Court Refuses To Dismiss Righthaven Lawsuit Just Because Righthaven Bought The Copyright After Infringement Happened
from the trolling-allowed dept
We've noted a variety of creative defenses being tested in response to lawsuits from Righthaven. One attempt was to claim that Righthaven had no standing, because it did not hold the copyright when the actual infringement occurred. That's because the way Righthaven works is it searches for copies of parts of articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal (or the new newspapers who just signed up) and only then buys the copyright in question for the purpose of suing.While it may have been a novel theory to say that you can't sue in such situations, there was little legal basis for that claim, and a judge has rejected it as a reason to dismiss. The judge did say that the issue could be explored further at trial, but the defendant in this case clearly read the writing on the wall and quickly settled the case, realizing that it's cheaper to settle than to fight. That, of course, is exactly what Righthaven's whole business model is predicated on.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They aren't actually suing for tens of thousands of dollars for content that took only hundreds of dollars to produce, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course! Otherwise there wouldn't be any "profit"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one knows. The terms of the relationship between LVRJ and Righthaven are kept secret. But LVRJ's parent company funded Righthaven, so I'm guessing the terms are basically "x% of whatever you can squeeze out of everyone."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Discovery
> Righthaven are kept secret.
All it takes is one person to fight them all the way to bring them to light. If a lawsuit proceeds to trial, the defense would be entitled to those details as part of the discovery process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Discovery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Discovery
They could probably get the judge to seal that information by claiming "trade secret". That's not exactly bringing them to light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Discovery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discovery
> LVRJ are ompletely irrelevant, and they would not
> need to disclose that information.
Relevancy is an evidentiary standard used at trial, not at discovery. The federal rules provide wide latitude for both parties in discovery for civil suits. It's not uncommon for things like a party's sexual history to be requested (and granted) for something as simple and seemingly unconnected as a breach of contract case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unpredictable Future
Sounds like a winning business model to me... In fact, I think you've just defined my company's new direction! Thanks.
(/scum)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a nutshell, its because of the 1976 copyright act, which made ANYTHING copyrighted AUTOMATICALLY upon creation. So, you write an article or book, it is copyrighted RIGHT NOW. Before this, you would have to register a work specifically to get a copyright. The other wrinkle in this, is that, technically, you still need to register the work (even tho its "covered" automatically at time of creation) in order to get more/higher damages if you need to sue. If you dont, you can still sue, but the damages are far less than if you hold an actual, registered copyright.
Righthaven is trying to have it both ways. They are trying to use the "automatic copyright" as a basis for suing (which, technically, they can) but then ALSO trying to game the copyright system by filing a registration of the copyright AFTER the alleged infringement, in order to get the higher damages. I cant see this sort of thing holding up in court. It wont prevent them from suing, but it damn well SHOULD prevent them from getting the multiple damages that the registration would allow, if it had been done properly PRIOR to reported infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That doesn't sound right. Where did you see that Righthaven is registering the copyright AFTER the infringement?
Even if you're right, you have to keep in mind that there is a grace period from the date of publication to register and have it work retroactively to the date of publication. Perhaps Righthaven is simply registering in this grace period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I love the law, is how you can screw others without having to do much work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's how most rich people got that way. You don't get rich by working hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uh...from this:
"That's because the way Righthaven works is it searches for copies of parts of articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal (or the new newspapers who just signed up) and only then buys the copyright in question for the purpose of suing."
On the other hand, you may be right about the grace period. would just depend on the timing. I still think it makes a shady semi-abuse of copyright law tho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The registration is what's important for being able to go for statutory damages, but like I said, there's a grace period for registering. They could register it after the infringement and still have statutory damages on the table as long as they register it during the grace period.
It's not technically an abuse of copyright law to do what they're doing. Personally, I don't fault them for what they're doing, but to each his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes it reprehensible is that you choose to ignore the reality of the situation in favor of what is technically correct under the current law. People with your attitude have always had an attitude that amounts to "a bunch of people decided something is acceptable, therefore it is acceptable."
Attitudes like that are responsible for slavery, genocide, political imprisonment, and the vast majority of societies ills. There will always be terrible people who want to do terrible things and, to our great misfortune, there will always be people like you to help them along. Why don't you try growing a conscience and asking yourself if what these people are doing is right. Not just legal or acceptable in the current context of society ... ask yourself if you think their actions are beneficial to mankind both now and in the future.
You may think that sounds a little lofty for something as simple as a copyright matter; I think it's just a little more evolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I value people rights.
Bringing up slavery, genocide, etc., doesn't convince me of anything. Way off the mark.
I actually think that the victims here aren't the defendants--it's the rights holders.
I know most people who comment in these threads disagree with me. I don't really care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, they should just shut up and get in the back of the bus, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't possibly be arguing that what the defendant did is generally accepted as morally wrong (possibly the only way she would have inherently understood that there is a high likelihood of consequences for reposting content). And I doubt you could successfully convince anyone that her actions where malicious. So whats left? A company that buys the rights to content only after they know that there is an opportunity to extort someone for money. I only see 1 victim here and it isn't Rightshaven.
Actually, I see 2 victims, the defendant, and you. You're the victim of a terrible education system and a culture that increasingly promotes the ideals of profit, ownership, and apathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think what you want. I guarantee you this, you don't understand me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You claim I don't know you and you are correct, I can only know what you've written. You have displayed an opinion (in these posts and others) which seems devoid of empathy, understanding, and critical thinking skills. You accept that something is legal and therefore is right. When that is challenged, you claim that people can defend their "rights." When that is challenged you stop responding in a meaningful way. And through all of this, you fail to grasp on any level the basic "wrongness" of a company which buys copyrights, registers them after the fact, and then sues people as a business model. You even have the audacity to refer to them as victims, as though they had been beaten, raped, or murdered ... and you try to call me out for using more direct language (genocide, etc.)
