Righthaven Begs To Be Put Back Into Case That Judge Dismissed The Company From, Claiming It's Fixed All The Problems
from the mere-technicalities dept
Having lost bigtime in its lawsuit against the Democratic Underground, in a ruling where the judge questioned Righthaven's motives and legality, it appears Righthaven is fighting back. In that original ruling, Righthaven was totally dismissed from the case, because the judge recognized that the company never actually held the copyrights in question, and thus had no standing to sue. Righthaven has now filed with the court to be added back to the case, claiming that its "amended" agreement with Stephens Media has fixed all the problems and has now made it clear that Righthaven is, in fact, the copyright holder. Not only that, but Righthaven claims that the new agreement means that Righthaven is the only one with standing, in an attempt to get Stephens Media off the liability hook.Of course, it seems that Righthaven may have a serious uphill battle here. The judge in the case had already seen the amended agreement and suggested that it was cosmetic, at best. Judge Hunt clearly saw this for what it was: a highly questionable attempt to pretend Righthaven had copyrights it never actually had, to give it only a very limited right to sue -- and, an attempt to shield (the much larger) Stephens Media from liability for having filed questionable lawsuits. I would not be surprised to see the judge reject this as just a superficial attempt to get around the clear intention of the Copyright Act to bundle the right to sue with the actual rights prescribed in the Act, and not to allow companies like Righthaven to merely buy lawsuits.
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, nevada, standing
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perjury and criminal charges should follow.
Well a fella can dream can't he?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice
1. Fabricating or disposing of evidence
2. Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
3. Intimidating or threatening a judge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But rather than change, they are clarifying and amending to respectfully satisfy the judge who has as far as they are concerned failed to understand the agreement as written originally and the changes are only to help his feeble mind come to the understanding that is clear to everyone else.
OOOOH please let him throw the book at them.
please please please
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice
Maybe not. Maybe this is just an ethics violation and therefore just a matter for the state bar.
IANAL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice
1. Fabricating or disposing of evidence
2. Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
3. Intimidating or threatening a judge
Perjury is also included so Righthaven could (if this was in the UK) be charged if they have made false statements or deliberately concealed evidence - seems a bit of a stretch however as Righthaven have been mostly openly stupid..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keep trying WrongHaven, you're almost there.
Remember when Jack Thompson was disbarred?
http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Righthaven fellates pigs, violently!
[ link to this | view in thread ]