Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use

from the just-can't-accept-it... dept

Thu, Feb 17th 2011 5:32am — Mike Masnick

Back in October, we noted that Righthaven had lost its first lawsuit, as a judge declared using 8 sentences out of a 30-sentence article as "fair use." We noted it was a little strange at the time to use a fair use analysis at that stage of the legal fight, but it seemed clear that the judge wanted to get it over with rather than waste time on other issues. That ruling got Righthaven to say that it would begin to focus on the use of complete works to avoid such issues. However, it appears the legal shakedown shop has decided that it actually wants to push back on the original fair use claim. It's now appealed the ruling and wants the appeals court to say that such a use is not "fair." Of course it does. It needs a larger pool of folks to demand cash from, which is all this appeal is about.

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, fair use
Companies: righthaven

83 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:28am

It needs a larger pool of folks to demand cash from, which is all this appeal is about.

No, they need to be able to control when and where their content is used, to monetize it and to be able to produce it in the future.

Excessive "fair use" rights can reach a point where the average person no longer needs to read the original story, because they got more than enough of it somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:38am
  
  Re:
  "Excessive "fair use"..."
  
  How can fair use be excessive? It's an oxymoron! Fair already implies it cannot be excessive. Are you drunk?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's always noon somewhere
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    Excessive fair use means to be having the "fair use" rules extend so far, that they pretty much overrule much of the copyright laws.
    
    One paragraph? Two? Half a page? At some point, the original loses it's value against this.
    
    Excessive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "that they pretty much overrule much of the copyright laws."
      
      Copy'right' laws should last a reasonable period of time, and when it comes to news articles, no more than week. For other content perhaps a bit longer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The original still has value: It is a source. No matter how much you copy.
      
      A very bad sign would be if nobody quoted that source: it would mean it was irrelevant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Excessive fair use means to be having the "fair use" rules extend so far, that they pretty much overrule much of the copyright laws.
      
      One paragraph? Two? Half a page? At some point, the original loses it's value against this."
      
      So true, what most people don't realise is that newspaper articles need to be reprinted many times just to recoup on the costs of the journalism.
      It's not like a newspaper article or report is published today and is then out of date and has no newsworthy value later.
      If newspapers cannot reprint a news report on at least 2 or more occasions they will be losing money and so they would go out of business and then there would be no news.
      Freetards just don't think things true.
      
      Excessive fair use could destroy the ability of newspaper
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "newspaper articles need to be reprinted many times just to recoup on the costs of the journalism."
        
        Journalism will continue without newspapers. and newspapers are terrible journalists to begin with, almost always were. The same could be said about any mainstream media outlet including television.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good point. I should get paid 4 or 5 times for my work too, otherwise, I'll never be able to afford that Aston Martin I always wanted.
        
        I feel ripped off. Where are my lawyers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If newspapers cannot reprint a news report on at least 2 or more occasions they will be losing money and so they would go out of business and then there would be no news.
        Freetards just don't think things true.
        
        Hi. Welcome to the 21st century. If you are counting on a strong market for paper reprints of news articles, you are kidding yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your sarcasm is rather, umm, obvious.
        
        Newspapers don't "reprint" articles typically, but they often do resell them via newswires to other papers and news organizations. If those other newspapers didn't feel the need to pay for them, it would change the economics of writing the news to start with.
        
        There will always be news. The question is if you want to get your news from a Ralph Wiggam type standing on a street corner counting cars, from a biased blog writer who cannot ever accept to be wrong, or from a professional journalist who tries to follow standards for collecting and reporting the news.
        
        "news" is what you make it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Newspapers don't "reprint" articles typically, but they often do resell them via newswires to other papers and news organizations. If those other newspapers didn't feel the need to pay for them, it would change the economics of writing the news to start with.
        
        Yes! It is absolutely changing the economics of writing the news!
        
        Because, what is the point of wire services today? With all news available digitally, location is no longer important, so there is no need for multiple local publications to share the same information. Are you saying we should prop up that completely obsolete business model?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        quick new law needed to protect wire services.
        
        Every newspaper proprietor must subscribe to a wire service
        and
        all reports that they plan to publish in their papers must be submitted to said prepublication to said wire service so that it can be purchased legally from them before the print run commences.
        
        Anyone in breach of this law is clearly a freetardpedoterrorist and thusly has no rights.
        
        So say we all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Excessive fair use means to be having the "fair use" rules extend so far, that they pretty much overrule much of the copyright laws.
      
      One paragraph? Two? Half a page? At some point, the original loses it's value against this."
      
      OOoops, quoting the entirety of what you said must be beyond fair use, let me try again.
      
      "One paragraph? Two? Half a page? At some point, the original loses it's value against this."
      
