As New 'Digital First' CEO Takes Over At Media News, First Course Of Business Was Dropping Righthaven

from the a-good-first-impression dept

In the newspaper business, one of the few brightspots that we've seen has been the efforts of the Journal Register, which, under CEO John Paton, took a strong "digital first" position, and showed that they meant it by embracing some really great moves that bucked industry trends. So it was great to see that rumors from a few weeks ago that Paton was going to head up the larger newspaper chain MediaNews came true.

Even better? It appears that one of Paton's first acts of business was to end Media News' deal with Righthaven. In true "digital first," mode, Paton made this clear in a tweet to Dan Gillmor:

Media News has already terminated their relationship with RightsHaven.

In a later interview, Paton said doing a deal with Righthaven was a "dumb idea from the start."

This is quite a shift for Media News, which was previously run by Dean Singleton (who also was chair of the Associated Press), who was a big fan of "cracking down" on the internet. He was the one who brought in Righthaven, and was a huge proponent of putting up paywalls, because he thought it added more value to newspapers. Paton, who has spoken out against paywalls in the past, has said that he's not yet up-to-speed on Media News's paywalls to know what to do about them, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the company reverse course soon enough.

Filed Under: john paton, journalism, rules, social media
Companies: journal register, media news, righthaven

Court Slams Righthaven (Again); Refuses To Let It Back Into Democratic Underground Case

from the another-day,-another-loss dept

Righthaven seems to be collecting legal losses like they were going out of style. I wonder if there's ever been a company that has been slapped around so many times by so many judges. No matter how often Righthaven boss Steve Gibson pretends that the courts mostly agree with him and are just "giving guidance" to others, the reality of the matter is that the company hasn't just been losing, it's been getting regularly scolded by angry judges who appear to have no patience for the company's legal strategy.

The latest involves one of the key cases here: the Democratic Underground case. This is the case where the Strategic Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media finally came to light, showing that the copyright transfer was a sham. That resulted in the judge dismissing Righthaven from the case. The case kept going, however, because the Democratic Underground had filed a countersuit against Stephens Media to get it into the case. Of course, part of the reason why Stephens helped set up Righthaven in the first place was to avoid having to be involved in these lawsuits. So, ever the dutiful spin-off, Righthaven keeps trying to reinsert itself into the case.

However, yet again, the judge in the case, Richard Hunt, has clearly rejected Righthaven's attempt here (pdf). Hunt says that key reason for not allowing Righthaven back in was because of the timing of everything, noting that even if it's now offering a (twice) "amended" agreement to make its case, it's too late to change things in this case:

Righthaven argues that the application to intervene is timely because it brought the motion soon after being dismissed from the case and rectifying the problems with the SAA by creating the Amended and Restated SAA. The Court disagrees. Righthaven filed this case more than ten months prior to its application to intervene. It is true that Righthaven could not have sought to intervene until it was dismissed, but this is because of the method in which Righthaven chose to pursue this litigation. Righthaven’s application is untimely because ten months have passed since filing, intervention would prejudice Democratic Underground as multiple of their discovery motions were dismissed as moot when Democratic Underground was dismissed, and the reason for delay was of Righthaven’s own making. See, e.g., Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (laying out factors to consider in timeliness analysis). In fact, the reason Righthaven now seeks to intervene is to circumvent the Court’s June 14 Order by creating standing and rights after the fact. This is improper and does not make the application timely.

And that's not all:

The Court is dubious as to whether Righthaven can essentially create standing in the middle of a case so as to either prosecute the case independently or intervene. Further, the Court questions whether Righthaven can even have a legitimate interest under any agreement (no matter the rights purportedly transferred) because Stephens Media and Righthaven’s arrangement seems very much like a contingency fee arrangement with an entity unauthorized to practice law.

In other words, the court is listening to the amicus brief filed by Todd Kincannon, which we've discussed before. Kincannon has been the lead voice is arguing that Righthaven is engaged in unauthorized practice of law, so it's interesting to see a judge suggest that he agrees.

