Posted on 07/21/2010 10:18:58 AM PDT by mnehring
Imagine for a moment your grandmother creating a blog to talk about her gardening. One of her friends leaves a comment on her blog with a news article about gardens in her area. Sounds innocent enough? Actions like this happen every second on the Internet.
Now imagine the news source in the comment suddenly, without warning, suing your grandmother for the comment left on her blog, demanding high monetary compensation and possibly even control of her blog.
Incidents like this happen all the time. The latest targets of these types of lawsuits include Jim Robinson, a disabled veteran, and his website FreeRepublic.com. Free Republic is one of the oldest Conservative news discussion forums on the Internet. It is also non-commercial, relying on donations from members to keep the lights on. At Free Republic, members of the public can post and discuss news articles and most of these member’s identities remain anonymous. One of these anonymous members posted a news article from the website of the Las Vegas Review-Journal without the awareness that this publication has contracted with Righthaven LLC to track down and file lawsuits against anyone who posts articles from their website. According to the Las Vegas Sun, over 70 such lawsuits have been filed by Righthaven on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal since the first of the year, many against small blogs or, like the Free Republic incident, against forums whose anonymous members have posted articles.
According to postings at Free Republic, the owner never received a take-down request, and if he had, would have removed the articles immediately. Free Republic has been very vigilant in providing members “no post” or “excerpt only” lists of publications that wish to limit distribution of their material. Unfortunately for Free Republic and countless other websites, notification of the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s request seems to have come in the form of a lawsuit with no prior notification of their wishes or any take-down notification as required by the safe harbor act of the DMCA.
To complicate matters even further, all article pages at the Las Vegas Review-Journal include links encouraging members to share the content on social networking sites. These links share the title and URL of the article, but provide little guidance to the average person, of what they are or aren’t allowed to post. In the context of the massive amount of lawsuits filed by Righthaven and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, one could come to an opinion that this may be more of a revenue scheme versus legitimately protecting copyrights.
We strongly believe in the protection of one’s intellectual property and respecting copyrights, however, in this day and age of social media, the line of what can be shared versus protected is rarely clear. Luckily for blogs and other website owners, the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA and case law such as Viacom v. YouTube provide protections to citizens from these unclear judgments.
Righthaven, the ambulance chaser of internet copyright enforcement. low lifes out to make a quick buck, nothing more.
Just in case you hadn’t seen it....
bump
Is there a legal defense fund?
I am happy to contribute to that.
Saw the post and I believe the man.
To complicate matters even further, all article pages at the Las Vegas Review-Journal include links encouraging members to share the content on social networking sites.
Absent proof they notified Jim, this case doesn't look too good for them.
I saw an article about this at another Las Vegas paper a few days ago, but didn’t want to post it as a thread since it might cause trouble: Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/20/conservative-website-among-3-sued-over-r-j-copyrig/
How can we donate to helP Jim with legal expenses?
Ugh!
Who is this Gibson character?
I’m sure closing out the FReepathon would help.
https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/
Same here.
The only ones that win are the lawyers.
Sounds to me like the LVRJ doesn’t have a case - period. No takedown warning? Actively encouraging readers to share content on SN sites? Any decent judge would make the LVRJ and Righthaven split JimRob’s legal costs, AND kick another quarter’s worth of Freepathon his way as compensation for the trouble.
If you look at the lists of those who are being sued (lists on Las Vegas Sun link), most are small websites and blogs. I bet they are hoping that most can’t afford a lawyer or don’t want to go through the trouble and just settle.
Newspapers are desperate for revenue.
A Freeper pointed out that you can Twitter, Facebook, Print, Email, Share and RSS feed their stuff, just don’t put it on a conservative website that Harry, Nancy, Cass and Obamassiah don’t like.
Free Dominion moved their stuff to the Rep. of Panama where blogging, e-mails, etc. come under the same very strick laws as their banking secrets.
It is slammer time for anybody to reveal such secrets…and Panama jails aren’t the Hilton.
Owner X remains the owner, but the owner’s name does not appear anywhere. Needless to say, blogging contributors are also protected under the law. All names are secret.
Folks in the U.S. need to become aware of this to maintain full anonymity to avoid lawsuits.
Please learn.
One would think that newspapers would appreciate the free link to their website.
This has to be the dumbest industry in America.
Anyone check if DU or Kos are using the same articles???
Consider that pic stolen.....
A BTT for the morning crowd. I’ll be interested to hear what the newspaper itself has to say. People in the business of online content who deliberately drive their hit count down are not walking the path of wisdom, IMHO.
how appropriate!
I don’t think any of the lawsuits(71) listed at their site has either been settled or tried in court yet. They are throwing scat on the wall trying to see what sticks.
P.S.
check my post #22.
I have mentioned this on FR several times, but no one is listening.
I am wasting my time.
A successful countersuit might take care of the next 3 or 4 FReepathons!
I am confused. Is there a specific article that was posted that shouldn’t have been, or is the LVRJ opposed to the posting or linking of all articles to it? The LVRJ has some great editorials. Are we not supposed to post, excerpt, or comment on them?
Did they require DU to remove their content too, or are they just Lib-Action-Front “Journolists”?
Are you taking bets on Hairy Read involvement?
The KOS one is a little misleading. The ones I clicked had discussions about the LVRJ, but I didn’t see any articles posted. The DU ones are all lengthy excerpts.....
Would you like a signed letter from Jim and John, in triplicate? In answer to your question, I'd guess "yes."
Oh, people are listening. I've noticed you posting this data before. You don't really expect people to openly discuss such a thing here, if they're considering such a move, do you?
Here is the link to the complaint, where you can find the title of the thread: Mash Here. Scroll down to "JURISDICTION" section for the titles.
You might try sending your ideas direct to Jim Robinson, owner of this website. It is his call and his alone as to whether he moves FR’s site registration offshore to Panama or elsewhere to avoid harassment lawsuits like this. If he says no, then at least you can say you tried.
Just type in Jim Robinson in the ‘To:’ box and send your idea directly to him. Or send him a private Freepmail.
Your idea is a good one to potentially avoid harrassment lawsuits like this from the LVRJ, but again, you need to bring this directly to Jim Robinson’s attention.
This is pathetic.
I understand and know the need for copyright laws, but sometimes it becomes a joke. I would think the Las Vegas news people would appreciate more hits, more traffic and more intrest in their product which is news reporting. Dying newspapers will continue to die and they deserve it.
Contribute to the FReepathon and that will help Jim as much as anything.
;^)
I forgot the /u, as you can see...
Any knowledgeable judge should instantly throw out the lawsuit based on the existence of those links, which are tantamount to an invitation to the public to "give away our content".
If the RJ doesn't like it, they can sell Bloomberg-like terminals to their subscribers for $100/month and make that the only means of accessing their content. Two or three people might even buy one. :)
That looks like Monument Valley. If that’s the case, that’s not Arizona, but Utah.
“Oh, people are listening. I’ve noticed you posting this data before. You don’t really expect people to openly discuss such a thing here, if they’re considering such a move, do you?”
I suppose you may be right. I have always been an impatient person. Yesterday was not soon enough and today and tomorrow are too late in these types of things.
As you say, publicly yammering about it may not be good. After all, one does not give away one’s war plans. Quite possibly Jim is working on it. But, these things in Panama only take a few days and not a few weeks or months. This fact is what is bothering me; and hence, as I see it, this could have been accomplished a long time ago.
Never the less, thank you for telling me cool my heels and in a polite way to shut up....
:)
That’s one of the “Mittens”. It’s about a half-mile below the line. The far background is Utah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.