Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?
from the oh-yes,-and-porn dept
Amusing note in a recent Las Vegas Sun report about the latest goings on with copyright troll Righthaven: there are some indications that the company forgot to renew its business license, and that could create some problems for some of its lawsuits:Has Righthaven been so busy filing and settling lawsuits that it forgot to renew its state business license?Separate from that, the report also notes that Righthaven just registered the copyright on some porn DVDs, so it may be expanding beyond copyright trolling for the newspaper business (not that lucrative), and follow the footsteps of a bunch of opportunist lawyers who have started doing mass file sharing pre-settlement shakedown letter campaigns for porn producers (without too much success so far).
Its status with the Nevada Secretary of State as of Monday was listed as "default" after the license expired Jan. 31. Net Sortie Systems LLC, Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson's company that co-owns Righthaven, is also listed as in default.
[....]
Righthaven's "default" status will likely interest defendants in nine Righthaven lawsuits filed in Denver federal court this month over a Denver Post "TSA pat-down photo."
That's because Righthaven asserts in these lawsuits: "Righthaven is, and has been at all times relevant to this lawsuit, in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State."
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: business license
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031106/0945203.shtml
Yes, I am quite aware that business license != business name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright enforcement = bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
#The only question I now have is, if Righthaven is in default, could that affect all of the lawsuits by defaulting as a business, seeing as legally it doesn't exist anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
copyright enforcement = bad
No, copyright = bad.
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright what exactly?
The mind reels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how you don't mention that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how you don't mention that.
It wasn't when the article was written. Funny how *you* don't mention *that*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would say this looks mostly like a case of playing "Gotcha!", and is incredibly childish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, this is the norm for Techdirt. Meaningless "Gotcha!" with a side of FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's no fear uncertainty or doubt, except at the honesty and integrity of companies like Righthaven for seeking maximums on minimal issues. Like fair use of articles and uses of material.
Keep trying though, you want people living their lives in fear so they will cow to you, but good luck with that here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There's no fear uncertainty or doubt, except at the honesty and integrity of companies like Righthaven for seeking maximums on minimal issues. Like fair use of articles and uses of material.
Keep trying though, you want people living their lives in fear so they will cow to you, but good luck with that here.
Oh please. This whole article is FUD.
"Righthaven's "default" status will likely interest defendants in nine Righthaven lawsuits filed in Denver federal court this month over a Denver Post"
That's textbook uncertainty and textbook doubt.
Notice how there's no analysis of whether the lapse of their license will have any actual effect on any lawsuit. That's left to the imagination of the reader.
Classic FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still think that the poster I responded to does not know what "FUD" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs."
Basically, Mike (and most of the other Righthaven haters) are so upset because they cannot find a truly valid legal objection to their arrangements, that they are down to picking at nits to try to make them look bad, to try to underrmine their crediblity, in this case by making them look so gung-ho to sue that they aren't even taking care of their own business.
Yet, the situation likely has more to do with the speed that the state of Nevada processes paper work on rewnewals, and has little to do with any grand level of negligence in the company.
It is FUD at it's finest. It adds nothing to the discussion, it is just nasty, cheap, and rather childish.
[ 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:
Radiohead blows off the business models that made them poster children for the freetard movement, and that doesn't even get a mention. Mike doesn't want to address the idea of a band (with apparently none of the middlemen issues) selling 8 wave files for $14. It's like he doesn't want to address the concept that perhaps the band realizes there was no benefit in feeding the slobbering "I want it free" masses.
We don't get that discussion. But we do get an entire post trying to slam Righthaven for something that probably isn't even their own doing.
Vindictive, nasty, and misleading. FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just throwing this out there: your point would come across a little more clearly if you wouldn't insist on tossing around perjorative terms. It doesn't color my impression of the general public but it certainly changes my perception of you.
"Vindictive, nasty, and misleading." That's a pretty good definition of your chosen terminology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Radiohead figured it out. The average paying customer gave them reasonable money on their last album, but when you figured in the 'tard factor, they got about $2 a shot. Obviously, they value their work a little higher than that, and now they want a minimum of $9 ($14 for wav files) for their new album. The funniest part being that they will probably get the same number of sales (if not more) by not feeding the 'tards.
My words are not vindicative. They are not nasty or misleading (as they are true).
