Righthaven Ordered To Forfeit Its Intellectual Property

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Righthaven Ordered To Forfeit Its Intellectual Property

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @12:14AM from the chickens-coming-home-to-roost dept.

New submitter BenJCarter writes with an update on Righthaven, the company that tried to make a business model out of copyright trolling. According to Wired, "[Righthaven] was dealt a death blow on Tuesday by a federal judge who ordered the Las Vegas company to forfeit 'all of' its intellectual property and other 'intangible property' to settle its debts. ... U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro of Nevada ordered Righthaven to surrender for auction the 278 copyrighted news articles that were the subject of its lawsuits. ... Righthaven's first client, Stephens Media of Las Vegas and operator of the Review-Journal, invested $500,000 into the Righthaven operation at its outset. With Judge Pro's ruling (PDF), the media company is losing financial control of hundreds of articles and photos. 'The irony of this? Perhaps those who buy the copyrights could issue DMCA notices to the Review-Journal stopping them from redistributing them?' [opposing lawyer Marc Randazza] said via an e-mail, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

62 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Finally by Speeddymon · 2012-03-14 00:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe all this nonsense with patent trolling will cease & desist ... pun intended.
1. Re:Finally by sosume · 2012-03-14 00:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Perhaps those who buy the copyrights could issue DMCA notices to the Review-Journal stopping them from redistributing them?'"
  This is pure gold!
2. Re:Finally by phrostie · 2012-03-14 00:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  a little karma in the world.
  very nice.
3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 00:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Not until the patent decays into the copyright can this ruling by applied. Unfortunately, physics has yet to ever witness such a transmutation as both patent and copyright objects are currently believed to be stable with a half-life longer than that of the observed universe.
4. Re:Finally by Dorkmaster+Flek · 2012-03-14 01:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In principle, yes, but I thought one of the strikes against them was that they didn't actually own the copyrights to anything they were suing over. They had the "right to sue" only, but the judges rules that you can't transfer only the "right to sue" of a copyright. It has to be the whole thing. If they don't actually own the copyrights, they don't have to forfeit anything.
  
  --
  I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
5. Re:Finally by cduffy · 2012-03-14 01:31 · Score: 2
  
  In principle, yes, but I thought one of the strikes against them was that they didn't actually own the copyrights to anything they were suing over. They had the "right to sue" only, but the judges rules that you can't transfer only the "right to sue" of a copyright. It has to be the whole thing. If they don't actually own the copyrights, they don't have to forfeit anything.
  My impression was that they went back and got actual copyright transfers late in the game, after suffering several losses on this account.
6. Re:Finally by Dorkmaster+Flek · 2012-03-14 01:41 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't personally follow up on that, but if that is indeed the case, ouch. That means that news company effectively gave up their copyrights for nothing.
  
  --
  I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
7. Re:Finally by idontgno · 2012-03-14 02:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Um... I don't play much poker, but even I know that you don't raise heavily on a crap hand. You may think you're successfully bluffing, but you're not; that kind of mad-dog behavior is a tell.
  So, Righthaven and their corporate overlords went all-in on an 8-high no-pair hand and rightly lost their entire stake. Yaaaaay.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
8. Re:Finally by An+ominous+Cow+art · 2012-03-14 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe all these nonsensical patent trolls will cease to exist... wishful thinking intended.
9. Re:Finally by shentino · 2012-03-14 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  More like they got shot in the ass when they got caught trying to pull an ace out of their sleeve.
10. Re:Finally by interkin3tic · 2012-03-14 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't actually own the copyrights, they don't have to forfeit anything.
  IANAL, and it sounds like that's how it would all work out in the end, but I'd still very much like to see some organization sue the assholes who were working with righthaven nonetheless. Out of spite. Let this be a lesson to any company that tries to do similar greedy things. The price for companies trying to use IP laws as a gun to mug the public should be the gun gets taken away from them and is then used to bash their skulls in. It should not be just "Well, that particular scheme didn't work, lets try another way of fucking with copyright."
11. Re:Finally by Runaway1956 · 2012-03-14 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Originally, the Review Journal held the "rights". Righthaven sued over the violation of those "rights". The judge figured out that Righthaven had no right to sue, so the Review Journal transferred the actual "rights" to Righthaven, so that Righthaven actually did have the right to sue. But, alas, Righthaven filed their suits BEFORE they had any right to sue - so it was all for naught.
  NOW, the judge says they have to surrender those works which they now actually own.
  So - DMCA notices served against the Review Journal are in order. The Review no longer owns those copyrighted works.
  
