Another Court Makes Righthaven Pay Up For Its Trolling Ways

from the eine-kleine-schadenfreude dept

Thu, Oct 27th 2011 6:14am — Brady Kriss

The judgements against copyright troll Righthaven are starting to pile up. Righthaven recently tried (unsuccessfully) to convince a Nevada court that $34k was more money than it could reasonably scrape together to post a bond while it appealed the adverse judgment in that case. Now another Nevada court has ruled against Righthaven, awarding the defendant Thomas DiBiase reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; this time in the even larger amount of $119,488.00. That's got to hurt.

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: attorneys fees, thomas dibiase
Companies: righthaven

65 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:18am

No one gives a flying fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Hallo, Mr. Gibson. And welcome to the discussion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:20am

Snore fest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:22am

Snore fest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:23am

I actually do care about abuse of the legal system. Don't you ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:24am

From the " This website sucks" Dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:29am

No I don't. I love people getting hosed. They shouldn't have been a bad person in the first place. Righthaven is awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:06am
  
  Re:
  Yes, I do care about abuse of the legal system. Also abuse of copyright and patents.
  
  I love Righthaven getting hosed.
  
  Righthaven should have been a bad person in the first place.
  
  Righthaven is a boil on the posterior end of humanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    s/should/shouldn't/g
    
    Sorry about that. Meant to say:
    
    Righthaven shouldn't have been a bad person in the first place.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:27am
  
  Re:
  oh high, rightshaven employee! sucks to be you (or a lawyer on their team), doesn't it?
  
  You know, techdirt has these little gravatar things, you might want to look into what they are, as we can see the last 6-8 spam comments you've made in a row(and every comment like it on other articles).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  Again, great grammar: plural/singular fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:30am

It's kind of sad how these legal predators can build a shell company/corporation to shield them from personal loss, where the average person is held personally responsible for his/her actions.

I hope if this company folds up shop, that the judge goes after the lawyers personally. If the people they are extorting don't get the option of an easy out, neither should they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:41am
  
  Re:
  "sad how these legal predators can build a shell company/corporation to shield them from personal loss, where the average person is held personally responsible for his/her actions"
  
  Similar to the privatized profit - socialized debt problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous American, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:53am
  
  Re:
  I'll believe Mitt Romney's "Corporations are people" when we can imprison one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'll believe it when corporations can get the death penalty.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:08am
  
  Re:
  I hope the financial pain comes home to Stephens Media.
  
  After all, they wanted to inflict financial pain on others over the most trivial uses that could be wildly construed to be copyright infringement with no consideration of fair use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
davnel (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:33am

WHY?
Mike:
I'm repeating what I said in Ars Technica, it still applies:

No, Righthaven won't pay anything to anyone. The only way the defendants will see anything is to have a judge include Stevens Media into the fray and get THEM to pay. Righthaven will be bankrupt by then.

What really frosts me is the fact that the courts have allowed this crap to go on for two years, and have essentially ignored Righthaven's pranks. If you or I went into court and pulled even ONE of their tricks, we'd find ourselves in jail for contempt so fast our heads would spin. Why was this allowed to go on? And why is it being allowed to continue????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:42am
  
  Re: WHY?
  If corporations are people, why do they not go to jail?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re: WHY?
    Why are the corporations accomplices not in jail?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BW (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:34am
    
    You mean EXECUTE one. (In FL or TX at least.)
    You mean EXECUTE one. (In FL or TX at least.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: WHY?
  I don't understand why the DOJ doesn't go after them for anti-trust violations and anti-competitive behavior? Why are they going after Google instead?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - davnel (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:27am
    
    Re: Re: WHY?
    The cases are much too small, with too little possible publicity or monetary value. The DOJ will leave these to the State courts, which don't seem to be particularly interested in controlling the likes of Righthaven.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: WHY?
  Because the judges have allowed Stephens media to dig a hole for itself so deep that you can hear propaganda for the red army?
  
