Slashdot Mirror
Righthaven Ordered To Turn Over Hard Drives To Creditors
Hugh Pickens writes "Remember Righthaven? Steve Green writes that the copyright troll who partnered with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post to file 275 no-warning copyright infringement lawsuits in 2010 and 2011 against parties that used content from those papers without authorization has just been ordered to turn over to a creditor hard drives from its computers so the creditor could determine if Righthaven has any assets that can be liquidated for the benefit of Righthaven's creditors. Federal judges in three states rejected Righthaven's lawsuits because the company lacked standing as the newspapers — not Righthaven — maintained control of the material Righthaven was suing over. Some defendants were also cleared by the fair use doctrine in copyright law. In the aftermath of Righthaven's legal debacle, the company shut down and claimed to be broke. Creditors in another case seized its website and trademark and auctioned them. They also seized the copyrights it sued over, but they didn't sell. Meanwhile Kurt Opsahl, an attorney for the EFF, has for months been urging Judge Peggy Leen to hit Righthaven CEO Steven Gibson with 'coercive sanctions' for Righthaven's failure to turn over information that will help the EFF find Righthaven assets. 'Steven Gibson is now going to have to show some responsibility,' said Opsahl after the judge issued a court order that could cost its CEO a fine of $500 per day for non-compliance. 'The CEO of Righthaven remains responsible for taking care of the business of the company.'"
It's still possible to be sued successfully for downloading copyrighted data.
So enjoy your hollow victory, losers. We're still coming to get you.
All data is copyrighted from the moment it exists in a fixed form. A very tiny fraction of that data is placed by its author into the public domain. Thus, for 99.9999% of people, 99.9999% of what they download is copyrighted.
The key point is this: Attention is more valuable than information.
That is why content producers spend millions to create attention lures; for advertising.
This is why "news" shows are light on facts and heavy on shock and awe (things to keep you watching).
Smart 21st-century businesses understand that "illegal downloaders" are not pirates; they are an incredible source of highly credible peer-to-peer marketing.
Some companies are foolish enough to poison that well. They will go the way of the buggy-whip while a smarter competitor monetizes the "pirates".
There are companies that would pay millions if they could make a piece of content "go viral" on demand.
When "illegal downloaders" are trying to gift you attention in exchange for information, take it. Only an idiot wouldn't take that trade.
How about seizing and auctioning CEO?
Shell company patent trolling isn't illegal, but it should be. Change will obviously not come from governments. I would like to see some independent think tanks receive some funding to develop new proposals.
Maybe the Bill and Melinda Bates Foundation could spare some cash for this, to fix problems in their own backyard, instead of Africa.
Charity begins in the home.
Now when is Darl McBride going to face charges at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, for crimes against humanity?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Beware meaningless Capitalisation and lack of Punctuation.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
There's always a market for unscrupulous lawyers.
If a judge wants to take something of mine, he'll send a cop to come and take it. Why isn't that happening here? Do the banks wait for a house to be 'turned over' when they forecloses on it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why doesn't this apply to cases brought by the **AA associations over copyright material controlled by others (e.g. recording corps)?
"His name was James Damore."
OP says that company partnered wih the newspapers in question. I don't know why a hired gun for you would get stuffed by a court.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Why doesn't this apply to cases brought by the **AA associations over copyright material controlled by others (e.g. recording corps)?
You made that up.
Original poster, the correct answer is that the **AA are not the ones suing. The recording companies sue directly. For example SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset etc.
It's nice to see the CEO was going without a salary for a few years, banking on a payout.
No he wasn't. He'll be able to claim a net loss on his income for the last few years, and if his accountant did a good job with the books, the judge is going to find that the CEO is massively in debt. Once it's all said and done, the CEO will file bankruptcy and then slowly pull his assets out of whatever shelters he's hidden them in.
Just as an example, which I've seen used in real life. Rich CEO purchases a very nice house for his daughter, for their "wedding" present, pays the taxes, etc. and now it's hers. Later on, he files bankruptcy, and once it's all final and complete she sells the house back to him as a private sale, for much less than the actual market value. She gets a break on capital gains, he gets a nice house worth much more than he paid (this time). There are many ways to vary this, and plenty of ways to use the concept without breaking any laws. Sometimes you might have to use shell companies and off-shore entities, sometimes not. The end result is the CEO takes a hit to his net worth, but in the end avoids losing most of what he really should have lost.
Wait, what? Am I missing something here?
Sure; There is almost no limit to how badly your lawyers can screw up if they try to be too clever. The company was attempting to do something illegal. Get to act as the copyright holder without having the responsibilities of the copyright holder. Unfortunately, they screwed up completely, and ended up achieving the reverse of what they wanted. They failed to transfer the right to sue, but they managed to transfer the actual copyrights (though presumably still with a license back to the newspapers the articles came from).
Future lawsuits about this material may well be very very "interesting".