  --
  "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
12. Re:Finally by Tassach · 2012-03-14 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  This ruling isn't an impeachment of copyright trolling. If anything, it's an affirmation of it.
  As far as I can tell, the court didn't rule that trolling is bad or that Righthaven was doing anything illegal or unethical - it just said they were deadbeats and it's forcing them to liquidate their assets to pay their debts. It just happens that their assets are the bait they troll with, and the buyers are likely to be other trolls.
  
  --
  Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
13. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's a perfect model - let the three strikes and your out idea work both ways. File three invalid take-down notices related to a work, lose your copyright on the work.
There we go.. by Walterk · 2012-03-14 00:19 · Score: 5, Informative

And nothing of value was lost..

--

"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
1. Re:There we go.. by SJHillman · 2012-03-14 00:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nope, it was auctioned off.
2. Re:There we go.. by rufty_tufty · 2012-03-14 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except time money and the stress and grief put up on others by this sham of a company.
  
  --
  "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
3. Re:There we go.. by Fluffeh · 2012-03-14 00:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And nothing of value was lost..
  Nothing to us, the sensible masses, but to the folks that invested half a million dollars, around a half million dollars of value was lost.
  Chalk one up for the good guys.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
4. Re:There we go.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  And nothing of value was lost..
  Nothing to us, the sensible masses, but to the folks that invested half a million dollars, around a half million dollars of value was lost.
  Chalk one up for the good guys.
  They didn't lose a half million.
  They lost a half million in 'cash', and they also lost their rights to the very material they hired Righthaven to "protect". This just gave me a fat boner.
5. Re:There we go.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Now that's just silly! They were suing people left and right for ridiculous amounts, so those 278 news articles must be worth untold millions. No doubt they'll be lining up outside the auction site to snatch them up!
All that valuable IP by zAPPzAPP · 2012-03-14 00:27 · Score: 1

If they failed to make money from it, what is anyone else going to do with it?
Who would want to buy that crap?
1. Re:All that valuable IP by Sqr(twg) · 2012-03-14 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  The judge is not doing this for the value of the IP. It is a message to copyright holders. "If you give your IP to scumbags, you may loose all rigths to it."
2. Re:All that valuable IP by mcgrew · 2012-03-14 02:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "If you give your IP to scumbags, you may loose all rigths to it."
  Best pun I've seen all day.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
3. Re:All that valuable IP by MarkGriz · 2012-03-14 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they'll just form a new company, buy it from the old company, and repeat.
  If at first you don't succeed....
  
  --
  Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
DMCA Reversal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 00:32 · Score: 0

FTW!
Yay! by Black+Parrot · 2012-03-14 00:36 · Score: 4, Funny

The Feds finally got *something* right on the topic of intellectual property.
Maybe we can teach them a second trick.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:Yay! by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-03-14 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I like to think of them like a puppy. Just because they peed in the right spot once, doesn't mean they are potty trained.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
anyone know how to get some?? by vonshavingcream · 2012-03-14 00:38 · Score: 1

it would be cool own a piece of this glorious victory.
1. Re:anyone know how to get some?? by drinkypoo · 2012-03-14 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  If we can identify the most valuable article maybe we could have a kickstarter. :p
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
temporary by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-03-14 00:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