At what point do the folks at Righthaven finally realize it's time to give up?

Filed Under: copyright, standing
Companies: democratic underground, righthaven, stephens media

Case That Righthaven Had 'Won' By Default Now Dismissed For Lack Of Standing

from the down-goes-another-one dept

It's getting a bit repetitive to note just how many times copyright troll Righthaven is losing these days, even as it's entertaining to watch. But this latest loss -- its seventh so far -- is even more interesting, because it's a dismissal of a case that Righthaven already thought it had "won." The case involved Righthaven suing a guy named Bill Hyatt... who totally ignored the lawsuit. As can happen in such situations, a court clerk simply entered a default judgment against Hyatt. Righthaven seized upon this opportunity to then ask the court (as it did in each of its lawsuits) for more than just a monetary award: it asked for his domain. We had noted how silly it was for Righthaven to always demand the domains of those it sued, as there's no such remedy in copyright law, but here it thought it could put one over on the court. As we noted back in February, the Media Bloggers Association stepped into the case and filed an amicus brief (via Marc Randazza) questioning Righthaven's claims. And, now, beyond just not getting the domain, the judge has decided to dismiss the whole case for lack of standing, since (once again) the judge has realized that Righthaven doesn't actually hold the copyright it claims to hold. Ah Righthaven. These days, it can't even win a case when the other side doesn't even show up.

Filed Under: copyright, default judgment, standing
Companies: righthaven, stephens media

Righthaven CEO Explains Losses: 'We've Blazed Some Trails; There Are Differences Of Opinion'

from the well-that's-one-way-of-looking-at-it dept

With Righthaven being told to pay attorneys fees yet again, we were curious if Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson would stand behind his earlier claims that judges mostly supported Righthaven, but were just providing "guidance" to less careful competitors. While he isn't going that far, in an interview with Joe Mullin at PaidContent, Gibson continues to pretend that Righthaven hasn't been beaten up nearly as badly as it has.

First, Gibson claims, as Righthaven has been arguing in court lately, that if a court rules (as they have been) that Righthaven didn't have the copyrights in question when it sued, then it's "just" a "jurisdiction issue" and, therefore, the court cannot then rule on the further merits of the case and should not award attorneys' fees. That's a rather interesting way to avoid acknowledging what appears to be a form of fraud. It seems pretty damn clear from multiple rulings that the courts do not consider this merely a "jurisdiction" issue, but rather an attempt to deceive the court system and use it to force people and organizations to pay up. Either way, Righthaven seems to be gearing up for an appeals court challenge on this issue.

Amusingly, because of this "it's just a jurisdiction issue" stance, Gibson pretends that he can completely ignore the fact that the judge ruled against Righthaven on the fair use issue here, calling that part of the ruling "academic."

Later, as Mullin further challenges Gibson, he tries to suggest that people don't like them because they've "blazed some trails":

There’s no question, we’ve blazed some trails here. We initially drafted the assignment documentation based on the Silvers case. We understand there are some differences of opinion as to whether that provides us with standing, and we’ve been responsive to the courts.

Actually, Righthaven's "responsiveness" to the courts is demonstrated in a history of filing responses past due and complaining about being too busy to actually get things in on time. The company has been a complete joke, and it seems that the judges saw that a long time ago.

Where Gibson gets really funny, however, is in the following exchange. The first part is Mullin's question, followed by Gibson's answer:

You’ve been calling some defendants copyright thieves, and suggesting they are members of an “infringement community.” But in this case, Wayne Hoehn’s lawyers filed a motion saying that Righthaven is a “bully” that attacked his free speech rights, and saying it should be ordered to pay his $34,000 in legal costs—and the court agreed.