What is troubling here is that Mike has chosen to ignore the story (he also didn't mention that Assange lost his legal fight and is off to Sweden). I understand that his goal is to present one side of the story. I just wish more of his supporters here could figure that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly! So, you should focus on suing those people into oblivion, that way they won't take whatever you're peddling without paying, and instead just ignore it completely! That's *sure* to increase revenue!
The funniest part being that they will probably get the same number of sales (if not more) by not feeding the 'tards.
The funniest part is how you are making something up with absolutely zero basis in reality or even factual information, and you think it proves your point.
What is troubling here is that Mike has chosen to ignore the story (he also didn't mention that Assange lost his legal fight and is off to Sweden).
Yes, very troubling that a tech site didn't mention that an editor was being extradited to Sweden to face rape charges. If/When he is extradited to the US, I'm positive we will see it here.
The Radiohead experiment #2, if it shows any useful data, will no doubt be covered when that data is released. What if it tanks, and they make 10% of sales? You're acting as if Mike is avoiding this story, but he already covered Radiohead's decision to not go with "pay what you want" for this album.
Seriously dude, if you don't like what Mike writes about, don't come to techdirt. We won't miss you, as you never seem to bring anything to the table. I don't troll RIAA blogs (do they allow comments?) calling people names, because I don't see a point in it.
What point do *you* find in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly! So, you should focus on suing those people into oblivion, that way they won't take whatever you're peddling without paying, and instead just ignore it completely! That's *sure* to increase revenue!
When did Radiohead start suing them? Nobody made this suggestion. My point only is that Radiohead stopped feeding the freetard seagulls, realizing that they were wasting their time trying to cultivate an audience in a group of people who has no intention of being consumers for this sort of product.
The funniest part is how you are making something up with absolutely zero basis in reality or even factual information, and you think it proves your point.
The future is something neither of us can confirm today. That is why I said "probably". There is absolutely no proof from the last go around that any of the free distribution did them any long term benefit. We will see. I expressed an opinion, too bad you don't agree. Get over it.
Yes, very troubling that a tech site didn't mention that an editor was being extradited to Sweden to face rape charges. If/When he is extradited to the US, I'm positive we will see it here.
Yet there were how many stories about him getting stopped in the UK to start with? One direct, and any number of others discussing it (including the catholic church galileo one). I would think that a note in passing (and perhaps some commentary on how this plays for Wikileaks) might be in order. The silence is sort of deafening.
if it shows any useful data, will no doubt be covered when that data is released.
I think it will only get covered here if it shows data that supports the agenda, not if it does not. It is sort of like how the facts of the Radiohead deal were ignored (such as the concept that the shiny plastic disc versions "outsold" the online stuff in their first week alone).
What point do *you* find in it?
I find entertainment, I find a mental challenge, and I find incredible humor in the study of what Mike says and does. We joke about kool-aid here a lot, but really, techdirt is about forming a cult of sorts, of assembling people. It's sort of amusing to watch internet forms of megalomania and narcissism developing over time as Techdirt goes on. The entertainment value of that alone (plus watching RD go off his meds every few weeks and fly into a wild rage in his posts) are worth it.
What about you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you have me confused with someone else. As a side note: you can click on the word "profile" next to my name and see all my past comments.
My point only is that Radiohead stopped feeding the freetard seagulls, realizing that they were wasting their time trying to cultivate an audience in a group of people who has no intention of being consumers for this sort of product.
I have tried several times to respond to this statement, but it's proving to be tough, because it is *so* wrong that any way I choose to respond to it requires explaining to you the very basics of the internet, which is no small task. However, in the interest of a friendly discussion, I'm going to give it a shot: Radiohead does not have to do *any* extra work to "feeding the freetard seagulls". All they have to do is make music. In fact, the usual gnashing of teeth and sending the lawyers after file sharers expends *more* energy than just ignoring them. You are suggesting that they had to go out of their way to offer their last album as "pay what you want"-- but they did not. As a side note, I feel that pay what you want is the way to go. If I wanted their album, but not at $9, my last remaining option would be piracy, which means they get nothing. If I could pay what I wanted, they could get what I was willing to pay and if that ends up being $1, that's $1 more than with a structured price scheme. At any rate, I get unlimited music with Rdio for $10, so one album for $9 is stupid. You'll see.
I expressed an opinion, too bad you don't agree. Get over it.
Your opinion was not humorous at all. So, starting your opinion with "the funny thing is.." seems odd. Unless you were pretending that you knew the future *and* you didn't know the difference between "funny" and "ironic". I'm over it, now. :)
I would think that a note in passing (and perhaps some commentary on how this plays for Wikileaks) might be in order. The silence is sort of deafening.