If this is "outbreak of sanity" (and I don't know without more detail) then it will probably only be a TEMPORARY outbreak of sanity.
Protecting IP like rabid dogs is considered "common sense" these days, and we all know how often common sense is actually wrong.
1. Re:temporary by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-03-14 00:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why don't we make this business model explicitly illegal???
  Oh yeah... government works for the highest bidder right now and never in the public interest. It should be explicitly illegal... buy "Intellectual Property" for the non-good faith reason of suing people and you lose it. Of course that is too simple to be accepted and I have no money to buy lobbyists.
2. Re:temporary by Sique · 2012-03-14 01:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The judge found this business model to be illegal (e.g. having no legal basis to work on). So why making something illegal illegal? That's like forbidding criminality.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
Since one of the nails in the coffin by nedlohs · 2012-03-14 00:52 · Score: 2

was it being ruled that they didn't have standing to sue - that assigning the right to sue but not the right to license/use the content doesn't work.
Surely, anyone buying what Righthaven owns also can't sue anyone?
Though given the ruling says they are the registered copyright holder I guess that mustn't have applied to everything?
No, they couldn't use DMCA by Captain+Hook · 2012-03-14 01:03 · Score: 2

'The irony of this? Perhaps those who buy the copyrights could issue DMCA notices to the Review-Journal stopping them from redistributing them?'
I thought that Righthavens undoing was that they acquired the right to sue copyright infringers from the orginal copyright owners but not the right to publish the articles they were suing over.

Original Slashdot Article

It means that anyone acquiring these rights will have the same problem that Righthaven had, they can't use them for anything.

--
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
1. Re:No, they couldn't use DMCA by 91degrees · 2012-03-14 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Although, if someone does use them, presumably the newspaper no longer has ownership so no longer has standing to sue.
  
  I guess really it's a moot point. The newspapers were happy to give up the rights in the first place because apart from the right to sue, they're largely worthless. Except in rare cases, nobody is willing to pay to republish an article.
2. Re:No, they couldn't use DMCA by canajin56 · 2012-03-14 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Different judge, different case. This judge ruled against Righthaven based only on fair use, that a USER posting to your forum a 4 paragraph excerpt from a 34 paragraph article, linked to the full article, at 0 financial gain to the user or the website, was not copyright violation.
  So in this case, the judge never ruled on who owns it, and he said that while he acknowledges that the ownership is now in dispute because of the wording of the transfer agreement, as far as he can tell, Righthaven is the registered owner of all 275 articles, so he has every right to transfer them to the holder of the receivership. The fact that they actually are registered to Righthaven takes some weight from their losses before the first judge. Only that judge also made a declaratory judgement, calling it fair use regardless of who actually owns the rights, awarding lawyers fees and actually even bringing somebody from Stephens Media in to scold them, because the contract gave them the right to have final say in who to sue in the event it ends up being a charity (which it was!) or a hobbyist, and they did not exercise it. Basically he chewed their ear off for suing a charity over fair use, when as publishers of a law journal, they should damn well know better. In any event, other posters have said that after this initial loss, Righthaven was given full control so they wouldn't lose again. And then they lost again over fair use. So in THAT case, it would have 0 effect on the previous case, since they didn't have them yet. But they do KNOW, so they are fair game for forfeiture to pay the judgement in the first case.
  
  --
  ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Actual Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 01:09 · Score: 5, Informative

They lost some legal proceedings they had brought, and were ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
They failed to comply with the costs order and ended up having their assets seized to be auctioned off to pay the costs.
The fact that the property was intellectual rather than an office block in Las Vegas was less about the philosophy of the Judge and more about the fact that the IP was the only assets the business held.
This doesn't speak to the viability or legality of copyright trolling.
1. Re:Actual Summary by Rich0 · 2012-03-14 03:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If anything the business model is validated to an extent. They still wreaked havoc on the defendant, and the defendant can't recover their costs since there is nothing to recover.
  That is the problem with IP trolls - they require little capital to operate, and the companies they go after have quite a bit of capital (in most cases). So, they have little downside and considerable upside. In theory a single lawyer could work for a half-dozen of them, so that if one hits the jackpot it can pay out to its shareholders and divest itself of assets to prepare for the next suit, and if one loses it just folds.
2. Re:Actual Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure I mind this, lets the patents they can't hold up in court die. Better than vaguely waving a patent to scare people off.
3. Re:Actual Summary by Rich0 · 2012-03-15 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but the next time they sue somebody their target will be more likely to roll over without a fight.
  Sure, if they fight they're likely to win, but they're also likely not to recover anything. So, as long as the troll asks for less money than the cost of litigation, the defendent may roll over.
  That is the problem with the legal system - you lose even if you win.
Oh the sweet irony! by MetalliQaZ · 2012-03-14 01:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