I'm going to wrap up with this (feel free to respond but I'm done so you can have the last word if you want.) I don't know you, I only know what you've written and reading what you've written fills me with mixed emotions. One part of me wants to have a meaningful discussion to see if we can come to some agreement. The other part, well, the other part sees you as someone who is so convinced that they are morally, intellectually, and socially superior that you can't imagine other people or their opinions matter. That part of me wonders how long before people with your attitude manage to destroy any chance humanity has of evolving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, really? How about sharing that with rest of us here? If what you claim is true, I suspect the EFF was just being polite to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh, name calling, the last resort of someone with nothing better to argue. Congratulations, I think you've just proven the other AC right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's not going to do that because he's full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who the hell reads their rags anyway? Idiots? You betcha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Righthaven notices the violation,
2. The violator happens to take down the content, and then
3. Righthaven buys the copyright.
I imagine if that were indeed the sequence of events, the issue of standing could get pretty interesting. I somehow doubt though that it's the case in any of these lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Upon discovering infringement:
- You have to file a formal take-down notice to prevent accidental infringement from ever being an issue.
- If the infringing party takes the material down within an acceptable time frame, the scenario is over. The right to sue is not granted.
- If the infringing party fails to respond to the take-down notice, you have met the criteria to move forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.privoxy.org/user-manual/quickstart.html#QUICKSTART-AD-BLOCKING
We should start sharing block list for those type of companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't cost much to defend, unless you hire a *lawyer*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't cost much to defend, unless you hire a *lawyer*.
You really think an average joe stands a chance against a team of lawyers? They'll hit you so fast and so hard that you won't even be able to stand after it is all said and done.
They'll find every loophole and dissect every word you say to screw you.
The system is gamed. There is no justice. It's a fight to the death where only the best lawyer team wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@AC: I come from the *real* America, where odds don't matter; principle does.
But apparently you *are* such a coward that you can't even uphold a handle on a website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @AC: I come from the *real* America, where odds don't matter; principle does.
Truth is what you believe in. Or rather, what you can convince the judge and the jury to believe in. Don't forget that to some people, Christianity is the truth, while to other, Hinduism is. The problem is that "truth" is not a boolean value. It is not either "True" or "False". It depends on interpretation.
What I am saying is that, under the current rules, the systems gives you WAY too much room for interpretation. And that can be used to screw you (or anyone), even if the truth is apparently on your side.
Take your invasion of Iraq. A lot of important people claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction there.
Where are those weapons? You doomed thousands of troops and civilians for, basically, nothing, just because some dolt managed to convince the "judge" that invading Iraq was a good idea.
"But apparently you *are* such a coward that you can't even uphold a handle on a website."
In the real _world_, I have the option to remain anonymous. I use it more because I am too lazy to create an account and log in than because of cowardice.
You used that option too, to some extent. You don't post with your real name. You use a random alias which, effectively, makes you anonymous...and a coward (to a lesser extent than me, but a coward still).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @AC: I come from the *real* America, where odds don't matter; principle does.
A LOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't cost much to defend, unless you hire a *lawyer*.
I, for one, really hope they find a few and screw the hell out of Righthaven, the business model and predatory copyright in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Righthaven's whole business model is predicated on."
If not, you should do more research or else redact that statement because it may be false. Righthaven is an awesome company that innovates regularly. In fact, they just hired twenty more employees to keep up with the boom in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People can also make use of the law, we just need to find out what the parasites depend on and use the same exact laws to screw them.
Like the GPL you can't attack the GPL or CC commons without attacking copyright itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also did some case law research on the issue of Righthaven having standing to sue for the infringements that happened before they were assigned the copyrights. The controlling case law in Nevada where these suits are being filed is perfectly clear--they have the right.
Filing a motion to dismiss on the standing issue was a complete waste of time. Several others have tried the exact same thing, and all were denied. I'm not sure why this defendant thought it would be any different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe
That depends on the opinion. An opinion can be both honest and objectionable.
I value peoples' rights. I think it's reprehensible for people to infringe on other peoples' rights. I am not opposed to people enforcing their rights when other people infringe on those rights. What's so reprehensible about that?
There's a difference between a legal right and a moral right. For example, at one time people had the legal right to own slaves. Still, that didn't make it morally right. History is replete with such examples.
In the case at hand here, some people believe that copyrights and/or patents are morally wrong. Hence, they find enforcing and defending them to be wrong as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: average_joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: average_joe
Well, there was none made beyond the fact that they were both legal but considered by some people to immoral. But if you want, then okay: slavery, copyrights and patents are similar in that they all take freedoms away.
There, better now?
It's a little too convenient that these same people just want to download stuff for free, and they don't care about the rights holders.
Who are "these people" you're talking about?
I'm not out to convince people that I'm right.
That's good, because you're not doing a very good job of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: average_joe
Also, high fives on understanding the slavery comparison.
And lastly, to average_joe, you admonish me for making personal attacks but here you are ranting about how "these same people just want to download stuff for free". I find that insulting and personal, you don't know me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe
You're right, though, I don't know you. I'm OK with that. I'm sure you don't want to know me either. I'm destroying mankind after all. I'm brainwashed by the corporate machine. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe
And I imagine that 200 years ago you would have the type of person who enjoyed laughing at the slaves too. After all, they were "property", right?
Sure, a kid sitting at his computer downloading mp3s is just like MLK writing from the Birmingham jail.
You really think so? You seem to be the only one, then. By the way, you do realize that it's not illegal to download MP3's, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe
You can tell from the context I was referring to illegal downloading. Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe
No, I can tell from the context that you were trying to say that downloading MP3's is illegal. Big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]