If Righthaven Declares Bankruptcy, Expect Lawyers To Go After Stephens Media, Media News, And Righthaven Principals
from the limited-liability? dept
There are lots of rumors swirling about a possible Righthaven bankruptcy, but that doesn't seem to worry those pushing for class action lawsuits against the company. Lawyer Todd Kincannon, whose been leading the charge against Righthaven on that front, apparently told law professor Eric Johnson that he'll keep going after other parties:“I always knew Righthaven would file bankruptcy if things got rough,” Kincannon told me by e-mail. “They were set up as a limited liability company just so they could do that. Fortunately, Stephens Media, MediaNews Group, Sherman Frederick, Steve Gibson, and Dickinson Wright all seem to have plenty of money.”Of course, Righthaven, being a limited liability company, may make that more difficult. And as awful a company as I think Righthaven has been, I'm a bit wary of breaking down the walls of a limited liability company. If it can be shown that Righthaven was set up by folks knowing that the effort was fraudulent, and that the sole purpose of Righthaven was to protect those who knew that what they were doing was illegal, that may open the window for pursuing other parties further. But, if they honestly believed that this was a legit operation and setup, I'm really not convinced that the pursuit should go beyond Righthaven -- especially to folks like Steve Gibson. I could see going after Stephens Media and MediaNews Group as one could argue they were really the driving forces behind the lawsuits. But taking on individuals seems like going too far.
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: bankruptcy, corporate veil, todd kincannon
Companies: medianews, righthaven, stephens media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Deep Pockets
Seriously, make this crap as toxic as you can. Maybe that'll warn off others trying for the easy bucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why, simply because we have come accustomed to allowing individuals acting as 'businesses' to get away with things that they would never get away with acting as individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No sympathy
Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Go after them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you also think that the guys who founded Napster should be personally liable for what Napster was found guilty of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The record labels and the courts would disagree with you. Which is the point. We can't just pierce the corporate veil when we don't like the actions of one company, if you're not willing to accept it when you think that the company's actions are ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that isn't a criminal activity, then I have no clue what is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have any criminal charges been filed? Until such time as they're found guilty of criminal conduct, I don't think it's fair to say that the individuals should face such punishment.
And, of course, a criminal lawsuit would involve the gov't, not the folks that Righthaven sued, so it's a totally different ballgame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fair question, but I do not know the full details of the Napster case. Bringing an file sharing application to market, that is then used for nefarious purposes is not the same as extorting money from individuals (and working the courts through very shady legal means).
However, if the courts deemed it was Napster's intent, then I would have no issue with them tarballing the source code and offering it for free download. That would seem comparable, but probably defeat the purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In Napster's case, people were sharing mixed tapes like nobody's business, people were burning and sharing mixed CD's already, and none of those people were being sued. That they saw this, and simply wanted to make it easier to do the same sharing that was already going on kind of takes the "they knew before hand that it was illegal, and they willfully broke the law to make a bunch of money" argument off the table...it was a couple of college kids and not certified lawyers ya know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
If copyright trolls had set up Righthaven to shield their own trolling activity from liability, then it seems fair that Righthaven founders should be personally liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Principals, not Principles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boy, you always pull your punches on corporations, Mike.
"Righthaven Principles"? -- Those can't be worth much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No double standards.
Please, no double standards for liability Mike. Right haven sued individuals for $150,000 plus their web domain. Individuals can't claim the protections Righthaven set up for itself. Right haven has balked at paying even the smaller judgments against it and claims that paying 34,000 would risk bankruptcy. They shouldn't get to have it both ways, where they never have to pay out anything because of the likey underfunded, assets shifted LLC but they ruthlessly prosecute vulnerable individuals, including the ill and mentally challenged for high dollar amounts.
Righthaven's principles and their conspirators should be individually liable for the consequences of their deliberate actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No double standards.
It's somewhat conflicting when you consider it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No double standards.
It's somewhat conflicting when you consider it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No double standards.
Same question as above. Should Napster's founders be liable for what Napster was eventually found guilty of doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No double standards.
Whether that was indeed Napster's founders' purpose is unknown to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No double standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No double standards.
Actually, no. The DMCA came to be in Oct. 1998, Napster was released in June of 1999.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No double standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wolf_and_the_Lamb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They played fast and loose with the law and committed fraud upon the court by not owning what they claimed to own. The individuals created a company to collect the money and then take the fall when it all went south, this is a premeditated act.
The willfully abused the law to create lawsuits in which Rightshaven had no standing at all, but was a paper tiger to do the dirty work and collect the money.
