Litigious rights are generally transferable. If the person who sold you the house also gave you the right to sue the neighbor for the tree, then you would "step into his shoes" through the magic of legal fiction.
Check out the Strategic Alliance Agreement linked below. Section 7.1 plus the individual assignments, referenced in Exhibit 1, clearly (to me) gives ownership of the copyrights to Righthaven.
Righthaven is the owner of all of those rights under that agreement (Section 7.1, if memory serves) and the individual assignments (the text of which is attached to that agreement as Exhibit 1, I believe). The agreement is that Stephens Media assigns the copyrights to Righthaven, and then Righthaven grants Stephens Media an exclusive license to the copyrights.
Don't hold your breath. He has spread his FUD and has moved on to another thread.
LOL! Give me a break. I had a job interview earlier today for a summer position, and now I'm working on a big assignment that is due tomorrow. I'd love to answer each and every question in this thread, but I'm simply pressed for time today. Much of these questions I've addressed already. I've gone into great detail about exactly what my arguments are. Look through my posting history and you can read it for yourself.
The problem here is that you still think of copyright as property.
It's called intellectual property for a reason. As much as that kills you, it is a fact that it operates as property.
It's not. It's merely the bundle of rights in 106. If you don't have those, you don't have anything.
Nonsense. A person who grants an exclusive license does not give complete ownership to their licensee. That makes no sense, and I've already proved this in other threads by quoting circuit courts and treatises. The licensor still owns the thing he has licensed.
Do you really think exclusive licensees have complete ownership of the thing they've licensed? That's silly. That's not what a license is.
The owner that was harmed by the infringement was Stephens Media. This gave Stephens Media the right to sue. Stephens Media then granted that right to sue plus ownership of all the copyrights to Righthaven. The right to sue is transferable in this way. When Righthaven sues, they are suing through a legal fiction that they are standing in the shoes of Stephens Media.
Silvers says that you can't only assign the right to sue. Here, Righthaven was assigned all of the copyrights as well. Righthaven then granted an exclusive license to Stephens Media.
Look at the entire Stategic Alliance Agreement and the individual assignments. They specifically say that Righthaven gets ownership of the copyrights.
Umm. That's one provision, as I noted. You have to look at the whole contract, plus the individual assignments. I've posted both of those if you want to dig through my comments to find them. I haven't the time today.
I never said the grantee of the right of use has the right to sue. So why should I prove that? The grantee of such a right does have certain rights that may be enforced, but that's not the issue here, as you noted. You do realize that we were talking analogously, though, right?
Righthaven was transferred ownership of the copyright. And then, acting as owner, they granted an exclusive license to Stephens Media. Granting an exclusive license like that is something that only an owner could do.
You're looking at only one provision, and not the whole agreement. Righthaven was also assigned ownership of the copyrights in addition to the right to sue. Righthaven then, as owner, granted an exclusive license to Stephens Media.
Righthaven still (1) is legal owner of the copyrights, and (2) holds the accreted right to sue for infringements that happened BEFORE they became legal owner of the copyrights. For standing purposes, this is what they need. As transferee, Righthaven is standing in the shoes of their transferor, Stephens Media.
My understanding is that Righthaven can ONLY sue for infringement that occurred prior to them obtaining ownership of the copyrights. Since they've granted Stephens Media an exclusive license, only Stephens Media would have standing for subsequent infringements.
No you could not, if you transfer ownership of your house to another person..they literally own it and you do not have the rights to use/etc.
The owner can allow you the right of use. That's what we're talking about. Happens all the time. I recently was granted the right to use a house, subject to a resolutory condition (someone's death).
I'm not at all confused about ownership and possession. Don't worry about that.
But you can transfer ownership of your house to another person while reserving the right of use, right of redemption, right to control who is sued, and the right to half of the recovery. Why couldn't two parties agree to that? What makes it unenforceable?
Economic injury would be applicable to the fair use and damages analysis, sure, but the issue we're talking about here is whether Righthaven even has standing to bring the suits in the first place.