      Darn probably still stretching fair use too far, and I don't know what the comment means now, I better try again.
      
      "Excessive...copyright laws. .... point .... against this"
      
      There, that should be okay.
      
      Wow, I thought I disagreed with you, but with my proper use of fair use on your comment, I find I've come around to your way of thinking.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Excessive fair use? Excuse me while I laugh hysterically...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean excessively?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure any amount of laughter would qualify as "excessive" in response to that statement
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - velox (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Because obviously something can be TOO fair.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:56am
  
  Re:
  "they need to be able to control when and where their content is used"
  
  No, they shouldn't get to decide that those who criticize their content aren't allowed to. and they especially don't need to. It's not like they will die if they don't and journalistic news will certainly continue unabated even if they don't. Sure, they may 'want' to control when and where the content they produced is used, but it's not a need. and people shouldn't always get what they want either. I want a million dollars.
  
  "to monetize it and to be able to produce it in the future."
  
  No one is stopping them from producing it in the future. As long as they don't try to stop others from producing it in the future.
  
  "Excessive "fair use" rights can reach a point where the average person no longer needs to read the original story"
  
  Who cares, it should make its way into the public domain after a week or so. News articles don't stay popular enough to be remembered and available after very long if people aren't allowed to archive it and redistribute those archives. The whole point of IP was to contribute to the public domain, not to allow some news organization the privilege of controlling when and where their content gets used.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  If the average person no longer needs to read the original story because someone reprinted 20 percent of it elsewhere, then it sounds like the original story was 80 percent garbage. Write a better story next time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or just write the 20% then people can only fairly use a smaller portion of that 20%.
    
    In the future news articles will only consist of headlines because of all the freetards. Yeah, that's the ticket.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 4:59am
  
  Re:
  Excessive fair use?
  
  PURE COMEDY GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Any more completely idiotic and laughable phrases you want to invent, warp, twist and redefine in light of the obvious lack of any real points to counter with?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 27 Apr 2011 @ 10:32am
  
  Re: Excessive Fair Use?
  While it is true that if one site quotes lines 1-3/15, another site quotes lines 4-8/15 and a third site quotes lines 9-10/15 while a fourth site quotes lines 11-14/15, the entire 15 line article could be effectively published for free, this would only invalidate a fair use claim if all four sites were under the control of the same entity, or were somehow in collusion.
  
  You don't give up an individual right because all the individuals are exercising it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:33am

It's now appealed the ruling and wants the appeals court to say that such a use is not "fair."

As we talked about at the time, it was error for the judge to rule that the copying was fair use at the motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings, since there are still disputed facts that must be resolved later on. As you'll recall, Eric Goldman agreed that this was error: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/10/righthaven_defe.htm

Righthaven is not trying to get the court of appeals to say the use was not fair, as you've indicated. Rather, the issue is procedural error, and they want to get the judge's dismissal of the case overturned. The use may very well end up being fair, that's not the point. The point is the judge should not have ruled it was fair use on a motion to dismiss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:50am
  
  Re:
  Sigh. Okay, technically, you're right. Righthaven is appealing the final ruling, indicating that the Judge should not have ruled that way in that stage. That's what they're appealing, the procedure of the judgement.
  
  But at the end of the day, they're not appealing just because they were miffed at a procedural flaw. They want the use deemed not Fair Use. I would think that was obvious....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 6:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Umm, considering they are the lawyers for the right holders, that is sort of a given, no? Thanks Captain Obvious!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He was responding to Average Joe's quote
      
      "Righthaven is not trying to get the court of appeals to say the use was not fair"
      
      Next to be sure to read what he is responding to before looking retarded.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Next time *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2011 @ 5:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For somebody who just blatantly tried to roll with the absurd phrase "excessive fair use" I don't think "looking retarded" is going to be avoidable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, I wasn't responding to your dumb ass, I was responding to AJ who was trying to nitpick as per usual....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What you call nitpicking, I call being accurate. I'm not sure why that upsets you, Tim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What you call nitpicking, I call being accurate. I'm not sure why that upsets you, Tim."
        
        Well, if you want to have THAT discussion, it's how your general tone and contributions here have changed as of late. What once was one of my favorite dissenting commentors around here has for some reason morphed into a petulant asshat that apparently gets some joy out of simply riling others up rather than adding anything substantive to the discussion. What was once links and citations coupled with what appeared to be an honest curiosity about the merits of issues has transformed into a defensive stance backstopped by a few seemingly informative citations that, once argued against reasonably, get repeated over and over again for what appears to be no other reason other than you can't admit you are or might be wrong.
        
        Karl's piece yesterday illustrated it perfectly, especially when coupled with your jackassery about child molesting and subsequent attempts to tapdance your way out of what you said. I used to like and appreciate you. Now I don't. You morphed yourself into a caricature that isn't helpful, illutrative, or in any way useful.
        