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
For example SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, ..
"His name was James Damore."
Good that you noticed that too.
Do judges have that much trouble acquiring evidence in other types of cases?
Bonus remark:
"Righthaven is a company, not a law firm." (Which) "partnered with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post to file 275 no-warning copyright infringement lawsuits". (Founded by) "Righthaven CEO and Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson", who then hired "Righthavenâ(TM)s attorney, Shawn Mangano".
Whew! A company that is not a law firm is started by a lawyer, hires a lawyer, and files lawsuits! If that's not Onion Layers of Lawyers all the way down I don't know what is! (With pet Turtles on the desk to look cute.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
They have a similar scam going on with all those natural gas wildcatters that are doing the fracking. you see the actual NG company doesn't "own" anything, they lease everything from the equipment to the copier from a shell corp they set up. if they cause a nasty mess, get sued for not paying out the mineral rights or damaging adjacent property? They just burn the company, after all on the books it shows that have zero assets and nothing but debt, then they just start a new company and lease the stuff back from the shell corp.
I have no doubt Righthaven did something similar, I bet the only things they had on the books was the website and some office equipment. This is just another way the system is completely broken, the laws have been written by sleazy lawyers that make sure they leave loopholes that only they and their rich friends can really afford to use but which when called upon means they can just walk away at any time without having to pay shit. I bet if you look at their books and compare it to what is owed they'll be lucky if they get a half a cent on the dollar, hell I wouldn't be surprised if the EFF doesn't get a red cent.
This is why you can really "win" in court against these kind of bums because when its all said and done they can just start another company and learn from their mistakes and do it all over again and all you'll have to show for winning is a worthless judgement and a bunch of lawyer fees.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I always thought there was something dodgy about Steve...
Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
For example SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, ..
For pity's sake. Making stuff up was bad enough, now you're clutching at straws.
Yes, sometimes people refer to Arista Records LLC et al v. Usenet.com as "RIAA v. Usenet.com". No, people using that shorthand way to refer to it does not change reality.
For a list of the plaintiffs in that case see the court ruling here : http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/090630DecisionOfMotions.pdf
Note that the RIAA is not amongst them. They are all listed individually because they all participated directly. The RIAA did not sue. It did not represent the parties.
You are clearly very ignorant about this subject. That's okay, there's lots of things I'm ignorant about too. But I know when to admit it. Do you?
We Don't Go to Righthaven
Karma's a bitch eh Steve. ;-D
waaaaaaa ha ha ha ha he so deserves it.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
.
-- Land / real-estate developers form limited-time-extent limited liability corporations to buy the land and other LLCs to develop it and pay each other fees (to maximise profits). As soon as the last house is built, a shell corporation may be formed to hold onto control of the home-owners association / condominium association until the first meeting where the home-owners/condo-owners elect their own board and take over. Then, it's like Keyser Soh-zay (sp?), poof, they vanish like they never existed. And in terms of corporate-person-hood, they no longer do exist to be sued or sue-able. So when the home-owners find out that there was shoddy construction and other problems, there's no one to sue or to recover damages from. Egregious e.g., Trump, claims to make money, licenses his name to skyscraper apartments as in San Diego downtown, burns his losses in bankruptcy, and writes another book about how to become a real estate millionaire. (my tldr opinion for his book: steal other peoples' money is how to become a millionaire in real estate)
.
Hollywood-movie-productions - even though there's a production company, there will be a limited time extent corporation formed for each film made so that consulting fees and production fees and lease fees can be paid to the shell companies owned by the profit-takers, while the idiots who signed on to finance and receive a share of profits also lose out. (Hint, always get gross points, net points are for chumps and chimps)
Also, all of the cameras / lenses / production equipment used on set is all highly-insured and always seem to be "damaged beyond repair" during filming (or most conveniently, at the end of filming.)
And then don't forget about the idiots who signed on for a cut of the "net profits" which Hollywood Accounting shows never exist: no movies in the history of hollywood after a certain year has ever shown a profit. After you put in all the consulting fees and promotion fees, etc, even Forrest Gump and the Star W*rs franchises never officially made any profit at all!
Also, your capitalisation of capitalisation and punctuation without a period at the end of the sentence would have been justified sarcasm; doing it with a period at the end implies an inventive emphasis also done in your parent, unless it's a mistake.
Deliberate irony, so I win.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That was a very good, informative comment until this line: in fact, the **AA's were created by the recording labels to represent them.
That's inaccurate. There was a problem with phonorecords: deep bass would cause the needle to come out of the groove. Various record companies had different ways of attenuating it. The RIAA was originally formed to come up with a standard equalization curve; bass is attenuated on recording and boosted on playback, and the attenuation and boosting were standardized. It was, in essence, originally a standards body.
It didn't start litigating until the internet. Before the internet, the litigation was alwasy one record company suing another (and they still do).
Free Martian Whores!