Righthaven Demands Servers Of Website Sued, Even After Court Rejects Demands For Domain
from the are-you-joking? dept
Righthaven has faced a big series of setbacks in a bunch of its cases lately, and yet it seems to continue to push forward, whistling along as if nothing bad has happened. You may recall that a court has laughed off its attempt to be given the domain name of one of the sites it sued. The court pointed out that there is no such remedy for copyright violations. No matter for the lawyers at Righthaven, however. Just days later it filed a new lawsuit that doesn't just demand forfeiture of the domain name, but also the website's hardware and software:Order the surrender to Righthaven of all hardware, software, electronic media and domains, including the Domain used to store, disseminate and display the unauthorized versions of any and all copyrighted works as provided for under 17 U.S.C. § 505(b) and/or as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64The EFF nicely debunks both the "laws" cited by Righthaven here, including pointing out that section 505 doesn't even have a section (b) and is about attorney's fees:
Not only has the domain name claim been specifically and completely rejected by that very court, but Righthaven's new citations do nothing to help its claim. As an initial matter, Section 505 does not have a subsection (b), and concerns attorneys' fees, not the surrender of domains and hardware. While Righthaven probably meant to cite to some other section and was simply sloppy in the drafting, no section of the Copyright Act will help them. Indeed, Righthaven has already "concede[d] that such relief is not authorized under the Copyright Act."All of this kind of makes you wonder what's going on at Righthaven...
Nor is the citation to Rule 64 going to help Righthaven. This is the same argument it raised in Righthaven v. DiBiase, and which the court flatly rejected. Indeed, the argument was silly to begin with, since Rule 64 concerns state law remedies and copyright is a federal law.
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, servers
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Consistency check?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SLAPP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hosting provider?
How can they sue for something the defendant most likely doesn't even own?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hosting provider?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They need server space and domains. This will allow them to actually put the content they "own" out there on the Internet so they can show the judges that they're not just a sham lawsuit mill.
Since they're lawyers, the only way they know how to acquire things is to sue someone else for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The sheer idiocy of it
I work at home and I have a contract with some company. I breach that contract but because I work from home, the company that is suing me wants me to change my last name and take away my house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Consistency check?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously, schadenfreude of this magnitude is like sex - Righthaven going out of business is just the climax we're building towards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Courts also have the ability to assign costs to the attorney who signed off on the brief. These fines are levied against the attorney, and not the defendant.
The federal courts just reinstated mandatory penalties for frivilous actions. It should now start implementing them.
Sadly however, it takes an attorney to ask for any of these sanctions, and no attorney wants to, for fear that he may be targeted next. I believe it is a Rule 11(b) filed against an attorney who files a frivilous Rule 11(b)motion.
Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
(a) Signature.
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name — or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.
(b) Representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions.
A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
(3) On the Court's Initiative.
On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction.
A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions.
The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(6) Requirements for an Order.
An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
(d) Inapplicability to Discovery.
This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rule 64?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rule 64?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Rule 64?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who are Righthaven's lawyers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Righthaven thinks itself the savior of copyrights
The transcript should be available here later today or tomorrow: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/04/22/02
Sadly the interviewer let him get off very easy and didn't ask any of the questions I wish he would have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I still think if a relatively intelligent layman has to break out a dictionary to understand a law, it should be rewritten.
"replevin;
sequestration;" -excerpt from rule 64
-please excuse my ignorance if these are common words to other relatively intelligent laymen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What Righthaven needs in court ...
They need all the help they can get:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtespeLin2c
I bet these would be just as effective as the lawyers they have now, and cheaper too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]