd storyline of the last half-century or what? This is even better than SCO! I just can't believe that justice has rained down so hard in this case.

    3. Re:take their servers and router by Anrego · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Much as I love the image of the police carting out Righthavens office furnature while some guys in suits quietly weep in the corner.. I imagine all the real assets are long gone, and the actual guys behind it all safely out of the way. Righthaven will go under.. and then re-emerge as a different LLC and keep right on trucking.

      Not saying this isn't awesome, but lets not delude outselves to the nature of these trolls.

    4. Re:take their servers and router by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would a law firm own their IT infrastructure

      Massive need for confidentiality perhaps?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:take their servers and router by LVSlushdat · · Score: 2

      Awww.. geez.. I drive right by them everyday to/from work.. Perhaps I'll stop by on the way home today, and do a Simpsons Nelson "HA HA" on their sorry asses... And an aside to their webguy: What a crappy website...

      For others in Las Vegas, its:
      Righthaven LLC
      Conquistador Business Park
      9960 West Cheyenne Ave, Suite 210
      Las Vegas, NV 89129
      (702) 527-5900

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    6. Re:take their servers and router by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhm. No.

      First, you need some significant in-house resources just to connect a few hundred computers to the internet. Those aren't free. Notably, that would include routers, as the Grandfather suggested. Second, we cannot allow client data to be outside our control -- that would endanger confidentiality. In Illinois (and in every other state, I guarantee) attorneys are responsible for retaining and protecting client information -- including things like draft memos and attorneys' notes -- from access by any third party without client permission. That's why, for example, I couldn't use google-docs when I was running a solo practice. Even though I could lock access to the documents so only I could view the document, google's privacy policy (at the time I have not verified) gave them the right to view documents in their system. It is -my- responsibility to protect my client's information from search and seizure by the Gov't or a police agency. By entrusting my data to a datacluster, I could lose control of client data and not even know until I get hit for breaching the rules of professional conduct.

      That's just two of the reasons its good to have in-house hardware. I haven't even dipped my toe into how useful leases are for defraying or reducing tax liability, and the myriad other more financial driven reasons why I might want to have an internal IT team.

      Warning: the above is not legal advice. You are not my client. If you have a question, seek an attorney licensed in your state, not the ramblings of a lawyer on /.

      -GiH

    7. Re:take their servers and router by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Hiding assets as you suggest would elevate this from a civil matter and bankruptcy into a criminal matter and prison. Courts don't like being taken for fools like that, and there are so many people eager to pound Righthaven that they won't escape that easily.

    8. Re:take their servers and router by mpoulton · · Score: 2

      If your office door is locked, that's good enough security for paper documents or locally-stored electronic documents. However, when you store electronic documents on systems that are not under your physical control, the burden is on you to implement technological security sufficient to reasonably avoid compromising confidentiality. An attorney's actions will be subject to much greater scrutiny when he knowingly and intentionally gives confidential information to a third party, relying on some security measure to prevent the third party from accessing it. What kind of filing cabinet lock would be reasonable if you wanted to give the cabinet full of client docs to your neighbor for safekeeping? It better be a good one. The exact extent of the security requirement for electronic documents on third party systems has not been litigated yet, and will undoubtedly vary between states since every bar's interpretation of the model rules is slightly different. A zip file with a password probably doesn't cut it, but any reasonably modern form of encryption probably does. This is a developing issue in the legal community, and one that will probably be much clearer in a few years. It is coming to the forefront though. I went to a CLE panel discussion on it at the ABA annual meeting in August. (IAAL, but not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  2. A pity... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm assuming that any real money(if Righthaven wasn't itself the assetless shell company being used by the real money) will already have been snuck of the premises by various means, with nothing but a bunch of leased office furniture and a few cheap suits on site; but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street and sold off is just satisfying...

    The cyclically-evicted members of the poor are all too familiar with the treatment; but we don't give it to the arrogant nearly as often as would be socially useful...

    1. Re:A pity... by sribe · · Score: 2

      ...but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street...

      You're confusing seizures and evictions. In a seizure ("attachment" in legalese) they load it onto a U-Haul and take it to a nice storage facility to await auction ;-)

    2. Re:A pity... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Righthaven didn't even own the copyrights to the files they were suing about. I doubt they have much else. What really needs to happen is disbarment of their legal staff.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:A pity... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, that's the beauty of the limited liability guaranteed to proprietors of Corps., S-Corps., LLCs., etc.. They'll just let the old corp burn, file some paper, incorporate as Righthaven 2.0 and are back in business once again. No one is held responsible for stupid business practices unless they happen to exist within the set of illegal business practices and then if and only if they neglected to strategically apply lubrication.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:A pity... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      Nope, I'm sure they will just register a new LLC with a different name and keep on trucking as before. They just busted a couple guys here in Madison for fraud; him and a friend were locksmiths and it turned out they had registered something like thirty different corporations over the last 10-15 years. They would rip people off and when it finally seemed like they would actually have to pay for their actions, that corporation would fold and disappear and a new one would spring up in it's place not long after; same people, same games, but for all intents and purposes, a completely new entity that is clean as a whistle.

