Posted on 07/31/2010 6:02:01 AM PDT by marktwain
First things first. Lots of people want to know what’s going to happen, whether we will settle or fight.
We don’t know.
To be honest, neither of us have firmly decided one way or the other. When people start using the law in unorthodox ways to bully or extort from small nonprofit blogs, you don’t want to cave to them. Then you find out just how much it costs to stand on principle. Righthaven knows the breaking point for most people, hence the multiple low-key settlements.
Rest assured, Clayton, David and TheArmedCitizen will cooperate with the law to the fullest extent required. It was never our intent to infringe, and if such an infringement occurred, we will do our best to correct the error.
To clarify from the earlier post, Righthaven’s claim is based on just one article from May 2010. (The filing lists previous articles copied or excerpted from the Review-Journal in the past 7 years of website archives.)
In Our Favor… For a company that goes around slapping bloggers with lawsuits, Righthaven’s decision to put The Armed Citizen in its sights may be imprudent. The owners hardly get rich off this site, and when the main contributor is a young kid fresh out of college, the financial returns aren’t going to be very handsome.
In short, these are the wrong pockets to pick.
That being said, while The Armed Citizen doesn’t have money, we do have friends. Lots of them. We’ve already received multiple encouraging e-mails and support from loyal readers. We hear you’ve been contacting the Journal-Review, and other allies like the NRA, for which we are extremely grateful. Please, don’t stop.
The publicity of this may be another factor Righthaven neglected. Already, the Review-Journal’s rival paper, the Las Vegas Sun, is running stories on these lawsuits. Wired.com ran a story which was then linked to on the Drudge Report. Reason magazine and World Net Daily are among other popular sources that have run with this story, along with countless bloggers.
More About Righthaven Righthaven actually secured the copyright in July…or, nearly two months after the article appeared on the website. In other words, Righthaven attorneys preparing their litigious blitzkrieg found the article (likely because we linked back to their website), and in order to pursue statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages, which would be little to none), secured a copyright to the article after the fact.
Wired.com described the dozens of lawsuits as a business plan for gleaning copyright profits. This is hardly unfair, given the number of lawsuits filed.
Click here to read a list of the lawsuits filed by Righthaven since March 2010 (PDF)
This list itself is incomplete because Righthaven files new lawsuits constantly. On July 21, suits were filed against Free Speech Systems LLC and Americans for Democratic Action, Inc. More recently (July 26) suits were filed against Paula Bliss and former mob enforcer Anthony Fiato, both private bloggers. This brings the number of lawsuits from Righthaven to 81.
Click here to track ongoing lawsuits from Righthaven.
In Our Defense There are several dubious claims made in the lawsuit, among which that we targeted advertising to the residents of Nevada, which is wholly false.
There is also a powerful argument in favor of fair use. According to copyright.gov, “The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.”
Given the noncommercial and scholarly nature of the website, and the fact that we were collecting thousands of stories for the purposes of a silent-but-deafening commentary on armed self-defense – which recent events prove to be a pivotal issue of debate from both a Constitutional and a societal point of view – may contribute to a strong case for fair use.
Neither Clayton nor David have been served yet, and the case can’t proceed until we have received formal notice.
What Can You Do?
Pay – Every little bit helps. If we wind up having to settle, it will help offset those expenses. If not, then we promise we’ll use it to make the blog bigger and better than ever.
Pray – Most armed citizens know that life is governed by a higher power. We could certainly use your prayers for wisdom, and against the adversaries that have arisen.
Talk – Keep spreading the word about this lawsuit. Blog about it. (Yes, you can reproduce material here, including the image!) Tell your friends. Post it on Facebook. Help guarantee the full story about Righthaven is told on Wikipedia. Tip the news services about it, even the big ones. If you know copyright attorneys (especially in Nevada), send them our way.