I don’t think Judge Pro was engaged in that kind of unprofessional name calling. Look, the blogosphere and the infringement community obviously is very, very vocal. That doesn’t make them right. They’re a lot more heavily populated than the people who create content. We have continuously attempted to stay above name calling, to take the issues to the courts on an unemotional basis. We believe that ultimately our case will be successful.

Has it been challenging? Has it been difficult? There’s no question. As to the perception that we’re a bully… I guess you could engage in this kind of name-calling. The real question is, is it right for people to take other people’s content? People don’t know the bases on which we’ve settled a good number of our cases. They don’t know how lenient we’ve been. So, they run with name-calling.

This is a political discussion that could potentially merit Congressional treatment, in terms of making the copyright laws where we want them to be. But in terms of where the laws are [now], Righthaven is addressing a serious copyright issue that is plaguing the creative community.

First of all, I love the fact that he completely ignores the point of Mullin's question that his firm regularly, falsely, calls defendants "thieves," and then complains that anyone calling Righthaven a bully is engaged in "unprofessional name calling." Pot, kettle.

Then there's the lovely line about "the blogosphere and the infringement community." And how it's "a lot more heavily populated than the people who create content." Oh that makes me laugh. Let's see, the most vocal critics of Righthaven have been almost entirely content creators. The hundreds of people sued by Righthaven under questionable claims over copyrights the company didn't own? Almost all content creators. Righthaven? Has never created a single piece of content.

And then I love that bit about how "lenient" they've been. When the mob comes knocking and offers to let you keep your kneecaps in exchange for "just $5,000" is that lenient? Some of us don't think so.

Finally, while I always worry about Congress passing more ridiculously bad copyright legislation, I've seen no indication whatsoever that Congress has any interest whatsoever in making copyright laws the way Righthaven wants them to be. But, if Righthaven is planning to go on a lobbying blitz, well, that will be fun to watch.

Filed Under: copyright, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

Righthaven Loses Again; Told To Pay $34,045.50 In Legal Fees

from the not-a-great-business-model dept

Rightaven's summer of trouble continues. Having already lost its case against Wayne Hoehn for the same reasons it's been losing a bunch of cases lately (its sham copyright transfer), the court (as in a few similar cases) was asked to make Righthaven pay Hoehn's legal fees and, in a short and sweet ruling, Judge Philip Pro has agreed and told Righthaven to hand over $34,045.50, stating that awarding such fees seems reasonable in this case. Can't wait to see how Righthaven's Steve Gibson spins this to say that it's really just a court giving guidance to Righthaven's competitors who just aren't as sophisticated as Righthaven.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, legal fees
Companies: righthaven

Defendant Uses Glengarry Glen Ross To Try To Teach Righthaven About Truth

from the mamet-needs-to-be-in-more-courtrooms dept

In the ongoing mess that is Righthaven's many lawsuits, we're still waiting for the judge in Colorado who's put all of the Righthaven cases there on hold to see if he agrees with the multiple Nevada rulings that found that the transfer of copyrights to Righthaven was a complete sham on the court. One of the defendants sued in Colorado has filed a motion in the court, via the Randaza Group (who has had some success in other Righthaven cases in Nevada), which is very much worth reading.

Beyond another attempt to convince the court that Righthaven's copyright transfer claim was a sham, it highlights that Righthaven's response to the court seems to focus heavily on the idea that the judge should only rule on the jurisdiction issue, rather than on the merits of the case. This filing suggests that Righthaven is doing that, knowing that it's likely to lose, and knowing that if the ruling is on the merits it risks additional sanctions -- so it's pre-fighting that:

In short, Righthaven knows full well that it does not have the right to bring this case. Instead of conceding that point, Righthaven is unnecessarily prolonging this litigation. In doing so, Righthaven wants this Court to believe that if a party brings a case, which it had no right to bring, then it should suffer no consequences, should pay no attorneys fees, and should simply be able to walk away – even after causing the defendant to expend thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees. Righthaven wins one thing in this case – it wins the chutzpah award.