How many times have you read Mike say "I wasn't even going to mention this, but it keeps getting submitted.."? Did *you* submit the story? I know I didn't, because nothing new came out *except* that he was going to get extradited. That's something I knew from my news feed. There's not much to elaborate on it-- since no new data has been discovered, so an entire post on a opinion blog about a story that has already been covered because of one new fact doesn't seem like good time management. I'm sure you covered it six ways to Sunday on your blog. Go ahead and link it so I can be properly informed?
It is sort of like how the facts of the Radiohead deal were ignored (such as the concept that the shiny plastic disc versions "outsold" the online stuff in their first week alone).
Yes, Techdirt never mentioned at all that Radiohead's Physical Album [was] Selling Well. You've got me there. :)
I find entertainment, I find a mental challenge, and I find incredible humor in the study of what Mike says and does. We joke about kool-aid here a lot, but really, techdirt is about forming a cult of sorts, of assembling people.
Well, if calling people names in lieu of having a sound argument gives you a mental challenge... well, you said it, not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Radiohead does not have to do *any* extra work to "feeding the freetard seagulls".
You are thinking too linearly to get the point. They gave away online in downloads about 1.2 million copies. They averages $2.25 or so per download (about 2.7 million dollars). They also released the record on those horrible, out of date, tacky, and terrible shiny plastic discs. The results?
In October 2008, the band's publisher Warner Chappell Music Publishing revealed that the album had sold three million copies (including digital and physical format sales) since the album's physical release in January. (from wikipedia, sourced through http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/radiohead-publishers-reveal-in-rainbows-numbers-20081015
T rust me, they didn't sell those for $2.25.
They figured out that the freeloaders didn't do much for them, and this time they are selling the record directly. But it online now, or get it as a shiny plastic disc, or vinyl, or a combination of both in the near future.
How many times have you read Mike say "I wasn't even going to mention this, but it keeps getting submitted.."? Did *you* submit the story?
Repeatedly. Mike tends to shy away from these stories because he cannot find a positive spin on them. They don't mesh with his outlook on the world. The only way he could run it would be to call Radiohead fools, but considering how much shiny plastic disc business they did on the last record, he would be hard pressed to explain why Radiohead isn't repeating the free give away.
Yes, Techdirt never mentioned at all that Radiohead's Physical Album [was] Selling Well. You've got me there. :)
That is actually proving my point. The only way Mike could discuss it was to claim (in his own manner) that the give away is what drove the record sales. " it appears that Radiohead's internet experiment has been quite a success.". So successful, that they are specifically not repeating it. It would be incredibly hard for Mike to come up with a way to explain it that doesn't admit that perhaps it isn't a workable model.
Well, if calling people names in lieu of having a sound argument gives you a mental challenge... well, you said it, not me
Do tell! Terms like "freetards" and "slobbering masses" are sort of the best at describing two different groups of people. Would you prefer that I call them "sad loners" instead? Or how about freeloaders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're still not getting it. Once the album is recorded, it takes no extra effort to allow people to pay what they want. The work has already been done. Since it takes no extra work, if they make just *one* sale from someone who thinks $9 is too high, but is willing to pay $1, that's $1 more than they would have made-- all for zero extra work. How is this not obvious? It's on torrent sites as we speak. I can get it for free if I so desire, or I can pay $9. There is no middle ground. With a pay-what-you-want scheme, there is flexibility for me, the consumer, to pay the price I see fit.
T rust me, they didn't sell those for $2.25.
Nor should they. The price of buying the disc, pressing it, packaging it and shipping it adds to the cost. Dare I mention how inefficient that process is when compared to the internet? I bet Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mules would cost quite a bit, too, and they're going to charge enough to make it profitable. Would you advise people to start selling Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mule? No, because it's an outdated technology with expensive materials and an inefficient distribution method.
They figured out that the freeloaders didn't do much for them, and this time they are selling the record directly.
It's obvious they over-value their music, if that is the case. If I ask you "How much will you give me for a cup of coffee?" and you say "$4" and I turn around and tell you it's $8 a cup, then I'm making a bad business decision.
Mike tends to shy away from these stories because he cannot find a positive spin on them.
This is a strange comment, when at least 5 times a day I read that all Mike does is spread FUD. Now, it's FUD with a positive spin on it?
