Slashdot Mirror
Wounded Copyright Troll Still Alive and Kicking
Hugh Pickens writes "Steve Green writes that even as defendants who defeated Righthaven in court and won their attorney's fees complain they haven't been paid a total of $216,000 and try to seize Righthaven assets, the copyright troll proved that it is alive and kicking by filing a brief that District Judge James Mahan in Las Vegas was wrong to find an Oregon nonprofit was protected by fair use in posting an entire R-J story on the relationship between immigrants and Las Vegas police. A key factor in Mahan's decision was that the defendant, the Center for Intercultural Organizing in Portland, couldn't harm the market for a copyright to the story Righthaven obtained for lawsuit purposes from Stephens Media. Mahan also 'found that because the work was a news article, the totality of its content was informational and permissible for productive use by others,' Righthaven's outside attorney Shawn Mangano wrote in his brief that 'in reaching this erroneous conclusion, the district court failed to accord any degree of creative effort to the work (story) whatsoever.' In a second appeals brief, Mangano appeared to face an uphill challenge in arguing that Righthaven had standing to sue or should have been allowed to sue after amending its Stephens Media lawsuit contract to fix defects — assertions rejected so far by six Nevada judges. The defendants in the appeals have not yet filed their briefs, and it's likely to be months before the appeals court hears arguments on the cases."
Appropriate the internal organs of righthaven lawyers whenever they show up in court.
The Righthaven jerks do not even own the copyright. They have no standing whatsoever. How are they getting away with this without sanctions? I really want to know why. There really isn't any dispute about who owns the copyrights.
The time when taking the vexatious plaintiffs out to the desert and staking them down next to a fire-ant hill is acceptable keeps getting closer every day.
--
BMO
Everyone knows the only way to kill a troll is either acid or fire. Excuse me while I get the gasoline and matches.
after all, the entire legal foundation of the GPL is based on the enforcability of copyright law.
How many of you feel we're still going to be hearing about the ghost of Wronghaven for years to come?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
This is why zombie lawyers are the most feared D&D monsters. There is always something you should have been keeping in your inventory to kill them but didn't.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
- Columbus, Zombieland
(describing rule #2) "You need to get a gun and learn how to use it which leads me to my second rule, the double tap. In those moments when you're not sure that the undead are really dead-dead, don't get all stingy with your bullets, I mean one more clean shot to the head. You can avoid becoming a human happy meal. Woulda, shoulda, coulda."
With a legitimate argument. Sure they are going to appeal. Because they are out of business if they don't.
-- $G
how many levels of appeal there are in the united states. In most countries, it is two (one to the appeal court then one to the supreme court). Whenever I hear about the united states, I'm under the impression it is much more than two.
Seize those too.
You don't want to stand near a dinosaur that's sinking in the tar pit, it tends to lash out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since when is news 'creative'? Tabloid's maybe but not news. Mangano's more of a huckster than a lawyer.
I thought the major issue with RightHaven, and the reason they were defeated in court was that they weren't legally allowed to have the right to sue transferred to them by the copyright owners.
Essentially, they are making an argument to the courts, when the courts have already decided that they cannot argue a case at all.
To do the car analogy for those that need it, it's like arguing that Volvo should update the in-car computer for their cars when you don't even own a Volvo.
Let's just divide everything in the world into patents. Like, Written on QWERTY vs. Not-Written-on-QWERTY. Patent on English, corresponding Patent on Non-English, whatever. Then we auction off the two patents for a trillion dollars and let the two trolls sue each other to hell.
Gently reply
Fail goatse trick link is fail.
Those two don't belong together.
I get that if someone copies a work with no revenue, they cannot be sued for lost revenue. But if copyright is owned by the copyright owner, and is their right to not allow copying, then I do not understand how someone who obviously copied something can still be innocent. They would be guilty, but not liable for damages. They should at most have to pay for the plaintiff's legal fees if being taken to court is what it took.
In the case of film and music there are huge disproportionate criminal fines in place, and you'd think it would be the same with journalism... but I guess the lobbyists weren't aggressive enough to steer the law their way!?
it's been decades since i played any sort of D&D games but don't you need fire to stop trolls regenerating?
Righthaven Attorney Mangano wrote in his brief that "the district court failed to accord any degree of creative effort to the work".
As I recall from my education in journalism "no degree of creative effort" is the key to a news story. It's what makes a news story a news story, instead of "A tabloid fabrication, gossip, tittle-tattle, invention, expansion, propaganda, fiction or any other kind of crap." as the instructor used to say. He'd also say, "Do your creative writing somewhere else." if you gave him something that wasn't solid information.
This means that while Righthaven Attorney Mangano's assertion may be a compliment to the journalist, it ain't an argument against the judge's ruling.
> Just don't go for the spine, you won't find any.
There's no heart or brain, either. Just a giant liver, full of bile. And alcohol.
"....Righthaven had standing to sue or should have been allowed to sue after amending its Stephens Media..."
Sorry, but that "amended" contract with Stephens media could not possibly apply to an alleged PRIOR infraction.
You can't change the terms of a contract after the fact.