  Stephens Media is pretty much doomed (as clearly shown by its shareholders trying to jump ship and offload as much of their assets as possible)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
the orangebox, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:46am

now if they can get those damn patent trolling lawyers to stop these shit john DOE suits it will be great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 27 Oct 2011 @ 6:51am

Stephens Media, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Denver Post (hope i've got the names right), should be made to pay any monies that Righthaven themselves say they cant pay. after all, they were all in this 'scam' together, weren't they? they were all receiving payments from those that gave in, didn't fight back, weren't they? they cant all declare bankruptcy, surely, which seems to be the direction that Righthaven is going to head, in order to get out of paying for the cases it has lost/will likely lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- davnel (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  Ya know, it didn't dawn on me until you mentioned it, but if it can be proven that Stevens or any other organization tied by agreement to Righthaven, actually received money from Righthaven as a consequence of those agreements, they can be legally linked to the suits and made to pay.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FuzzyDuck, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:11am

Copyright seizure
Here's an idea, how about seizing the copyrights on whatever righthaven was "protecting", and use that to reimburse the victims.

After-all isn't a person who gives an order to commit a crime equally if not more guilty of that crime? And since corporations are people... this should apply to them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: Copyright seizure
  The big problem with copyright seizure is that most of these copyrights are now worthless. The value of news degrades rapidly as time goes by. So, seizure would not satisfy the judgment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - davnel (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re: Copyright seizure
    And, in point of fact, they had very little value the day after they were published. Only Pullitzer material has any real value after publication, which makes this entire horse opera even more ridiculous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 7:14am

Guidance
The judge is just attempting to help Righthaven. It is offering them guidance on future legal battles. Please stop with these smear campaigns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:29am
  
  Re: Guidance
  This is no laughing matter. Stop marking my previous post funny. I am informing you people of how things are, not making a joke. I'm glad you freetards think this it is a laughing matter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: Re: Guidance
    Thanks for the information. Fine: I'm not laughing. It's sad how utterly wrong your information is--and you know it, if you've read any of the opinions and underlying caselaw. I'm pretty sure that (1) you have, and you're a sad shill, holed up in a SRO motel because of this shitstorm; or (2) you haven't, and therefore should.
    
    Please: do not even attempt to claim that you're educating anyone. At the very best, you're incorrect. And I'm going to stick my neck out and guess that your motives are not what you claim, and that you're simply lying. Liar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 2:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Guidance
      I doubt you could guess my motives, friend. I can tell by the tone of your post that you haven't managed to guess them yet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Well, then? Now that I know you're the more-educated of the two snowflakes, let's hear it. No use hiding the ball, professor--my imagination will be worse than what you tell me, no doubt.
        
        Or are you under a gag order? That WOULD be telling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- me, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Guidance
  So then righthaven is just really bad at legal matters, and is using the judge, like a mentaly challenged child would use a tutor. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re: Guidance
    Sort of, but the language you're using takes it to an extreme. They just need guidance to know exactly what the courts are wanting to see. They aren't the kid down the block who has to wear a helmet all the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - me, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Guidance
      I think the courts wants to see righthaven pay for it's lost cases, and you the kid down the block who has to wear a helmet all the time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Personal attacks don't bother me no matter how bad your grammar is. You do be dun thinkin' 'bout talking about you me then? You've proven your point about how retarded I must be. Good job!
        
        With people like this supporting the Freetard movement, how can it fail?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DogBreath, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        With people like this supporting the Freetard movement, how can it fail?
        
        Hire Righthaven!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        You have done a great job showing how retarded you are on your own, bur I am glad I helped you truly express it. Your welcome:)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Nice spelling, grammarian. Fail x 2, even in form, let alone function.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Dude, this is so perfect: it shows up as you arguing with your shadow. Which is about right. Guidance? I'd love to see you across the counsel table from me if I were a judge. I'd give you guidance, friend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Check the snowflakes. They're slightly different.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Please respond to my "duty of competence" post. The crickets are deafening, snowflake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Even if I did, how would you know it was me responding? You can't tell the difference between the ill-educated, grammar murdering buffoon above and what I post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        On this you're right. That's fixed now. I know which one needing guidance you are. Now please answer the question. I'll recognize you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 3:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Guidance
      Hey, friend: do you know when a defendant gets attorney's fees and costs in a copyright infringement action? When a suit is frivolous is when. And so, how many court findings of frivolous litigation by the same plaintiff, on the same facts = guidance, and how many = proof of wrongdoing by that plaintiff?
      