The rest of the filing is in that same tone, which makes it both highly readable and entertaining. How often do you see legal filings that (repeatedly) quote Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross?

In Glengarry Glen Ross, Ricky Roma says to George Aaronow, “Always tell the truth – It’s the easiest thing to remember.” Had Righthaven followed this simple bit of wisdom, it would not find itself in its current thicket of predicament in Nevada, and it might find its fortune in Colorado to be more promising.

Righthaven’s scheme is based upon “Assignments” of copyrights from news entities to itself. When such assignments are honest and bona fide transfers of rights, they are remarkably simple – the copyright owner simply transfers all title to the copyright to the new owner. Righthaven’s scheme is much more complex, because there is so much dishonesty to obfuscate. In 1992, Glengarry Glen Ross was made into a film with the tagline “Lie. Cheat. Steal. All In A Day's Work.” Righthaven should have watched the entire film and learned from Ricky Roma; instead it relied upon the tagline and has lied, cheated, and stolen from dozens of hapless defendants in Nevada and in Colorado. That conduct ends in Colorado with this Reply Brief.

Filed Under: colorado, copyright, jurisdiction
Companies: righthaven

Righthaven Fails To Pay Sanctions; Complains A Day Late

from the wow dept

It really is quite stunning just how cavalier Righthaven appears to be concerning the absolute smackdown it has been getting repeatedly from various judges. The company was accused of trying to avoid paying legal fees owed in one case. In the first big case where it got smacked down, the one involving the Democratic Underground, which revealed Righthaven's questionable deal with Stephens Media, the court last month ordered Righthaven to pay $5,000 for misleading the court and to send the transcript of Judge Roger Hunt's explanation for the sanctions to everyone else that Righthaven is currently suing. That happened on July 14th and the company was given two weeks to comply.

Once again, it did not. Instead, a day after the deadline to pay up, Righthaven filed for an extension on paying, and said that it had come across some new "grounds to appeal the monetary sanction imposed by the court." It also complained that this research "has taken a significant period of time," which is why it was late and wanted more time. Separately, Righthaven admits that it has not lived up to the requirement to send the transcript of the hearing to all of the other cases its involved with. Here its reasoning is somewhat ridiculous. It claims that it didn't have access to the transcript until two days before it had to be given to the other cases, and at that time it was busy with some of the many other cases in which it has been smacked down.

Judge Hunt, who has the patience of a saint, actually granted a ten day extension, saying that Righthaven has to pay up by August 8th. However, he also makes it clear that he's (yet again) not at all happy about Righthaven's actions. In Righthaven's filing for an extension it also asked for "clarification" on delivering the transcript to all of the parties it had sued, asking if it was okay to just file the documents with the court, rather than deliver them to the actual parties sued. Judge Hunt, who you can almost hear sighing, points out that he "does not believe clarification is necessary," but agrees to provide it just to be crystal clear:

First, as Righthaven points out in its motion, when the Court issued the sanctions the Court and counsel referred to “parties,” not merely cases. Accordingly, it is insufficient to merely file the required documents; Righthaven must produce the documents to the parties in those cases as the Court clearly stated. The reason for this is simple: the Court is fully aware of Righthaven’s practice of filing suit against a party and then entering settlement negotiations (and frequently settling) without ever serving the party. The Court concludes that depriving those parties of the benefit of the Court’s order would be unjust.

And then he notes that while he's granting the extension, he believes he's already being "overly generous" in doing so, and won't accept more delays, and will not be happy if Righthaven does not pay up:

Finally, after reexamining the issues and counsel’s stated difficulties, the Court concludes that it was overly generous in granting the extension because counsel’s situation is largely—if not entirely—of his and Righthaven’s own making. Righthaven and its counsel should concentrate their efforts on material issues and court orders, not wishful research. Further, if counsel does not have time to do all that he needs to in Righthaven’s dozens of cases, the Court kindly suggests that he or Righthaven obtain additional help, not complain to the Court about time constraints. Righthaven also informed the Court in its motion that it plans to request a stay of the monetary sanction. The Court already granted an extension, which it will not change, and suggests Righthaven not waste its time on a motion requesting any further relief from the sanction.