        And I think I fairly pointed out that technically you're right, yet that technicality adds nothing to the discussion and is essentially besides the point. Mike said Righthaven wants the use to be ruled NOT Fair Use. You said that wasn't what they were doing with this specific appeal. You're right. So what? Mike's general assertion is still true. So...you've added nothing.
        
        At least MY dumb ass tries to make people laugh now and again. I'm no lawyer, although I read up on the laws we discuss. I believe I have an intelligent thing to say now and again, but most of my nonsense I write for the hopeful enjoyment of others. I see myself as 20% informer and 80% entertainer.
        
        I write all that self-aggrandizing crap about myself only to lead to the question I find myself asking the voices in my head about you lately: what is your purpose?
        
        Seriously. What are you hoping to accomplish here, how are you hoping to accomplish it, and how do you think you're fairing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh well, you don't like my posts. I couldn't care less.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Another perfect example of you adding nothing....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Adding nothing is your specialty. Why don't you just leave me alone if you don't like my posts? Instead, you act like a big baby.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why don't you just leave me alone if you don't like my posts? Instead, you act like a big baby.
        
        Says the guy who reads every single Techdirt post despite obviously hating this blog, just so he can whine and cry in the comments...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh AJ, you're so funny. Babies throw tantrums, you know, like you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You guys are so ridiculous. Apparently you have absolutely nothing of substance to add to the discussion. No surprise there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where's that link to the explanatory comment, kiddo?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not giving you that link, DH, because you're being an ass today.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, yes, VERY convincing. Just to summarize: you won't tell me what point you were trying to make and you say there's a comment that perfectly explains what your point was, but you won't link to it or tell me which one.
        
        Two comments lower, you claim that you back up what you say more than anyone else on this site.
        
        Seriously....are you retarded?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More like an Anonymous Retard!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll just settle this right now. I'll not respond to you ever again. I think you're an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, so on top of everything else, you're a conversational bully as well. All I'm asking for is a link to something you claim exists. If you choose to take your ball and go home because this question upsets you, that's your choice I guess.
        
        Seems kind of weak to me....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's probably why he stopped posting on Ars Technica.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 18 Feb 2011 @ 2:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's probably why he stopped posting on Ars Technica."
        
        Oh, he's an Arseholer? That explains a lot, actually....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or because it doesn't exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You cared enough to respond. Someone who cared less than that would not have responded at all. Clearly, then, you could care less.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh well then, you got me there. Look, I added something substantive to the discussion. DH has only added idiocy to this thread, as per his usual m.o.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, my slippery friend, idiocy is alluding to someone loving child pornography simply because they don't like it's banner being raised as an excuse and then not bothering to apologize or back down from such a ridiculous stance....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was trying to make a point, a point that apparently flew right over your helmet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really. Explain it to me. What point were you making by saying "We already know you love pirates, but do you love child molestors too?"
        
        Honestly, what was the point you were trying to make?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No thanks. If you can't figure it out, perhaps your helmet is too tight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I didn't think so....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It was explained rather well by someone else in the thread. I thought my point was obvious. Apparently, you didn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fair enough. It was a big thread. Care to point me to the link for the comment (there's a button for that)?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What once was one of my favorite dissenting commentors around here has for some reason morphed into a petulant asshat that apparently gets some joy out of simply riling others up rather than adding anything substantive to the discussion. What was once links and citations coupled with what appeared to be an honest curiosity about the merits of issues has transformed into a defensive stance backstopped by a few seemingly informative citations that, once argued against reasonably, get repeated over and over again for what appears to be no other reason other than you can't admit you are or might be wrong.
        
        I agree with this so hard. I think maybe he internalized our previous belief that he wasn't a troll, and stopped trying to not be a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I agree with this so hard. I think maybe he internalized our previous belief that he wasn't a troll, and stopped trying to not be a troll."
        
        Such is the way of him, I suppose. We'll lament as a group the emerging irrelevancy of Average Joe....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "RightHaven isn't trying to reverse the fair use ruling; they're just pointing out a procedural flaw to try and reverse the fair use ruling."
        