      It's ridiculous that it took them this long to finally get these con men off the streets and locked up, but lord knows they will probably do a year or two in jail (if even that) and be right back on the street to do it all over again, and it will probably be another 10-15 years before they get caught. Obviously the laws must be pretty broken, but IANAL obviously, so I really couldn't suggest what they could do to fix it in a way that won't end up negatively effecting honest small-business owners that fall on hard times and lose their business.

    5. Re:A pity... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Very much not a lawyer, but I thought that was kind of the whole point of incorporating... turning the business into a seperate entity with it's own assets and protecting the owner.

      Personally I think this sucks in situations like this. Righthaven will just die, and spring up as something else and keep right on going..

      True, but the courts have determined rules for "piercing the corporate veil" as it's known - the best known reason is if the whole purpose of a company was to commit fraud. Because the point of an incorporated business is NOT to break the law with impunity.

      And no, it's not "protecting the owner" but producting the owner's non-corporate assets. Basically if a corporation shuts down, all the owners (shareholders and the like) lose their investment. However, those owner's non-corporate assets (e.g., their house, car, cash in bank, etc) are safe. So if your business goes bankrupt, if it's incorporated, the bank can't go after your house or other assets as they could for non-incorporated businesses.

    6. Re:A pity... by raydobbs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAL - I believe the legal language is something along the lines of 'The corporate veil (or shield) protecting agents of the corporation from judgements and legal action can be pierced if the agent in question has performed the offending actions while significantly outside the scope of the agent's duties with the employing offending organization.' Basically, it protects employees from personal lawsuits for actions taken by the corporation when the employee was acting as an agent of the corporation in performance of his/her/their job duties, when those duties are in compliance with their stated scope of their duties and those duties do not directly violate the rule of law. So, can't sue a CEO directly for when his towing company accidentally repossesses your car, causing damage - can only sue the corporation. If the CEO was using his towing company to steal cars, then you can 'pierce the corporate veil' and charge him/her directly.

    7. Re:A pity... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      You're probably right - but a precedent has been set. Next step, is to find some legal means to get into the pockets of the primary shareholders, and/or the parent corporation. I certainly HOPE that some bright, imaginative young lawyer can find a way to do so. THAT precedent would be the best thing to happen in a long time!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:A pity... by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

      Right. And to put a finer point in it, let's say you own a single share of a publicly traded company. If that company gets sued into the stone age and the owners are liable, that includes you even though you had nothing to do with whatever they got sued for. Making the corp a separate entity makes corps largely possible. Without that, investors would be hard to find (I am NOT giving you $money if that means my risk is up to and including my full net worth) and getting people to start companies at all would be harder because the downside risk of any transaction would so vastly exceed the upside potential.

    9. Re:A pity... by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, the, uh bar for disbarment is set very high. You have to be absolutely whackadoodle moonbat crazy like Jack Thompson to be in with shout.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:A pity... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Piercing the corporate veil in Nevada requires the presence of “fraud” or “manifest injustice”. This is the highest standard for personal indemnification available.
      From: http://whynevada.com/commercialrecordings/legaladvantagescorps.asp for more info on Nevada Corporations.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  3. Eye For An Eye by Cylix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Take their domain, computers and women!

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Eye For An Eye by melted+keyboard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, we could find a use for their domain and computers, but what would we do with their women?

    2. Re:Eye For An Eye by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, we always need cooks and secretaries.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Eye For An Eye by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      ...but what would we do with their women?

      Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?
      Taggart: Naw, we rape the shit out of them at the Number Six Dance later on.
      Hedley Lamarr: Marvelous!

      Ahhh... 70s humor. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

  4. Re:they're in vegas? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

    A few good whacks with Mjolnir would suffice.

  5. This victory is relatively insignificant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This victory is relatively insignificant compared to the massive corporate extortion schemes from the likes of MPAA/RIAA, tech companies, and other industry giants, that go unabated.

    1. Re:This victory is relatively insignificant by canajin56 · · Score: 2

      No it doesn't. In this case they didn't have rights to the copyrighted material they claiming as their own. That doesn't need to be precedent, that's kind of the basics of law...it doesn't apply to the RIAA because while the RIAA doesn't hold the rights, they also have never sued anybody. (Music labels do the suing, and for some reason Slashdot editors delete all mention of music labels and replace it with RIAA).