TFA: "...ordered Righthaven to surrender for auction the 278 copyrighted news articles that were the subject of its lawsuits"
Company gives Righthaven "right to sue" on their article
Righthaven sues bloggers who use article
Court tells Righthaven that the "right to sue" doesn't exist
Company gives Righthaven all rights
Righthaven goes down in flames
Bloggers get ownership of articles
I know it's really going to their lawyers, but the premise is enough to make me smile :)
-d

--
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
1. Re:Oh the sweet irony! by Rich0 · 2012-03-14 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  No, the bloggers just get the right to sue over the articles, which a court has already ruled is without value, and which they wouldn't use anyway because they're not .
2. Re:Oh the sweet irony! by mutewinter · 2012-03-14 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect 10's little scheme had a similar effect. They bought copyright's to Hegre-Art nude photos for the purpose of suing Google Images. Guess who showed up in Google Images with those pictures, Hegre-Art affiliates.
3. Re:Oh the sweet irony! by mutewinter · 2012-03-14 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Correction, suing Google over Google Images results.
4. Re:Oh the sweet irony! by Kalriath · 2012-03-14 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost like you only read the first three lines...
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
5. Re:Oh the sweet irony! by Rich0 · 2012-03-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nah - I just misread line 4. Whoops...
  Not sure it is likely to happen though, unless Righthaven speculatively purchased those rights for a considerable fee (not unlike what happens with debt collectors - they buy your $1k loan for $300, and then they make a profit if they can get more than that).
Dear Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 01:12 · Score: 3, Funny

All your bridge are belong to us.
A fitting end... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 01:28 · Score: 0

He who lives by the lawsuit, dies by the lawsuit
news like this makes me laugh by webdragon · 2012-03-14 01:36 · Score: 1

And i needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks Soulskill
A win? by milkman479 · 2012-03-14 01:41 · Score: 0

This feels like a win for the system IMO. It's like when Jack Thompson lost his ability to practice law. Now maybe we can free up the courts to process celebrity divorces faster!
1. Re:A win? by shentino · 2012-03-14 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  That's not good enough.
  With how brazenly he's defying the court orders I don't think anything short of clapping him in irons and throwing him behind bars is going to do for what is probably very blatant contempt of court.
Pro's not a pro by Compaqt · 2012-03-14 01:50 · Score: 1

Finally, a judge who isn't bought out!

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:Pro's not a pro by Talderas · 2012-03-14 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  His name is Judge Pro.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
2. Re:Pro's not a pro by Compaqt · 2012-03-14 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  Right, it was a play on words.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Only 278? by residieu · 2012-03-14 02:24 · Score: 1

This was all about just 278 articles?
I predict they will be bought by the startup LeftHaven, which will continue where RightHaven left off.
1. Re:Only 278? by Overzeetop · 2012-03-14 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this just gives them more parameters to work with so they don't make the same mistakes next time.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Now kill the patent trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 02:55 · Score: 0

I hope
Too Bad They Had None by Greyfox · 2012-03-14 03:43 · Score: 2

Their going down in flames was due to them not owning any of the IP they were suing over. So I don't think they actually had any.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Too Bad They Had None by argmanah · 2012-03-14 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  That was true initially, but after the problem was realized they got full ownership over much of the IP. As of now they do own a few hundred articles.... Well, I mean, as of before this ruling. They are again back to owning 0 now.
  
  --
  Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
I didn't even know that was upgradable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-14 06:47 · Score: 0

All these lawsuits with ridiculous outcomes or silly lawsuits that take 5-10 years to be thrown out are ruled on by a Judge.
This one was relatively quickly decided correctly by a Judge Pro.
How do you upgrade to Judge Pro? Is there a monthly fee or something?
Kickstarter! by Blue23 · 2012-03-14 13:07 · Score: 1

Man, someone start a Kickstarter to purchase this, with the sole intention of requiring licensing or takedown from the original copyright owners who assigned their rights to Righthaven to sue with.
We all kick in a few bucks, buy it out, and get to serve delicious irony on those who were trolling for $$.

--
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.