I think everyone involved with Rightshaven should have their assets frozen until every penny can be accounted for and returned to the people they ripped off. Rightshaven should be seized and every document should be examined to show exactly how rotten the apple was, then based on that charges and liability should be pressed against the companies and possibly the owners of those companies depending on what the review of records reveals.
They stood and claimed copyright was so very important, and then successfully twisted the law in a scheme to net "free money" where they did not own the copyright. They did an end run around the process set out by law, and went right to suing for much more than they could possibly get. This is not people being lead astray, this is people trying to get as much as they can in a quasilegal way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support Todd Kincannon
I support what Todd Kincannon is doing. Righthaven needs to be held as an example so other would be scam artists and trolls will think twice about ever attempting something similar again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I support Todd Kincannon
A good example is General Electric's long history of bribes, fraud, and corruption including the Pittsfield operation's 40 years of dumping an estimated 500,000 to 1.5 million pounds of PCB-saturated insulating oil into the Hudson river. No one individual has been convicted, jailed, or fined for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I support Todd Kincannon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I support Todd Kincannon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support Todd Kincannon
I support what Todd Kincannon is doing. Righthaven needs to be held as an example so other would be scam artists and trolls will think twice about ever attempting something similar again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
noun
4.a chief or head.
5.the head or director of a school or, especially in England, a college.
6.a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The pictures of his house:
http://lasvegasnewspaper.blog.com/gibsonshome/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While it's true we need to allow some leeway when it comes to using an unusual or downright strange legal theory, if there is significant caselaw showing an issue is already decided, which there is when it comes to transferring copyrights, a lawyer should have a professional duty not to mislead the court by suggesting there isn't. Otherwise the legal system is a farce in which a party with the funds to pay a lawyer to make specious arguments for a few months or years has a decided advantage over the average person.
What Gibson did in setting up Righthaven was equivalent to an accountant trying to write off hookers and blow on a client's tax return. He could argue about his theories on tax law all he wants, but in the end he's held responsible for what he should know. Gibson should be held to the same standard. If he didn't know the copyright assignments weren't valid, as a lawyer he has a duty to do the basic research which would have made it clear. Either it was fraud or failure to meet his basic responsibilities. In either case he should be punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, could the masnik have flip flopped faster, doesnt he "hate" those people sueing folks for "downloading" songs and talks about how bad making them pay $675,000 per song is, and now this, he feels the "individuals" behind the company set up shouldn't be sued for what they allowed to happen, hypocrite much????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But let's not let a simple thing like facts get in the way of an attack on Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's for the best, really. Think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limitation of liability may not apply
Righthaven went after people without giving them any choice. The sued parties never had an option of "shall I be sued by an LLC or another sort of company". I think the limitation of liability may not apply here.
(Certainly I think it should not apply but that's just me.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limitation of liability may not apply
LLC is to inform people doing business with you of your limited liability if you go BK. People choose and risk whether to do business with an LLC. They don't choose whether to be sued by an LLC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After that people are surely less likely to do it in the future.
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even in a case where the "crime" is more grey than that, if you use the guise of a company to break the law, yes, you should be held accountable for that. The guys from napster? Sure they should be held liable. What about the guys in charge of BP, should they be held liable for the oil spill? I'd say so. In fact, it would be one of the better ways to keep companies accountable if every time they did something horribly wrong the fines and fees came out of the CEOs pocket. Then they'd be a lot more careful about making decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Should the CEO be held responsible for every action done by anyone in his company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF not then that is basically the same as knowingly trading whilst insolvent, knowingly accruing debts that you knowingly can not repay. We call that fraud, and any directors, whether they are other companies or individuals/partners/directors can be held personally and also vicariously liable for any debts.
That's my take on the matter, and personally I couldn't think of a more fitting punishment since they have brought both themselves and the courts into disrepute, also I think at a minimum professional development classes in fundamental ethics should be given to the lawyers involved on Righthaven's side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you stop the bastards from doing this again it you do not go after them?
The bastards tried to do a copyright shakedown, fuckem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burn them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I'd say
i.e. person A sets up a PC repair business, goes bankrupt due to cashflow/lack of customers. No liability on the owner because he TRIED to run a successful business but it just didn't work out.
person B sets up an LLC just to act illegally then use the company as a 'shield' against comeback that he'd experience if he did the same actions as an individual. Then he should face liability as there was no intention that the LLC be a sustainable/workable business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was there ever a doubt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability and Limits
That also goes for willful blindness by someone who knew the situation, participated in intitiating it, and allowed it to continue, whether they took an active part or not after the start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liability and Limits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nail 'Em All
Nail 'Em All to the wall and let the chips fall where they may!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]