        You really got him there, AJ. Pat yourself on the back for that one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is a difference between having a dismissal reversed on appeal, and having the appeals court declare that the use was fair. I'm sorry if you don' grasp the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dark Helmet asked you an honest and to the point question. The fact that you can't/won't answer it, says alot about your intentions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't care what DH asked me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Proving, as usual, that any time you get called out, you simply run away and hide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I never take the time to defend my position. Oh wait, I do so more than any other poster on techdirt. You fail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you've confused "defending" a position with "repeating it over and over again"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I take the time to explain my position more than any other poster on TD that I can think of. What does it get me? Grief from people like you. I'm sorry if my views upset everyone's world views. I like my world view to be challenged. People here apparently like to hear only what they want to hear. It's idiotic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I like my "worldview" to be challenged by people who have constructive criticism, who actually expand the body of information being discussed, who bring new ideas to the table, etc. (you know, like you used to do)
        
        Conversely, I get pretty bored of challenges from someone who has run out of things to say and continues to repeat the same flimsy arguments ad nauseam (you know, like you do now)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe, 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Takes one to know one! Baby!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All I did in this thread was point out that the appeal was not for the purpose of declaring the use to be fair. What is your fucking problem with that? I corrected a factual error in Mike's reporting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People here apparently like to hear only what they want to hear.
        
        No, we generally welcome constructive dissent, which you used to provide. In fact, I've defended you from other trolls on several occasions. Now, it's like you're just trolling us for shits and giggles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All I did was point out a factual error in Mike's article. Rather than get thanks, I get flack from all sides from people who, frankly, I wonder how they can even dress themselves in the morning. The level of idiocy on this site is astounding. I'm going to start tuning all the idiots out and just respond to people who want to have productive conversations. Honestly, Rose, don't defend me. I don't fucking care what you do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm going to start tuning all the idiots out and just respond to people who want to have productive conversations.
        
        So you're going to go back and respond to the conversation about censorship on Techdirt? That would be great, thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Rather than get thanks, I get flack from all sides from people who, frankly, I wonder how they can even dress themselves in the morning."
        
        No, you're getting flack because of your recent global body of commenting work on this site, some of which has included statements that many find reprehensible. And you know that.
        
        "The level of idiocy on this site is astounding."
        
        Well, that's just not nice. I'm not supposed to thank you for that too, am I?
        
        "I'm going to start tuning all the idiots out and just respond to people who want to have productive conversations."
        
        The way you've been commenting recently, I'm not responding in order to engage you any longer. I'm doing it so that unsuspecting folks who may not know your larger body of work will be aware that you aren't to be considered relevant. So I'm actually glad you'll ignore these comments; they aren't for you anyway....
        
        "Honestly, Rose, don't defend me. I don't fucking care what you do."
        
        See, now that isn't the way a respectable gentleman speaks to a lady, even one like Rose who is clearly able to hold her own and probably didn't blink reading what you wrote. Language, language, kiddo. A general respect for women would probably improve your status in most people's eyes....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You frequently run away, like the conversation about the Report button being used to censor the asshat who compared rape to copyright infringement. Also, this conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, you need to get some extra padding in the helmet, because you are getting way too sensitive about things. Is there some sort of new law that says nobody can reply to your comments? Do you feel all godly and powerful and desire to talk down to the rest of us from on high?
        
        Get over your bad self.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Should have been put up with Dark Helmet's little rant. The "reply to this" button appears to have some failures.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it's the attitude of one of the major dissenters on the TD blog has gone from being an eloquent person, who could actually hold a debate to little more than a shill in the space of two months.
        
        Something major must have happened for something like that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think maybe he internalized our previous belief that he wasn't a troll, and stopped trying to not be a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 8:18am

"The "reply to this" button appears to have some failures."

I'm betting you were having trouble hitting the right button with those huge Troll hands of yours..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am

Regardless of the true intent of Righthaven, I think the issue of procedure is a valid one here. It does seem like there should be a procedure for getting these actions kicked out earlier. However, it also seems that perhaps the judge acted in hast here. Generally the standard one must meet to succeed when filing a motion to dismiss is that the assertion of the non-moving party, even if true, does not raise an actionable claim. It might have been better to rule at the summary judgment stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 17 Feb 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  That's exactly right. Of course, we already know how this judge is going to rule on summary judgment on remand. The point is to rectify the judge's error, even though in the end, Righthaven still loses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 19 Feb 2011 @ 11:24am

Intimidation tactics
What I think is truly the issue is the fact that Righthaven is clearly using intimidation tactics and a distortion of the copyright law to carry out these cases.

The range of copyright infringement penalties go from $200 all the way to a ridiculous $150,000. So of course they're betting on the fact that no defendant wants to go into court not knowing where they'd end up on such a spectrum of penalties.

Thus, they offer a few thousand-dollar settlement because of the defendants' fear of pursuing the case, regardless of whether or not they have willfully infringed or not.

The whole thing just makes me sick, to be honest with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ken, 19 Feb 2011 @ 11:15pm

Righthaven appeal
In the Denver Posts terms of use they say it is ok to reprint an article that is no more than a few paragraphs. This is more than the site posted that Righthaven sued and is now appealing. So Righthaven is actually appealing to allow them to sue bloggers who are within the newspapers own terms of use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]