Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
from the good-luck-with-that dept
It appears that Righthaven's new legal strategy, after getting beaten down left and right by Marc Randazza, is to just stop responding to him or the court. Think of it as the "play dead" strategy. You may recall that last week, in the Hoehn case, Righthaven was ordered to turn over its own intellectual property to a receivership to settle the attorneys' fees owed to Randazza. While waiting for that to happen, there was a hearing (on Friday) in another case involving Righthaven and Randazza... and Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, simply did not appear. On top of that, he has refused to respond to any contact from Randazza and the other lawyers in his firm:Attorney Mangano has not replied to any of my faxed correspondence -- a manner of communication he had previously requested I use in lieu of e-mail and telephone communication -- since this Court's December 12 Order granting the receivership order.Basically, it looks like Righthaven is trying out a different sort of response to the various cases involving Randazza: it's just ignoring them entirely. I can't see how that ends well.
In response, Randazza is now looking to go after Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson and his wife Raisha Y. Gibson, a/k/a "Drizzle." At this point, you have to get the feeling that the Righthaven crew has simply been so pummeled by Randazza that it's in a bit of shock. I wonder if Steve Gibson is still claiming that the courts know that Righthaven is "genuine" and is merely providing "guidance" to Righthaven competitors...
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: drizzle, marc randazza, raisha gibson, receivership, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that Righthaven has continued to file suits in various jurisdictions based on the position that they do own the copyrights—no matter what any stupid judge says.
If that's the case, Randazza's basis for asking for the copyrights may need to be a little bit more explicitly spelled out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The court ordered it.
Since they weren't paying any of the court ordered judgements already outstanding against them, the court ordered them to turn over any and all assets, including any IP, to receivership, to satisfy the outstanding judgements.
Randazza just following along with the continuing court cases, and trying to get the money the court already said it's owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If Righthaven was continuing to file suit in other jurisdictions, then surely Righthavens' sattorneys had a good-faith basis for those lawsuits. Yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right?
Since you seem to be a tad slow and cant decide who is at fault to dare list IP as a Righthaven asset. The judge ordered all assets, and if by chance they have any valid IP that is included. And not just IP related to this case, ALL IP. Its safe to reason that Righthaven went and made (or attempted to) some other deals having learned from their mistakes (which would explain them hiding, sitting on the small pile of IP they have acquired that hasnt been invalidated).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right?
Since you seem to be a tad slow and cant decide who is at fault to dare list IP as a Righthaven asset. The judge ordered all assets, and if by chance they have any valid IP that is included. And not just IP related to this case, ALL IP. Its safe to reason that Righthaven went and made (or attempted to) some other deals having learned from their mistakes (which would explain them hiding, sitting on the small pile of IP they have acquired that hasnt been invalidated).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, exactly All of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
I am sure the company trademarked Righthaven, even if that ends up being the extent of the IP they own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right?
Since you seem to be a tad slow and cant decide who is at fault to dare list IP as a Righthaven asset. The judge ordered all assets, and if by chance they have any valid IP that is included. And not just IP related to this case, ALL IP. Its safe to reason that Righthaven went and made (or attempted to) some other deals having learned from their mistakes (which would explain them hiding, sitting on the small pile of IP they have acquired that hasnt been invalidated).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The other day it was impugned that you are a student of the law. If you are doing well in your classes with such tortured logic, I fear for the quality of both your school, and the future of the legal profession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other day it was impugned that you are a student of the law. If you are doing well in your classes with such tortured logic, I fear for the quality of both your school, and the future of the legal profession.
There's no need to an asshole. I was under the impression that the very copyrights that the courts have said don't belong to Righthaven are the ones being seized because they belong to Righthaven.
What other copyrights does Righthaven own (or purportedly own)? Answer me that, smarty pants. Sheesh, you guys are dicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and actually someone who wants to be a lawyer, the most useless parasites besides bankers and politicians on this planet, calls other people loser... you are a sad excuse for a sentient being
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not impossible. I enjoy doing it from time to time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not impossible. I enjoy doing it from time to time.
You, of course, are absolutely right that that sort of reaction is better that being a dick back. Most days I do strive to be more congenial and diplomatic, but sometimes I just say whatever comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what I called tortured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you were corrected.