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  6. Re:Make an example out of them by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright laywer troll companies beware!

    Really?

    1. Set up shell company.
    2. Shake down people for easy money
    3. Pay yourself lots of money immediately.
    4. Let shell company go bankrupt.
    5. Profit!!!

    No question marks. This formula will be repeated over and over. Probably by the same people.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  7. Re:they're in vegas? by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    go down to the local drug store, pick up a piece of posterboard, and put it on a stick (protest-style).
    print out/draw/whatever a giant-sized version of nelson muntz from the simpsons pointing a finger at the onlooker with a giant "ha-ha" balloon next to him. stand outside their offices for an hour or two as their shit is getting thrown in the street.

    for extra epic ironic insult win, get a friend to get another giant posterboard placard, and stand next to you. His placard should have an arrow pointing at yours and simply read "Copyrighted images used on these placards are protected by fair use laws of the United States."

  8. Re:they're in vegas? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    It is my understanding that copyright trolls are supposed to have their faces either branded or tattooed with a scarlet trollface to prevent them from blending in with real humans, and ensure that all mankind can avoid and revile them.

  9. Retribution by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street and sold off is just satisfying

    Retribution does satisfy the primal urges, but it doesn't help me all that much (as a member of this society).

    I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses, so I can avoid ever getting into a business transaction with them. The US Marshalls stealing their copy machine doesn't actually help society in any meaningful way.

    Retributive justice is deeply ingrained in human society, but we have the tools to progress beyond that now.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Retribution by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is almost certain that any such database would end up in the hands of someone who should be in the database.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Retribution by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Retributive justice is deeply ingrained in human society, but we have the tools to progress beyond that now."

      The assumed conclusion is that something else will produce better results against determined opponents!

      Retributive justice is the only deterrent to logical people that also deals effectively with those it does NOT deter. It compels, rather than "asks for", some degree of obedience. It can be used to destroy those who harden their neck and will not obey.

      Qaddafi feared no law. He was killed. That's "retributive justice". He won't act again because he has been deleted. He had no qualities making his preservation desirable, but the example of his death is a nice reminder to others that they shouldn't shit on their people beyond tolerance.

      "I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses, so I can avoid ever getting into a business transaction with them."

      Boycott IS retribution, of the mildest most weakling sort.

      White collar criminals should be thrown in with vicious convicts who will abuse them, with the goal of frightening others into compliance with the law. Such "financial predators" are as bad as armed robbers, so put them together.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  10. Re:Make an example out of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Copyright laywer troll companies beware!

    Really?

    1. Set up shell company.
    2. Shake down people for easy money
    3. Pay yourself lots of money immediately.
    4. Let shell company go bankrupt.
    5. Profit!!!

    No question marks. This formula will be repeated over and over. Probably by the same people.

    You should probably read up on the case a little more. For one thing, in order to pursue the cases they ended up having to transfer actual ownership of patents/copyright to Righthaven. ALL the intellectual property is potentially up for seizure if they don't have enough other assets to cover. Those companies are shitting themselves right about now.

    Setting up a shell company like that is fraud, textbook almost. It doesn't shelter anything, and could open the actors up for even more liability and possible criminal charges as well.

  11. This. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to know a guy that had become a millionaire using the "calculated risk" model.

    He created bunch of B2B "information" and "benefits" products that were really just marketing copy in large volumes. He'd pay online contract workers $pennies to create both the marketing and the essentially nonexistent/useless product that amounted to a website with a login and a search box (that didn't show results for much of anything) and a lot of graphics of people playing golf and enjoying themselves and sitting and desks being productive and other $1 microstock-style photos.

    He'd then sell annual contracts to corporations for $hundreds of thousands or even $millions. Eventually in the case of each "business" than he started there would be legal action from one or two clients, but he always settled and many more clients just wrote it off and didn't "renew" the subscription to the "service" the following year.

    Of course, the following year there would be another service on the market, different name, different website, different graphics, different "product," same quality level.

    What made it work for him was the way he presented in person—professional, gregarious, confident, with a great suit and a great golf game.

    The man was a millionaire many times over and I'm glad I don't know him anymore.

  12. Re:Make an example out of them by firex726 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can you cite where the copyrights were transferred to them?
    As I recall that was the whole point of the issues to begin with, was that they were suing without ownership.

  13. Re:Make an example out of them by TWX · · Score: 2

    I will be very amused if a third party that's friendly to fair use ends up owning the IP of a trollish company that willingly licensed the IP to Righthaven...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  14. Re:they're in vegas? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

    It's a transliteration. There are a half-dozen "correct" spellings. If you're going to be a pedant, at least bother to make sure you're correct.