Judge In South Carolina Poised To Dismiss Righthaven Suit There As Well

from the down-goes-another-one dept

Thu, Oct 20th 2011 7:21pm — Mike Masnick

Ah, the hits just keep on coming for Righthaven. Having already had judges in Nevada and Colorado dismiss Righthaven cases for lack of standing, the one remaining state where Righthaven had tried its questionable legal tactics was South Carolina, which had prompted a somewhat epic countersuit. Not surprisingly, it's looking like it's a trifecta of losses for Righthaven, as magistrate judge Jacquelyn Austin has made it clear that she's not buying whatever it is that Righthaven is selling. She's given the company until October 28th to explain why the case shouldn't be dismissed for lack of standing.

Defendant contests Plaintiff�s ownership of the disputed copyright and argues the case should be dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff�s ownership of its assigned copyrights has been contested in Nevada and Colorado. Judges in Nevada have dismissed complaints for lack of standing and issued orders to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The copyright assignments in the Nevada cases are governed by a Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven LLC and Stephens Media LLC which appears to be very similar to the Copyright Alliance Agreement (the �CAA�), including its Schedule 1 � Terms and Conditions, between Plaintiff and MediaNews Group, Inc. (�MediaNews�) that Defendant asserts governs the copyright assignment at issue in this case.* Moreover, the CAA appears to support Defendant�s claim that Plaintiff does not have standing to sue for copyright infringement. Specifically, the CAA appears to qualify any copyright assignments it governs such that Plaintiff is left only with a bare right to sue and does not own any exclusive rights in the copyright, as would be required for Plaintiff to have standing to allege an infringement claim on those copyrights. See Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm�t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an assignee who held an accrued claim for copyright infringement, but who had no legal or beneficial interest in the underlying copyright itself, could not institute a cause of action for infringement); Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982) (holding that one who owns no exclusive right in a copyright may not sue for infringement; only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring suit).

Although Plaintiff argues substantive analysis of the assignment must await discovery, the Court believes this issue should be addressed because it goes to Plaintiff�s standing to bring a copyright infringement claim at all. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court issues this Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff�s lack of ownership of any exclusive rights in the copyright and, therefore, lack of standing to sue.

I'm assuming that this is really just more guidance to Righthaven competitors from a judge who recognizes Righthaven's "genuine" legal arguments, right Steve?

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, fraud, south carolina, unauthorized practice of law
Companies: righthaven

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 7:31pm

Assuming this gets dismissed, the counterclaims live on, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 7:46pm

One day piracy in the wild wild west of the high seas will stop when the government puts an end to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:09pm

Piracy AC? What's piracy? Righthaven as pirates, not quiet. I'd use a lot of other terms to describe them (non at all complimentary) but not pirates.. Oh you mean people who have pirated some movie that Righthaven are claiming copyright over.. What copyright? The judges are saying the have no right to sue.. If the copyright holder wishes to sue then thats something different.. Righthaven though are just legal scum who are about to be wiped out of existence.. Pirates don't come into it..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:13pm

Re:
The Internet is a series of tubes that lead to the wild wild west of the high seas. and on the Intertubes everyone has an intellectual property address and that intellectual property address needs to be protected from piracy on the high seas and so more laws are needed for that protection. But pirate court here keeps allowing this wild wild west piracy and that's not right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 8:49pm

Righthaven is a great poster of why laws shouldn't be relaxed to make easier to others to accuse anybody of any wrong doing that could have serious consequences.

Those easing of the law only serve the crooks to exploit the judicial system and weaken the citizens rights to due process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 9:26pm

Re:
I dunno. How many of the Righthaven defendants are actually "not liable" under current copyright law doctrine? Sure, the current doctrine sucks in lots of ways, but Congress leads the way on changing that--not the courts. If you don't like it, talk to your representatives. Quit whining in the courts. I'm certainly in the minority, but I think Righthaven got a raw deal at the district court level. The courts were working backwards. Judge Kane was really reaching there with no Silvers to use as a crutch. Yikes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2011 @ 10:28pm

Re: Re:
I don't like it, fuck you and I'm telling the world not only "my representatives" why I think about it, do you have a problem with that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 20 Oct 2011 @ 11:42pm

Re:
"Assuming this gets dismissed, the counterclaims live on, right?"

Good question, I for one would like to know the answer. Any lawyers in the audience willing to comment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:02am

Re: Re:
Those "representatives" only represent the interests of big media, pharma, banks, etc. They could care less about the wants and needs of actual people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:59am

Re: Re:
Parody Troll Score: 8, 9, 8, 8, & ouch only a 5 from the Russian judge. Overall score 7.6, Not bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:18am

Actual guidance.
You could argue that this could be construed as actual guidance, the lesson being "don't dick around with the license".

The problem I'm seeing is that someone else could learn from their mistake and start all over again.

I would have preferred if we got us some rulings on the actual merits of the case, not just the whole "license"-fiasco.

(Wow, not one word spelled wrong (according to my computer)!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:44am

Re: Actual guidance.
Another lesson might be "Have 34K in the bank. Just in case."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 2:43am

Re: Re:
"How many of the Righthaven defendants are actually "not liable" under current copyright law doctrine?"

All of them. Whew, that was easy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 3:41am

Re: Re: Actual guidance.
No, another lesson should be, "Be excellent to people, else judges might legally stab you in the crotch."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 4:39am

Re: Re:
Ah, I see one of our Congress critters has stepped into the conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 21 Oct 2011 @ 4:42am

Re: Re:
"If you don't like it, talk to your representatives. Quit whining in the courts"

If you don't like others not liking it, talk to the hand. Quit whining in the blogs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other AC (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 5:16am

Re: Re:
Congress makes/passes the laws. Done by voting for Bills in both Houses and then submitted to the current President. The Supreme Court and its lower District and Appellate Courts have the power to define the law through cases and judgments. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they don't. This is all part of the checks/balances of our Government.
To speak to this particular case, Stephens Media is the Copyright owner. This gives them the "rights" granted by current copyright law. They "assigned" the right to litigate over to Righthaven, LLC. They did not hire/contract Righthaven as their legal representation. This has been made painfully clear to Righthaven and Stephens Media. From the linked articles and this blog, most, if not all, defendants had/have very strong Fair Use claims for their use of the copyrighted media in question.
This leads us to 2 conclusions. First, Righthaven has absolutely no standing in this case. If a suit was to have been brought, it should be Stephens Media filing the suit.
Second, as for the actual copyright issue itself, Fair Use is an allowed privilege and each of these cases would have had a considerable argument for such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 6:45am

What is the reason Stephens resorted to the arrangement with Righthaven in ths first place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 7:14am

Re: Re:
Trust remember... the internet is not a big truck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:34am

I'm assuming that this is really just more guidance to Righthaven competitors from a judge who recognizes Righthaven's "genuine" legal arguments, right Steve?

Now, Mike, it's not nice to gloat.

Funny, yes - but not nice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]