      I've never heard the legal standard for this, but I sure want to hear it now. With citations, please. It sounds to me like you must have one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re: Guidance
    You know there's a duty of competence among lawyers, right? And you know that "using the judge" doesn't really qualify, right again?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Guidance
      I know that you were too stupid to be able to tell the difference between snowflakes earlier. Why would I think you knew anything about the law?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - dwg, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        That's hysterical. So is your dodge. Pathetic--I would've loved for you to try to actually back up a single thing you said. I mean, you know, if this is actually the same guy with a different snowflake for a new day and all.
        
        And you have the audacity to judge others' understanding of this matter? You're just a talking head--no substance behind a single one of your assertions. Either answer me or admit you're wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Either answer me or admit you're wrong.
        
        Why? I don't know you and I don't owe you anything, unless you think I borrowed $5 from you at some point and never paid you back. Put on your big girl panties and realize that I'm not here for your amusement, enjoyment, nor am I here specifically to answer any of your questions no matter how much you froth at the mouth and demand things.
        
        I'll tell you what. Admit that you've been trolled, you fell for it, and that you're dumber than whatever excreta has leaked into your underpants since you were concentrating harder on posting than keeping your bodily functions in order or go cry in a corner. Those are your choices. Pull your panties out of your butt and learn that some people just enjoy pissing in your Cheerios. Try to be less of an inbred moron.
        
        There should be a duty of competence among posters, and it shouldn't be up to trolls to tell you when to just give it up because you're being purposefully led to look like a mouth frothing moron. Looks like you need some guidance as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg, 28 Oct 2011 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        That's what I figured. Except that when you started in with your "guidance" spiel, you gave away that you were actually trying to weigh in on the topic. And so, no, you're not trolling: you're failing. Good try tho: I always love the "Just kidding!" defense to complete know-nothingness. Keep it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        There was no weigh in. There was nothing of substance. I love being a troll. The original post was a callback to the following article:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/02490614837/righthaven-ceo-judges-are-really-j ust-giving-guidance-to-righthaven-competitors.shtml
        
        If you're too stupid to see that at this point, you're beyond help. It's a good thing I don't give a crap about these rulings one way or another. If there were something I truly wanted, I'd kindly ask you to be on the other side of the debate.....
        
        P.S. I go up for a raise soon. Can you please go convince my boss why I don't deserve one?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dwg, 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance
        Don't worry about a thing, huckleberry. You'll do just fine without me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny Shade (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:33pm
  
  Re: Guidance
  I REALLY hope that you are being sarcastic. If you are not, please see about geeting a Darwin Award ASAP
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Johnny Shade (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Guidance
    My apologies. I did go back and read http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/02490614837/righthaven-ceo-judges-are-really-j ust-giving-guidance-to-righthaven-competitors.shtml
    
    OMG, I would have paid money to have been there
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:26am

Hunt has really lost it. I hope the Ninth Circuit smacks down his shitty reasoning re: standing and here. He needs a bench-slap. Badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  Wow. Considering he based his ruling on a 9th Circuit ruling, I don't see how they can bench-slap him without invalidating their own circuit's stance on similar cases in the future (that is, the rewarding of legal fees to a defendant when the plaintiff's case is ruled as frivolous).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  Really? Why do you say that? Seems like a perfectly reasonable judgement to me. Remember, be specific.Righthaven was suing people over what was obviously fair use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dwg, 27 Oct 2011 @ 11:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem, ultimately, was knowingly "failing" to provide information that would have led to a finding that Righthaven had no standing in the first place, based on its lack of ownership of the copyrights in question.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  Also, other courts before Hunt have found that Righthaven has no standing to initiate a lawsuit concerning copyrights that it does not own, as it was decided to be impossible to only transfer rights to sue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:09am
  
  Re:
  No more or less than you do for your monumentally poor reasoning skillz.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WDS (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:49am

Covering the bases.
I found it interesting that one of the first things Judge Hunt did was site precedent for the defendant being the prevailing party when the suit is dismissed for lack of standing. If memory serves me correct, this is one of things that Righthaven had tried to use for the basis of appeal in a previous case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 27 Oct 2011 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: Covering the bases.
  California's... either progressive or crazy, when it comes to frivolous lawsuits. It's a regular thing in California for legal fees to be rewarded to the defendant when a case is dismissed as frivolous. But (I believe) it has to be dismissed as frivolous, not just dismissed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DogBreath, 27 Oct 2011 @ 9:59am

Righthaven should known by now this was coming ...
I mean the banjo music playing in the courts they appear in, would be a dead giveaway for most people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]