The only way he could run it would be to call Radiohead fools, but considering how much shiny plastic disc business they did on the last record, he would be hard pressed to explain why Radiohead isn't repeating the free give away.
Yes, he'd be very hard pressed to explain that. Personally, I don't think he'd even try it. :P
That is actually proving my point.
Wait, what? Your point was that Mike didn't mention it, and when I pointed you, with link, that he did mention it, it proved *your* point? Wow.
Would you prefer that I call them "sad loners" instead? Or how about freeloaders?
You can call them potential customers, or underserved customers, or just call them "people". There have been studies that show that so-called freeloaders actually spend more on media than average. Guess freeloader is a bad term. As for "sad loner", my non-techie friends are starting to infringe on copyrights. Hell, my boss does it. These aren't computer geeks living in a basement with no friends, these are normal, everyday people who no longer see sharing culture as wrong. You make up names for these people as if they deserve your scorn, as if they are somehow different than other people. You're acting like a child, calling people names because you don't like something about them.
I don't know what your lot is in all of this, but I really think you need to stop and look around at the world. People are going to share their culture whether you like it or not. You simply cannot stop them. In a vain attempt to prevent this, companies are only succeeding in losing the goodwill of their potential customers, and driving away the customers they do have.
If you have a response, and I hope you do, be a pal and start a new thread at the bottom: This on will quickly become unreadable in threaded format. :)
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only uncertainty is who you work for. I doubt its anyone with the consumers intrests at heart.
The FUD you are claiming is not the FUD you think it is. FUD is an ad telling you that you've got a virus when you clearly don't and getting the user to install something that tells them they have a virus and oh! The only way to fix is is to send the company $50 for the "cleaner" since all they sent you first was the "scanner".
Sounds a lot like righthavens business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup. FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hiring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hiring?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
continued here
No, you're still not getting it. Once the album is recorded, it takes no extra effort to allow people to pay what they want.
Nope, I get that entirely. But it is a meaningless diversion, because the additional people you attract with this sort of offer aren't customers, and they are unlikely to be customers because they are only attracted by the free. More over, you allow existing customers to pay a little less, which hurts even more, and shows them perhaps that they are foolish to pay for it. Based on what Radiohead are doing this time, they are pricing above what the average paying customer paid last time, and about 4 times more than what they earned on average. Moneywise, they only have to move 25% as many copies to make the same money.
or should they. The price of buying the disc, pressing it, packaging it and shipping it adds to the cost.
It doesn't make the price be about 7 - 8 times as much (assuming about a $15 retail price, against the $2.25 per download they got). Moreover, the actual physical product in stores allows for others to promote the product in other ways, which expands their otherwise limited online sales. 1.2 million downloads, 3 million plus shiny discs. The proof is in the numbers.
This is a strange comment, when at least 5 times a day I read that all Mike does is spread FUD. Now, it's FUD with a positive spin on it?
You are trying to combine two things that are not related. When Mike likes a story (it supports his world view) we get the story, often repeated over and over in different ways. When he doesn't like something (attacking his world view) we also get those, often with repeated doses of FUD (see the recent Righthaven and MPAA stories). When a story is against his world view but there is no government or evil group to attack, he is sort of high and dry, and mostly chooses to ignore it.
Wait, what? Your point was that Mike didn't mention it, and when I pointed you, with link, that he did mention it, it proved *your* point?
Point is if he does mention it, it is only because he can find some massively unprovable spin to put on it to make it look like he was right. "I'd bet that an awful lot of those buyers also downloaded the music first ". Absolutely not consideration for the idea that perhaps the shiny plastic disc version which made the release useful for radio, for retailers all over the world, for shiny plastic disc outlets online (like Amazon), and the like to actually sell the product. I cannot imagine (and there is little proof past anecdotal) that people who download a full high quality version of an album go out and buy the same album.
ou can call them potential customers, or underserved customers, or just call them "people".
Except they are rarely customers, hey are certainly not underserved, just under paying. They are people, but in a business sense, they are the riff-raff that rifles through your inventory, messes up your shop, and leaves after using the bathroom and peeing on the toilet seat.
As for "sad loner", my non-techie friends are starting to infringe on copyrights. Hell, my boss does it. These aren't computer geeks living in a basement with no friends, these are normal, everyday people who no longer see sharing culture as wrong.
Thank you for identifying the end result of widespread and uncheck piracy. Feeding these people more free music isn't helping the situation, is it? Perhaps you would like to explain that Mike next, he apparently doesn't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: continued here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: continued here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]