Another Loss For Righthaven: Court Explains That Its Demand For Domain Names Is Silly
from the bad-day-for-righthaven dept
Righthaven hasn't been having too much luck lately. We've already covered how its having a bad day for a few different reasons, and here's another one. As you may know, in nearly every lawsuit Righthaven files, it also demands that the defendant hand over his or her website, in addition to the $75,000 to $150,000 it usually asks for. This has left a bunch of folks scratching their heads, as there's simply no precedent for saying that if you infringe on someone's copyright, they get your domain. And, now, we have a court making that point clear. Eric Goldman points us to a ruling in Las Vegas by judge Roger Hunt (the same judge who unsealed the filing that may kill off most of Righthaven's lawsuits...), in which he points out that asking for the domain name has no basis in law:Righthaven's complaint requests the Court to direct Heritage Web Design, LLC, the current registrar of DiBiase's website domain name (www.nobodycases.com), to lock that domain and transfer control of it to Righthaven. However, "[t]he remedies for infringement 'are only those prescribed by Congress,'" Sony Corp. Of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984) (quoting Thompson v. Hubbard, 131 U.S. 123, 151 (1889)), and Congress has never expressly granted plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases the right to seize control over the defendant's website domain. Therefore, the Court finds that Righthaven's request for such relief fails as a matter of law and is dismissed.One by one, the various pieces of Righthaven's legal campaign are falling apart.
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, domain names
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
3 Questions
How much have they brought in via 'settlements'?
Will they be forced to give back their ill gotten gains?
If the answers to these questions are in Righthaven's favor then it was an epic win for them even if they can't use it anymore. It's the way most scams work, abuse the system until you get caught, keep your winnings and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 Questions
It would essentially mean that they would be blacklisted, as any attorney dealing with them after that point in any further legal actions against someone could very highly result in a speedy disbarment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 Questions
Not nearly enough.
They're still here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't that apply to ICE's domain name seizures as well (at least for the allegedly copyright infringing seizures) or was that why ICE decided to label it as criminal infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would not be surprised if they sold off the domains they seized like a pack of cyber-squatters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you had spent years building a following and thought for a moment someone could just take all of that away by getting your domain, you look towards how to make it go away quickly and keep what you have.
The problem in these cases is there is not much help available unless you have a large warchest to draw upon to get a team to rip it apart. Considering many of their targets were small blogs, they just wanted to be able to show "wins" to help convince others to cave to their demands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HOWEVER...if Righthaven demand the domain in by letter or some other demand on the Defendant, that is an issue between the parties. Parties can negotiate and request anything they like, unless it is not criminally unlawful.
Negotitations and settlements can take place on whatever terms the parties agree, and the Defendant can choose whether or not to accept the 'offer' (term used loosely).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My understanding is that while the remedy is not expressly granted in the Copyright Act, it could be an equitable remedy under Section 502. I don't think it's accurate to say that the remedy is per se not available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HOWEVER...if Righthaven demand the domain in by letter or some other demand on the Defendant, that is an issue between the parties. Parties can negotiate and request anything they like, unless it is not criminally unlawful.
Negotitations and settlements can take place on whatever terms the parties agree, and the Defendant can choose whether or not to accept the 'offer' (term used loosely).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dismissed
Righthaven, dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dismissed
...go to Chili's or Longhorn Steakhouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, what if ...
I kind of wish the EFF had enough resources to take this on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]