What amazes me is how incredibly tone deaf Righthaven appears to be to the repeated smackdowns it is getting from judges and how weak its legal position is. I recognize some of that is posturing, but it seems to go even further than that. It seems like Righthaven still thinks that these rulings aren't that big of a deal.

Filed Under: sanctions
Companies: democratic underground, eff, righthaven, stephens media

Yet Another Judge Rejects Yet Another Righthaven Case

from the and-another-one-down dept

Another day and another loss for Righthaven, as yet another judge (this makes four) says that Righthaven has no standing to bring the suit, because it did not technically hold the copyright, since its agreement with Stephens Media only really transferred the right to sue, rather than any of the listed rights under the Copyright Act. This time it's judge James Mahan, adding to judges Kent Dawson, Roger Hunt and Philip Pro, who have all come to the same conclusion. Mahan, of course, got some attention earlier this year when he was the first to rule in a Righthaven case that reposting a full article could still be fair use. Mahan also rejected Righthaven's attempt to claim that its newly amended agreement with Stephens Media should allow the case to continue, noting that the company wants to change the facts of the case in doing so.

That said, Mahan refused to make the dismissal of the case "with prejudice," meaning that Righthaven can (and probably will) refile the lawsuit, using the newly amended agreement to claim standing. Until there are conclusive rulings on that amended agreement, we may have to go through this whole process a few more times before some judge finally tells Righthaven to give up.

Filed Under: copyright, righthaven, standing
Companies: righthaven, stephens media

New Filing In Colorado Says That Righthaven Is An Illegal Law Firm In Disguise

from the representation-agreements,-not-assignments dept

The same folks who have been filing amicus briefs charging Righthaven with the unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina and Nevada have made a new filing in Colorado, where a single judge has been reviewing the legality of all of Righthaven's cases in the state. In that filing, the group -- Citizens Against Litigation Abuse -- don't so much focus on the unauthorized practice of law claim, but highlight a separate, but related point: that if Righthaven is really a "law firm" and the newspapers are its "clients," then there has been no actual assignment of copyrights at all (the key point of dispute these days in Nevada), but rather the strategic agreement between the newspapers and Righthaven really represents a "representation agreement."

This potentially becomes an issue because Righthaven's current strategy appears to be to continually "amend" its agreement until it can find that right formula in which a judge says that the copyright has actually been transferred, without totally cutting the newspaper out of things. However, the CALA filing says that if you view the agreement as a law firm representation agreement, it doesn't matter how many times Righthaven amends the agreement, it never becomes an assignment of copyright:

RIGHTHAVEN IS NOT AN ASSIGNEE, IT IS A LAW FIRM IN DISGUISE

Amicus invites the Court to ignore the Righthaven for a moment and consider a general proposition: Assume that a company has an actionable claim. The company wants to hire someone to pursue a lawsuit over the claim. The company finds a firm that employs lawyers and handles lawsuits to do just that. In fact, prosecuting lawsuits is all the firm does. So the company and the firm strike a deal: the firm will prosecute the claim, and the firm and the company will split any recovery, after expenses, 50/50.

In the real world, that arrangement is called a “contingency fee representation agreement,” the “company” is the client, and the “firm” is a law firm. But Righthaven does not appear to operate in the real world. Righthaven claims this exact arrangement is actually an “assignment,” that it is not a law firm but a “copyright enforcer,” and that its clients are not clients but are “key relationships.” See Righthaven Website, Ex. L. This is nothing but corporate doublespeak, deployed in an attempt to camouflage an arrangement that is totally impermissible outside the context of a lawyer-client relationship.