Then you wondered aloud how the Judge could do the same.
Then you were corrected.
Now you mold that all up into, "wondering if the copyrights that are being sued over are expected to be turned over" and somehow cant muster all your legal knowledge to come up with "If they actually own them, then yes".
You are indeed a dick, but not because you raise any valid questions or answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, you wondered aloud how Randazza could dare ask for IP to be turned over that he previously argued they did not possess."
Yes, I was anticipating that Randazza would want to seize the very copyrights that he had previously argued Righthaven did not possess. Is he not doing that? I dunno.
"Then you wondered aloud how the Judge could do the same."
Yes, I was wondering if Judge Pro is ordering Righthaven to turn over the very copyright that Judge Pro said they didn't own. Is he doing that? I dunno.
"Now you mold that all up into, "wondering if the copyrights that are being sued over are expected to be turned over" and somehow cant muster all your legal knowledge to come up with "If they actually own them, then yes"."
And that's the question. Do they own them? Are they going to turn them over? Are they expected to turn them over? I don't know, but I think it's kind of fun to think about, so I posted it here. Big fucking deal.
"You are indeed a dick, but not because you raise any valid questions or answers."
I'm being a dick because guys like you are busting my chops over nothing. Grow up and give me a fucking break. I actually feel sorry for you that you're so desperate to get me. What a sad and pathetic person you must be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
not going to read, there lies madness. might be contagious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, where being a dick and being a lawyer are not mutually exclusive, there are some law firms that seem to want more dicks (sex of applicant regardless). You just might just get away with this.
Think about it. Is that really the reputation you want? "I'm not only a lawyer, but the biggest dick in town?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So now that all that is done the court has ordered Righthaven to hand over these copyrights to pay for the court costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Intellectual property includes much more than just the copyrighted material in question. In addition to any other copyrighted material they may own it also includes trademarks and patents, among other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there any IP that they own that they do not own? Does the ruling mean that if they don't have any IP they have to get some IP?
What about the IP that other people own and Righthaven doesn't own? Do the other people have to turn it over to Righthaven so that Righthaven can now own it and then claim to own so that they then turn it over to the court?
If Righthaven owns any IP, does the IP own them also in return? Does this mean Righthaven have to also turn themselves over to the court? Or is the IP that has to turn Righthaven over to the court?
If so, can IP own IP? Is IP also considered a citizen of the United States, and as such, does it have to turn over to the court the IP? Can IP go to jail? How can Randazza claim that IP can go to jail? I'm just not seeing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights and
> therefore doesn't have standing, but then
> on the other hand argue that Righthaven owns
> the copyrights and must turn them over?
Seems like something Righthaven might be able to argue if it, you know, ACTUALLY SHOWED UP IN COURT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alt
Let's give 'em till mid January to be certain they're really playing dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alt
They're a law firm, you can't honestly expect them to know about calendars or anything, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was under the impression that it wasn't for the copyrights under dispute, but for other copyrights Righthaven had, so that Radazza could collect the monies the court says are owed. "That's my car!" "No, it isn't" "Yes it is!" "No, it isn't; but to repay me for all the expense of showing it isn't, you need to hand over the other car over there"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since Righthaven showed the courts the paperwork for ownership of copyrights, they now have to hand it over, that is just priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the WHOIS lists Randazza Legal Group as the administrative and technical contact: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/righthaven.com
Looks like Righthaven turned over the domain name at least. If they auction it off I might have to place a bid for shits and giggles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd have to read through it all again, but I think I remember Randazza citing authority saying that you COULDN'T satisfy a judgment with a domain name. Wouldn't that be ironic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Drizzle?
But other than that it's apparently Steve Gibson's wife's nickname. Now, I can't say for sure, but I suspect she's a sharp dresser with a Bluetooth earpiece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
à la guerre comme à la guerre - we bound to make temporary fellowships with otherwise disgusting characters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway it is always fun to watch how trolls cannibalize each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't imagine the fun of watching Randazza defending recipients of pay-or-else letters alleging illegal file-sharing sent by Righthaven!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn Magnano
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There, FTFY. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personality types
[ link to this | view in chronology ]