I believe the law in Nevada requires that the champertor not have any ownership interest in the claim that he brings. I think it's not champerty here because Righthaven actually has an ownership interest in the copyright being sued on. However, that doesn't mean it's not UPL. In my mind it can be UPL, even if it's not champertous and even if Righthaven has standing. That's my understanding from doing some reading on the subject. I could certainly have that wrong.
I think a few vengeful lawyers (probably pissed off that they didn't come up with the idea first) are engaged in a smear campaign. I am shocked that the judged don't catch on to this and put and end to the stupidity.
I think it's more like a group of lawyers who don't like what Righthaven is doing on a personal level, and they're devoting their time and energy, likely even for free, to put an end to what they see as an abuse of the system. Even I can respect that, and I'm about as pro-Righthaven as they come.
I think this line of argument has a lot of merit, and I won't be surprised if this is the death knell to Righthaven. I still think that Righthaven has standing and the fair use rulings have been wrong, and I don't have a problem with the idea of assignments of claims in general. But this Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) argument attacks this thing from an angle outside of copyright law.
The argument is as simple as it is compelling. Righthaven loses whether they have standing or not. And they don't just lose--it's a fraud on the court.
I'm glad you're picking up these Righthaven UPL stories, Mike. I think this is going to be an important issue for them.
A simplified version of the argument is this: Righthaven is only being assigned the copyright so they can file an infringement claim over that copyright in their own name. But there's also an agreement that they'll split the profits with whoever assigns them the copyright. This means that the party assigning Righthaven the copyright is actually a client, and it means that Righthaven is representing that client as a law firm. But there's one big problem with that--Righthaven is a company, but not a law firm. It doesn't matter that Righthaven is full of lawyers and that actual lawyers prosecute the cases. Righthaven itself isn't a law firm per se, and that makes it the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Kudos to the man that came up with this argument! I love a good argument, especially one from left field. ;)
I've been trying to figure out the counterarguments, but the more research I do on this the more I'm convinced that this argument is a game-ender for Righthaven--at least for the present incarnation of Righthaven.
I painted a tree, I think I will now sue everyone that has a picture with a damned tree in it.
And that's a good example. Paintings and pictures of trees are quite common, so they get less copyright protection. In order for an image to be infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original, if not exactly like it.
Since the scenery here is quite common, I think that in order for the work in question to be considered infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original. I think there are enough objective, extrinsic ways in which they differ that it wouldn't be infringing.
The problem for the author is that he may not want to put this in the hands of a judge/jury, and the threat of a lawsuit might be enough to get a settlement out of him. Oh well, them's the breaks.
P.S. Who says I always side with the plaintiff in a copyright case? I think it was nasch. I don't. I side with whichever side I think has the better argument. ;)
I wouldn't say they "look nothing alike." I think they're quite similar. The plaintiff would have to show that the defendant had access to the original and that the work in question is substantially similar to it in idea and expression--does it copy the "look and feel" of the original? I think it does.
I think the problem for the plaintiff would be that the image isn't that original. The parts that were copied, if there even are any, are unprotectable scenes-a-faire. Just about anyone who's ever thrown on a backpack and hiked in the mountains has seen this sort of imagery.
Such common scenery images don't get that much copyright protection. The less protectable the image, the more exacting the copy must be to be infringing. The fact that there are so many differences between the two, I think, would get the defendant off the hook.
I've had three different people tell me about this book this week. It's a hit with the parents-with-young-children crowd. I just bought it off amazon. Only $8. Very reasonable.
She only paid that after she had finished the film and shown it at various film festivals though, right? That's what I recall her saying on This Week In Law.
I saw this yesterday about one of my favorite NZ comedian-actors Rhys Darby. Apparently he agreed to be in an anti-piracy video. The press picked it up and said he was "the face of a new anti-piracy campaign." Now Darby is distancing himself from the campaign and saying that he doesn't agree with the new laws.
Blocking the spread of ideas is the explicit purpose of copyright. If it doesn't block ideas, it doesn't do anything.
I thought the purpose was to promote the progress by granting a limited monopoly to the author/artist. And more importantly, I think you're confusing the idea with the expression.
If a person tries to disseminate an expression of an idea that is protected by copyright, that is infringement. The person, not wanting to pay $150,000, chooses not to disseminate the idea. Copyright has thus blocked the spread of the idea.
Nothing stops you from disseminating the idea.
How is this difficult to understand? It's the whole point of copyright: To give you a monopoly on spreading your idea, as incentive for you to come up with it!