I think the people who are looking at the parts and saying, "You can't do that!" are getting it wrong. The problem isn't in the individual parts of the agreement. The problem is when you look at the whole. I just don't think there's a clear cut answer either way. I don't care if I "get any love." I'm just expressing my own opinions based on my own analysis and research. I've read about 30 court opinions and 30 law journal articles on these issues. Some things support Righthaven, and some things don't. All I'm saying is that I think it's a gray area. Notice how those who are saying that the answer is clear can't point you to any caselaw that this situation clearly falls into. I think the reason is because there simply is no such caselaw. I did find one analogous case dealing with patent law, and that case, if applicable, would be bad for Righthaven. I've also found a few cases dealing with champerty that might be applicable and bad for Righthaven. But then again, looking at the champerty laws in Nevada, it's not so clear that those cases would apply. I dunno what the answer is, and I'm suspicious of anyone who claims that they do know for certain which way this will go. That's my point. If someone can point me to something that makes the issue crystal clear, I'll gladly agree that it is so. So far, no one's done this. Righthaven will file their briefs showing cause soon enough, and then we'll get the reply briefs. After that, we'll see what the courts say. I'm excited to read it all.
That sale for a dollar would be a simulation and an absolute nullity, and the creditors could bring suit to the have the sale rescinded and declared null.
The right to sue that Righthaven is exercising is the accrued right to sue that they were assigned (along with the copyrights) by Stephens Media. Righthaven is thus standing in the shoes of Stephens Media for the purposes of the lawsuits.
Righthaven holds more than just the right to sue. They are the legal owner of the copyrights. Yes, they granted an exclusive license of those copyrights, but such licensors still remain the legal owners of the copyrights they've licensed. An exclusive licensee does not get full ownership of the thing he's licensed.
It's like if you lease a house. Your lessor still owns the house even though you've leased it.
While we still have a lone holdout in our comments who thinks that Righthaven's lawsuits are legit, despite the recently revealed evidence that the company holds none of the rights available under the Copyright Act . . . .
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Give me a break. I had a job interview earlier today for a summer position, and now I'm working on a big assignment that is due tomorrow. I'd love to answer each and every question in this thread, but I'm simply pressed for time today. Much of these questions I've addressed already. I've gone into great detail about exactly what my arguments are. Look through my posting history and you can read it for yourself.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's called intellectual property for a reason. As much as that kills you, it is a fact that it operates as property.
It's not. It's merely the bundle of rights in 106. If you don't have those, you don't have anything.
Nonsense. A person who grants an exclusive license does not give complete ownership to their licensee. That makes no sense, and I've already proved this in other threads by quoting circuit courts and treatises. The licensor still owns the thing he has licensed.
Do you really think exclusive licensees have complete ownership of the thing they've licensed? That's silly. That's not what a license is.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look at the entire Stategic Alliance Agreement and the individual assignments. They specifically say that Righthaven gets ownership of the copyrights.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Righthaven was transferred ownership of the copyright. And then, acting as owner, they granted an exclusive license to Stephens Media. Granting an exclusive license like that is something that only an owner could do.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Righthaven still (1) is legal owner of the copyrights, and (2) holds the accreted right to sue for infringements that happened BEFORE they became legal owner of the copyrights. For standing purposes, this is what they need. As transferee, Righthaven is standing in the shoes of their transferor, Stephens Media.
My understanding is that Righthaven can ONLY sue for infringement that occurred prior to them obtaining ownership of the copyrights. Since they've granted Stephens Media an exclusive license, only Stephens Media would have standing for subsequent infringements.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The owner can allow you the right of use. That's what we're talking about. Happens all the time. I recently was granted the right to use a house, subject to a resolutory condition (someone's death).
I'm not at all confused about ownership and possession. Don't worry about that.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, on second thought, that would be a relative nullity, not an absolute nullity. Still, the sale could be rescinded.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
Righthaven holds more than just the right to sue. They are the legal owner of the copyrights. Yes, they granted an exclusive license of those copyrights, but such licensors still remain the legal owners of the copyrights they've licensed. An exclusive licensee does not get full ownership of the thing he's licensed.
It's like if you lease a house. Your lessor still owns the house even though you've leased it.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
That's not exactly my position. I think it's a gray area, and I can see it going either way. This post summarizes my thoughts succinctly: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110423/01033814013/another-judge-slams-righthaven-chilling-effect s-that-do-nothing-to-advance-copyright-acts-purpose.shtml#c1281
Next >>