Skip to comments.Righthaven seeks to dismiss [its own suit against DU] over posting of R-J story
Posted on 11/16/2010 8:18:51 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The Las Vegas Review-Journal's copyright enforcement company no longer wants to litigate one of its more controversial cases: a complaint against the big political website the Democratic Underground.
Righthaven LLC on Aug. 10 sued the website after a message-board poster copied to the site four paragraphs of a 34-paragraph May 13 Review-Journal story about Republican Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle titled "Tea Party power fuels Angle."
The post by Democratic Underground website user "pampango" credited the information to the Review-Journal and included a link to the rest of the story on the Review-Journal website.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) of San Francisco, an online freedom of speech and privacy organization, as a public service is representing the Democratic Underground in the suit pending in federal court in Las Vegas.
The EFF in September hit Righthaven and the Review-Journal's parent company, Stephens Media LLC, with an answer and counterclaim saying the post at issue was protected by the fair use doctrine of copyright law and accusing the Review-Journal and Righthaven of abusing copyright law by trying to intimidate defendants into settling what critics call frivolous, no-warning lawsuits.
Unlike most of the newspaper industry, which generally seeks to resolve copyright problems out of court, the Review-Journal this year teamed with Righthaven to file dozens of generally no-warning lawsuits against website owners and bloggers...
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
So, DU gets a pass, but we are still under the gun?
I see.... then it should be the same for other sites, shouldn’t it?
IIRC, FR settled with Righthaven.
Not surprised. Righthaven and DU are on the same team.
Let me guess. George Soros is behind The Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Isn’t RATS underground supposed to be for entertainment purposes only?
Yes. It is only good for lols
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was formally founded on July 10, 1990, by Kapor, John Gilmore and Barlow. Initial funding was provided by Kapor, Steve Wozniak, and an anonymous benefactor.
Electronic Frontier Foundation got $300,000 dollars from Soros in 2008
This isn’t a surprise.
I know that you decided to settle, probably the right decision given the circumstances although many of us thought you ought to fight (we didn’t have to face the consequences of any decision). DU and perhaps others had a better case and better argument. It seems to me that Righthaven wants to drop the case because an adverse ruling will destroy their slimy little business model and will put an end to this nonsense. They clearly smell such an adverse ruling.
No matter the outcome, DU will continue to be the refuge of scoundrels as it always has been. If DU and EFF prevail, the free discussion of ideas will be the winner, not just these lefty losers. Go DU! (I swear that I’ll never say that again)
Where did you find that?
I checked for EFF and the three founders on Discover the Network. Came up empty.
Soros only has recent involvement as a donor I believe. Sometimes interests align. Otherwise, the EFF was founded by prominent Silicon Valley geeks long before Soros got involved in US politics.
This is right up the EFF’s alley since they’ve been doing a program on copyright abuse, and helping defend people against it, for a while. They even have a “takedown hall of shame” to showcase abuses of the DMCA takedown provision.
The above link exists only because the poster is on the other side of the net neutrality issue from the EFF. It is a fact that the telcos established astroturf organizations specifically for this issue, and that post is a rather poor attempt at painting the nation’s first electronic rights organization (founded 1990, when it hadn’t even been established that freedom of speech applied online) as a recent Soros astroturf organization in order to detract.
Some of the EFF financial backers from the 2008 Annual Report
Herb Block Foundation
David Bohnett Foundation
California Consumer Protection Foundation
Mitchell Kapor Foundation
David L. Klein Jr. Foundation
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Open Society Institute
Parker Family Foundation
William A. Runnels III Charitable Trust
Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation
To partially quote James ‘Sawyer’ Ford- “Son of a...”.
Also notice their who’s who of the tech industry old-timers:
John Gilmore (USENET, Sun employee #5)
Phil and Kimberly Karn (Internet architect, also famous for challenging crypto export laws)
Eben Moglen (lawyer to developers, represented Zimmermann in challenging crypto export laws)
Brad Templeton (USENET, first electronic publishing)
Edward Tufte (information design pioneer)
Mitchell Kapor Foundation (Lotus 123 writer, EFF founder)
David Bohnett Foundation (GeoCities founder)
And a couple more modern ones:
Cory Doctorow (copyright activist)
Gordon Fyodor Lyon (nmap)
David Bohnett is a philanthropist and technology entrepreneur committed to effecting positive change through community building and social activism.
The Fund for Los Angeles, supporting a broad spectrum of arts, educational and civic programs including the Los Angeles Philharmonic, LACMA and the Venice Family Clinic; LGBT-related causes; graduate school leadership programs at the University of Michigan, UCLA, NYU and Harvard; voting rights and registration initiatives; supporting research and public policies to reduce the toll of firearm violence; and animal research and rights.
