French ISP 'Free' Refusing To Send Out Hadopi Notices To Users [Updated]

Las Vegas Review-Journal Endorses The Same Candidate It's Suing For 'Stealing' From Them?

from the cognitive-dissonance... dept

Thu, Oct 7th 2010 9:30am — Mike Masnick

At the end of yet another good report by the Las Vegas Sun on a defendant in a Righthaven case fighting back (thanks to visual77 for sending this in), there's an interesting pointer to a blog post from Steve Friess, a Vegas-based writer (who has previously come out in support of Righthaven's lawsuits) noting that it appears that the Las Vegas Review-Journal really doesn't take copyright issues as seriously as it pretends in its sermons on the subject. After all, it keeps claiming that copyright infringement is no different than "stealing," and yet, Freiss notes, the LVRJ has now endorsed Sharron Angle for Senate, the same candidate that it (via Righthaven) has sued for copyright infringement:

Congrats, R-J, for proving just how seriously you take copyright theft. Copyrighting is so important that, as your top lawyer Mark Hinueber told a Society of Professional Journalists gathering, it is nearly fundamental to the very foundation of the American way of life. But, on the other hand, someone who steals from you? She ought to be a United States senator! Cognitive dissonance much?

Of course, everyone knows the reality here. The LVRJ and Righthaven are not about protecting the sanctity of copyright, or "stopping theft." It's a pure business model effort, an attempt to shakedown people for money, for sharing their content in a way that does absolutely no harm to the original work or the business of the paper. But, still, it's good to see even Righthaven supporters calling out the hypocrisy of the LVRJ claiming that it's akin to stealing on the one hand, while endorsing one of the people they sued for a position in the Senate at the same time. You don't endorse the person who stole from you for Senate. And that's the point. Angle didn't "steal" anything -- and everyone at Righthaven and the LVRJ know it.

Separately, as for the original Sun article highlighting another defense effort against Righthaven, two quick points. This is the first defense I've seen that calls out the judge's ruling in the Tenenbaum case, in which the judge called the statutory rates "constitutionally excessive," and a violation of due process. This defendant is claiming that the demands brought forth by Righthaven violate due process rights based on this. I have to say that's quite a stretch of a legal argument (and an awful lot of people fully expect that ruling in the Tenenbaum case to be overturned), but still interesting. The second point is that while a lot of the defenses against Righthaven suits seem to toss up new arguments, it appears they're starting to all focus in on a few key arguments. It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to these.

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, endorsements, las vegas review journal, sharron angle, stealing
Companies: righthaven, stephens media

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 11:03am

"...absolutely no harm to the original work or the business of the paper..."

Perhaps this is true. Then again, perhaps it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  God bless the United States of America, where our Government thoughtfully creates laws to protect us from the "possible, yet also maybe not possible" harms of the world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re:
  Feel free to point out any harm. Oh, right, you can't.
  
  Now go crawl back to the law firm who you apparently think would be embarrassed if they discovered your silliness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 11:41am

An unqualified statement of fact concerning a specific situation without even knowing the specific facts is not a wise habit to be encouraged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  Hence why you are a master of noncommittal vagueness. Do you have classes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 1:18pm

My apology to those who are not troubled by the absence of facts....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  Amusingly, you haven't provided a single fact that is missing. Unsurprising, of course, given your track record of contributing nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2010 @ 4:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nice attempt at trying to turn the table around. A statement was made without any factual support. I did not realize that one asking for facts is guilty of not providing facts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse, 7 Oct 2010 @ 5:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      First, how many who have fought Righthaven have won their cases? Secondly, you're the one who made the first comment regarding 'true or perhaps not,' and ambiguous statement meant to confuse, you did not ask for proof of fact. You were asked for proof of your own statement, thus, logically, you are the one turning things about. Not that it matters, of course.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
whytewolf (profile), 7 Oct 2010 @ 10:27pm

'And that's the point. Angle didn't "steal" anything - and everyone at Righthaven and the LVRJ know it.' honestly. with the RJ, they don't know it. they don't even get the basis of it. they are supporting Sharon Angle purely because she is republican. tho some people at LVRJ or at least Stephens media do know it. not everyone who works for them agrees with any of the policies they are putting forth. just like any company. I'm sure there are people who do the job because they need a job, not because they agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 8 Oct 2010 @ 12:15pm

Shakedown
I hate to pick nits, but the current fad of, er, verbifying nouns is driving me crazy. There's a great example in this post: "...an attempt to shakedown people for money,..." Mike, I always enjoy and respect your posts (even when I don't agree!), but "shakedown" is a noun, sometimes even an adjective, but never a verb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]