Moreover, Righthaven claims to be engaged in a novel pursuit presenting new and undecided issues in copyright enforcement. Those claims are accurate only so long as one does not consider precedents relating to the validity of assignments and the unauthorized practice of law. What Righthaven tries to present as some inventive new way of enforcing copyrights is nothing more than a copyright-specific form of a scheme that has been rejected, so far as Amicus can determine, by every court that has ever examined it. When considering the following arguments and authorities, Amicus submits that it will be extremely useful to keep in mind this language from the SAA: “Assignor hereby engages Righthaven to undertake the pursuit of Infringement Actions.”

It'll be interesting to see if this argument resonates with the court, because if it does, Righthaven (and its backers) could be in for yet another pretty serious smackdown... and they won't be able to keep trying to amend the agreement to "fix" things.

Filed Under: assignment, colorado, law firm
Companies: righthaven

Former LVRJ Publisher Admits He Was Behind Righthaven Lawsuit

from the ooops dept

Stephens Media and Righthaven have been involved in an important legal battle (mainly in the case involving the Democratic Underground, but it's popping up in other Righthaven cases) concerning who really are the parties of interest in the Righthaven lawsuits. Plenty of the defendants (and now three different judges) have said that Righthaven is really just a Wizard of Oz style front for a legal campaign by Stephens Media and its key publication, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. In fact, the basic argument is that the whole setup of Righthaven was simply a sham to try to isolate Stephens Media from potential liability. In the Democratic Underground case, the judge has even dismissed Righthaven from the case, but is allowing DU's counterclaims against Stephens Media to move forward (Righthaven is trying to beg its way back into the lawsuit).

One of the more entertainingly clueless players in this whole charade has been Sherman Frederick, the former publisher of the LVRJ, who was a major public supporter of Righthaven from the beginning, whose own words keep coming back to haunt both Stephens Media and Righthaven. Frederick appears to have a bit of a reckless overly-confident cowboy attitude, which is the kind of thing that gets people like him into a lot of trouble. We've already noted the rather blatant hypocrisy of Frederick multiple times. Originally he insisted that copying content from the LVRJ -- even small amounts -- was no different than stealing a corvette out of his driveway. And, yet, he's been caught posting infringing content, copying content from Techdirt and other blogs -- sometimes failing to even make it clear that he was quoting someone else.

But Frederick's biggest problem with his big mouth concerning Righthaven has been his habit of occasionally talking about Righthaven as if he controls it... because that's kind of the whole key issue here. Is Righthaven really a separate company... or is it merely a pawn for Stephens Media (or, worse, a law firm that is not licensed to practice law in Nevada)? You would think that sooner or later someone higher up in the ranks of Stephens Media (who demoted Frederick from publisher to mere columnist late last year right after the election) would tell Frederick to close his trap on these things, because he's only making it worse.

No luck. Frederick wrote a blog post on July 14th, blasting critics of the failed Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, of whom Frederick had been a big booster during the election. In the comments to that blog post, some commenters challenged Frederick on certain points. And in a comment at 1:30 pm, Frederick directly noted, with regard to Angle: "I even sued her for lifting our material." He is, of course, referring to the fact that Righthaven sued Angle. We actually found it amusing that Frederick's "little friend," Righthaven would sue Angle at the same time that he, as publisher, endorsed her as a candidate. Would Frederick endorse a candidate who stole the corvette out of his driveway? Apparently.

Still... in that comment he directly claims that he was the one who sued Angle. That's a pretty big problem for Stephens Media when it's trying to claim that it's not the one suing, but it's Frederick's "little friend," Righthaven. And, indeed, it took all of about a day for at least one of the defendants in a Righthaven lawsuit to point this comment out to a court. I would imagine it does not look good for Stephens Media, in these cases where it's claiming that it's not the one suing, for its former publisher, who was intimately involved in the Righthaven plan, to come out and state publicly that, yes, in fact he was responsible for one of Righthaven's most high profile cases.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, journalism, lawsuits, sherman frederick, strategy
Companies: righthaven, stephens media