Righthaven Hires 'Star' Copyright Maximalist Lawyer To Try To Dig Itself Out Of The Deep Hole It's In
from the that'll-cost-you dept
Righthaven has been coming up on the wrong end of its lawsuits again and again and again and again and again lately. So, apparently, the lawyers at Righthaven have realized they're in way over their heads and have hired a so-called "superstar" copyright litigator, Dale Cendali, who's well known for regularly defending copyright maximalism positions and publicly stating that any reduction in copyright protectionism would lead to a decline in content production:If copyright protection were reduced, then the incentives to innovate would also be reduced, undercutting the constitutional scheme. The scale, complexity and number of original works would likely drop.Of course, the actual research on this topic suggests otherwise. Also, it's a bit bizarre that later in the same post, she points out (incorrectly) that copyright is about reflecting "a balancing of interests." If that's the case, why does she claim that any move to reduce protection would reduce output?
Anyway, she's definitely a big name, and that may at least help Righthaven in the short-term in no longer tripping over itself every time it tries to make a legal argument, but I can't see it helping in the long-term. As Eric Goldman points out in the story above, it also mucks with Righthaven's business model:
"Their model assumes lots of quick settlements, and their profit/loss projections may not have anticipated just how many -- and how hard -- defendants would fight back in court. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ms. Cendali's fees in this case end up being many multiples of the maximum damages that Righthaven could possibly hope to get from Pahrump Life. That's hardly a path to riches for Righthaven,"
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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, dale cendali, fair use
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hiring a big gun to clean up the mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hiring a big gun to clean up the mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All copyright lawyers fellate iguanas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of stupid is
Learning, evolution, whatever you call it, the idea is pain avoidance. Driving in the rear-view mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of stupid is
Napster --> gone.
MP3.com --> gone.
Limewire --> gone.
Anyone defended by Charlie Nesson --> close to gone.
Many defendants targeted by RIAA --> poorer.
Legg Mason --> $20m poorer
Google --> $100m poorer and it's not done yet.
When the courts look at issues like this, they seem to take the side of the copyright holders most of the time. Oh, there's an occasional fair use victory, but for the most part the rightsholders win.
So I'm guessing you're a copyright maximalist, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition of stupid is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro Bono?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is a "right sized copyright"?
So what type of enforcement is right sized? If some kid wants to download information on suicide techniques and the rightholder says, "Sorry, that's not allowed."
Come on. The Rightshaven cases are about fair use and where we draw the line. They're not about someone saying that only one person can watch a DVD at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and by the way, get rid of the antiquated "safe harbor" crap. Cyber-lockers thrive by encouraging John Q. Public to upload files and "share" them to earn CASH rewards-make pirates out of the public. That's where to focus efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't monetary profit the real incentive behind innovation these days? It used to be the cessation of copyright on a given creation within a reasonable time frame, but thanks to the content industries this motivation doesn't really exist anymore. Thanks to the insanely long extensions they've managed to lobby for, copyright was rendered meaningless for all but a privileged few in society. Copyright is now used as a club instead of what it was originally intended for, and the collective whole pays the price because none of the really important innovations our culture truly needs are profitable enough. Plus we're starting to see a disturbing trend regarding what can only be described as theft of that which is public domain. Pfft, and they argue file sharers are the immoral ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]