The monopoly is on the expression, not the idea. No wonder you guys hate copyright so much. You don't appear to understand it.
How does a system designed to limit the distribution of ideas to only those authorized to spread them and the constant use of legal action targeted to stop other people from spreading them block the spread ideas? Gee. The question practically answers itself.
The system limits the dissemination of expression, not ideas.
On the post: Claim That Righthaven Engaged In Unauthorized Practice Of Law Moves To Nevada
On the post: Claim That Righthaven Engaged In Unauthorized Practice Of Law Moves To Nevada
Re: Re:
On the post: Claim That Righthaven Engaged In Unauthorized Practice Of Law Moves To Nevada
Re:
I think it's more like a group of lawyers who don't like what Righthaven is doing on a personal level, and they're devoting their time and energy, likely even for free, to put an end to what they see as an abuse of the system. Even I can respect that, and I'm about as pro-Righthaven as they come.
On the post: Claim That Righthaven Engaged In Unauthorized Practice Of Law Moves To Nevada
The argument is as simple as it is compelling. Righthaven loses whether they have standing or not. And they don't just lose--it's a fraud on the court.
I'm glad you're picking up these Righthaven UPL stories, Mike. I think this is going to be an important issue for them.
A simplified version of the argument is this: Righthaven is only being assigned the copyright so they can file an infringement claim over that copyright in their own name. But there's also an agreement that they'll split the profits with whoever assigns them the copyright. This means that the party assigning Righthaven the copyright is actually a client, and it means that Righthaven is representing that client as a law firm. But there's one big problem with that--Righthaven is a company, but not a law firm. It doesn't matter that Righthaven is full of lawyers and that actual lawyers prosecute the cases. Righthaven itself isn't a law firm per se, and that makes it the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Kudos to the man that came up with this argument! I love a good argument, especially one from left field. ;)
I've been trying to figure out the counterarguments, but the more research I do on this the more I'm convinced that this argument is a game-ender for Righthaven--at least for the present incarnation of Righthaven.
On the post: 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
Re: Re:
And that's a good example. Paintings and pictures of trees are quite common, so they get less copyright protection. In order for an image to be infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original, if not exactly like it.
Since the scenery here is quite common, I think that in order for the work in question to be considered infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original. I think there are enough objective, extrinsic ways in which they differ that it wouldn't be infringing.
The problem for the author is that he may not want to put this in the hands of a judge/jury, and the threat of a lawsuit might be enough to get a settlement out of him. Oh well, them's the breaks.
P.S. Who says I always side with the plaintiff in a copyright case? I think it was nasch. I don't. I side with whichever side I think has the better argument. ;)
On the post: 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
Re:
I think the problem for the plaintiff would be that the image isn't that original. The parts that were copied, if there even are any, are unprotectable scenes-a-faire. Just about anyone who's ever thrown on a backpack and hiked in the mountains has seen this sort of imagery.
Such common scenery images don't get that much copyright protection. The less protectable the image, the more exacting the copy must be to be infringing. The fact that there are so many differences between the two, I think, would get the defendant off the hook.
On the post: Author Of 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Says Piracy Helped Him... But He Doesn't Support It
On the post: Status Quo
Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Bitcoin Is Money Laundering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: FUDbuster works for Copyhype!
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Re: Copyhype is owned by the people trying to pass this bill
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
Nice to have a voice of reason weigh in on the matter.
On the post: New Zealand Politicians Who Supported Three Strikes Law Two Months Ago Now Worried It Violates Civil Rights
http://www.3news.co.nz/Rhys-Darby-fronts-anti-piracy-DVD/tabid/412/articleID/213969/Default .aspx
http://www.3news.co.nz/Rhys-Darby-blames-media-spin-for-piracy-backlash/tabid/412/articleID /214235/Default.aspx
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
Re:
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
Re:
Why do you care who pays her rent? That's none of your business.
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought the purpose was to promote the progress by granting a limited monopoly to the author/artist. And more importantly, I think you're confusing the idea with the expression.
If a person tries to disseminate an expression of an idea that is protected by copyright, that is infringement. The person, not wanting to pay $150,000, chooses not to disseminate the idea. Copyright has thus blocked the spread of the idea.
Nothing stops you from disseminating the idea.
How is this difficult to understand? It's the whole point of copyright: To give you a monopoly on spreading your idea, as incentive for you to come up with it!
The monopoly is on the expression, not the idea. No wonder you guys hate copyright so much. You don't appear to understand it.
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The system limits the dissemination of expression, not ideas.
On the post: Censorship vs. Copyright
Re: Re:
Next >>