Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model
from the smart-judge dept
It's looking like more and more judges are recognizing that the new found love of copyright trolls, to use the US judicial system as a shotgun to force people to pay settlement fees, is not a proper use of the courts. The company has been losing some important rulings, and has had to drop other lawsuits. Over in Colorado, where Righthaven has been filing a bunch of lawsuits for the Denver Post, Judge John Kane has made it clear that he's not impressed by Righthaven's business model and sees no reason to use the court to help it:"[W]hether or not this case settles is not my primary concern. Although Plaintiff's business model relies in large part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort, the purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of controversies and disputes. Plaintiff’s wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability."This was in rejecting Righthaven's request for an extension for filing its latest motion in a case, which is a really standard thing that judges almost always grant. But here, the judge said no. That alone is a pretty big slam against Righthaven.
Righthaven then quickly dismissed the lawsuit, which had been filed against "a mentally and physically disabled" 20-year old. Amusingly, in the dismissal notice, Righthaven lashes out at the defendant for using the lawsuit to attack it and its business model, and says that's why it has decided to drop the lawsuit. Uh, yeah, right.
That sort of petulant tone probably isn't going to help Righthaven or its client, the Denver Post, considering that the judge here, Judge Kane, is the judge for all of Righthaven's Colorado cases. Either way it's nice to see more and more courts pushing back on these kinds of lawsuits. I'm curious to hear the responses of those in our comments who thought these lawsuits were all perfectly legit when they were being filed.
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 model, copyright, copyright trolls, courts
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"We wanted to extort a few dollars from the defendant and the defendant played along. It is unfair that the defendant then turned around and tried to use the court to pursue justice in this case, catching us with our pants down. Everyone else reading this, don't think we will be so thin-skinned or incompetent in the next case."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great statement
So basically, they are complaining that the defendant is using the legal system as leverage to bully them into doing something they would normally not agree to do.
...something about a pot and a kettle...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Performance rights agencies must be kicking themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Performance rights agencies must be kicking themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Performance rights agencies must be kicking themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That quote should be part of every defense motion filed in these types of cases. It is nice to see it put so concisely. We have seen people post here in TD that is is perfectly fine to send pre-settlement letters as soon as the John Doe cases are filed, but that leads to exactly the type of abuse this judge has highlighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking Lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking Lawyers
They create their own hell by foolish lawsuits like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How was this lawsuit against Hill not legitimate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't hear your judgment in there, did anybody?
For all we know what he did was vanilla fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's how I understood it, anyway.
[ 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:
If I ever visit DC again, I will make sure to find you, and see if you can says these things to someones' face. I think you are a coward, and there's no way you could say this shit to my face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair use should be a defense before a lawsuit, not after. Having a lawsuit filed against you is already a punishment before possibly being found liable for anything. Lawyers are expensive and there is no right to an attorney for a civil suit. It's exactly why these cases are extortion. Lack of money should not be the cause for a lack of justice. If the system is so complicated that a poor man who cannot hire a lawyer cannot also defend himself easily, the system is corrupted and broken.
But beyond all this, these lawsuits are not ethical, regardless of how legal they may be perceived to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As the defendant's attorney stated, the fact that no cease and desist or any other attempt to get the allegedly infringing material removed from the defendant's site prior to the lawsuit being filed shows that the plaintif wasn't concerned with anything other than using these lawsuits to shake down people for money. That's why all these lawsuits are not ligitimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is strange that on the one hand, Hill was claiming to be in serious settlement talks with Righthaven, but on the other hand, Hill opposed their motion for more time to respond to his motion. Usually parties that are in settlement talks do not oppose such motions. It's a gesture of good faith.
Regardless, despite Righthaven's silly warnings to other defendants at the end of their notice, this case does show that they'll back down if the stakes get too high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
writing it down so I have the copyright
AJ v Coldbrew
Staring Mel Gibson as AJ the freshly minted lawyer.
An epic tale of good against evil.
You'll pay for your seat but you won't need it as this film will have you on your feet cheering throughout.
This film has not been rated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because their entire business model will collapse when the precedents are handed down, and Righthaven wishes to prolong the time they can extort money from people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying that its okay for Righthaven to file completely baseless lawsuits to extort money from innocent people, and then give up only when it looks bad in the press?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Righthaven chooses to drop the case says a lot when that's it's method of gaining money. It's finally stepped over the line and had it's fingers slapped.
Guess it will have to move to some other area to continue this method of bilking people out of money since it's crapped in it's local food bowl.
Sarcasm on: Ain't life a bitch! sarcasm off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sloppy reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sloppy reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sloppy reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drop but not dismiss
So the headline is designed to be inflamatory and untrue.
Just was we have come to expact from Mike, its not 'sloppy' reporting, it's not reporting at all.
Just ignorant tripe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drop but not dismiss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drop but not dismiss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]