Many of you have contacted the Review-Journal and reported back to us. The paper has asked you to direct your inquiries to two people, the managing editor and the chief counsel. Here is their information:
Managing Editor: Charlie Zobell czobell@reviewjournal.com.
Corporate Counsel: Mark Hieneber 702-477-3830
We ask that you be polite, but we do ask you to contact them.
We thank you for your support and assistance. We trust that this matter will be resolved, and The Armed Citizen can return to providing you the content you’ve come to expect.
Sincerely, David and Clayton
Further links List of Righthaven-owned or affiliated newspapers to avoid Does Righthaven’s Founder Have Ties to Obama?
For those who may not know, RightHaven are the d-bags who are suing FR.
For those who may not know, RightHaven are the d-bags who are suing FR.
There have been about thirty threads featuring freepers quiting the NRA and urging others to also quit over nonsense and falsehoods if not out and out lies. But when there's trouble, freepers have mentioned getting help from the NRA 100 percent of the time.
It would be ironic if the ArmedCitizen would survive with the NRA's help but FR would fail without it.
IMO, FR sits on pretty good ground in this lawsuit. For sites where third parties are posting the stories (such as FR), the DMCA requires a copyright holder to issue a notice of removal before they can proceed with further legal action. Apparently, RightHaven never issued such a notice to FR, so RightHaven would appear to have no standing.
Assuming the case comes before one of the judges who still actually believe in enforcing law, rather than political persuasion.
Not necessarily ironic. It'd just be a case of getting the NRA to spend its money doing good things (like defending FR and other gun-right supportive sites) instead of on bad things (like supporting Harry Reid).
The NRA does not support Reid. They thanked him for the funds for a gun range. The same type of money that supports ball sports.
Liars like you never seem to let the facts get in the way of helping the anti gunners. Keep sitting in the corner. The adults have work to do.
I’m aware of the DMCA issue, but FR would still have to hire a lawyer to fight the suit. RightHaven’s MO is to file these suits and then offer to settle for less than the cost of defending against the suit. It’s a shakedown, plain and simple.
Thanks for posting. The tactics of totalitarians. BTTT!
LOL!
Nail on the head post.
Tell ya what, you can start bragging about the NRA’s accomplishments when the good citizens of NYC and Chicago can actually own handguns.
Actually, the NRA *has* floated the possibility of supporting Reid. This is true whether or not you choose to accept it.
Liars like you never seem to let the facts get in the way of helping the anti gunners. Keep sitting in the corner. The adults have work to do.
You know, part of the problem with FR is that idjits like yourself are here - people who can't simply disagree in a rational manner, but have to start little whinefests about other people being "liars" and trying (and note, the emphasis is on "trying", since your effort was extremely pathetic) to insult them because they said something you didn't like. Seriously, grow up.
If you ask me, the NRA is way past its sell-by date. This nonsense of weaseling themselves an exemption to the DISCLOSE Act, while everyone else gets to have their First Amendment speech rights taken away, really takes the cake.
And while I realise that their first and primary interest is in 2nd amendment issues, you'd think that somebody - somebody - at the NRA would have enough sense to realise that other issues besides specific 2nd amendment issues will still have an overall effect on that issue as well. The 2nd amendment doesn't exist in a vacuum.
You nailed it.
In a recent Foxnews piece, they said the NRA endorsed Dem candidates approximately 26% of the time, p from 11% or so several years ago (from memory). These are the same people who voted for obamacare which will LIKELY make firearms a health hazard at some point inthe future. It may not be this year or next, but it’s coming. And the NRA is helping to make this happen.
The NRA should be more like Martin Luther King Jr. Absolutist in insisting for equal rights for blacks. Instead, the NRA continues to do business as normal (classes and such) with states such as CA will willfully disregard the 2A. If they really wanted to defend the 2A, they woul pull out of such states. Can anyone imagine MLK doing business as usual with any of the southern states? Neither can I.
So, by this logic FR should pull out of CA, too, right?
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.