Grants totaling over $35 million to date have supported the work of a wide range of organizations including the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, The Wildlife Alliance, the ACLU Foundation, Equality California, and the David Bohnett Gay & Lesbian Leadership Fellows program at Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government. The David Bohnett CyberCenters are another major undertaking currently at 63 LGBT centers nationwide, they offer business, educational, research, and recreational opportunities to the local gay and lesbian community via access to the Internet.
CCPF was established in 1991 by the Honorable Ira A. Brown Jr. (deceased) of the San Francisco Superior Court of the State of California.
As a strategic grantmaker, California Consumer Protection Foundation (CCPF) provides funding for nonprofit organizations, with special attention to small and grassroots programs, addressing and advocating for consumer issues in diverse areas, including health care, auto sales, consumer fraud, privacy, finance, insurance, energy, and telecommunications.
The Mitchell Kapor Foundation works to ensure fairness and equity, particularly for low-income communities of color.
David L. Klein, Jr. Foundation
Also known as David L. Klein, Jr. Memorial Foundation
for tax year ending 12/31/2002
Total Assets $12,385,951.00
Grants Awarded $0.00
Top Grants Made
Natural Resources Defense Council $310,000.00 1998 2006
Pesticide Action Network North America $70,000.00 1999 2002
Green Corps $40,000.00 2002 2002
Greenpeace $40,000.00 1999 2000
Green Guide Institute $15,000.00 2000 2000
Earthjustice $10,000.00 1998 1999
Earth Island Institute $5,000.00 1998 1998
Union of Concerned Scientists $5,000.00 2004 2004
The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. In addition to selecting the MacArthur Fellows, the Foundation works to defend human rights, advance global conservation and security, make cities better places, and understand how technology is affecting children and society.
Thanks, kcvl, for all the posts, there’s alot of information there.
All but the willfully blind should see EFF as a hodgepodge of far left individuals and interest groups.
I find it just about inconcievable to believe they would in any way be interested in protecting liberty for all.
And I would think that anything George Soros is supporting is meant to at some point to harm America.
I totally agree!
The Open Society Institute is George Soros. He founded it in 1993.
It's a rights organization founded in 1990 by famous geeks who realized the government was clueless about computers, and so were our laws. Note this thread is about them defending people against copyright abuse. Does that not qualify as liberty for all? They would have probably helped FR if they had been asked. I would be seriously disappointed if they didn't.
Your guilt by association can't diminsh the good work they've done for electronic privacy, free speech and fair use (which FR heavily depends on). They've successfully protected journalists against Apple, defended academic research, defended the freedom to publish damaging evidence about Diebold's voting machines, defended a developer against malicious corporate-driven prosecution, helped overturn damaging business method patents, fought against software licenses that attempt to nullify your rights under copyright law and the Constitution, and fought various abuses of the DMCA. They unsuccessfully tried to stop the blatantly unconstitutional expansion of copyright terms in the late 90s and challenge the constitutionality of the anticircumvention portion of the DMCA.
Not that I agree with them on everything though. IMHO they went too far defending file sharing that was blatant copyright infringement.
The ONLY reason the EFF is now under attack as a leftist organization is because of their support for net neutrality. The issue of them being left/right never appeared until that, in an effort to equate them with telco-created astroturf organizations. Net neutrality is in essence non-partisan, not left/right, not Republican/Democrat. It is about retaining the openness of the Internet so that sites like FR can operate without having to pay off all the individual consumer ISPs.
Soros has given money to Grameen Bank, which makes microloans for small businesses so people can get out of poverty using capitalism instead of government grants. He funded dissident movements in the Soviet Bloc. Were those meant to harm America? He also supports -- OMG -- the Library of Congress! Most of what he does is bad, otherwise think of a stopped clock.
You have to look at the ACTIONS of each organization, and this one was around LONG before Soros got into US politics, fighting for the rights of all Americans.
Whatever the intention of your post, I'm not particularly inclined to alter my viewpoint when you conclude the post with a statement like that.
In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder's agendas. Those agendas can be summarized as follows:
promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters
financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
advocating America's unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending
opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
promoting socialized medicine in the United States
promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is "not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization"
bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations
promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike
promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand
advocating stricter gun-control measures
advocating the legalization of marijuana
Dicoverthenetworks-Individual Profile-George Soros
The OSI was created in 1993, but even then Soros didn’t really get direcly involved in US politics much, at least not in a high-profile manner, until Bush. He did establish earlier organizations to fund dissidents in communist countries. Do you have a problem with someone trying to overthrow communist governments during the Cold War?
You seem to rely on this discoverthenetworks site. I wouldn’t suggest doing that in the future if they can’t get such basic facts right.
You seem to rely on this discoverthenetworks site. I wouldnt suggest doing that in the future if they cant get such basic facts right.
The 1979 reference is explained by further investigation...
Dicoverthenetworks is a reference site established and maintained by David Horowitz. I have a great deal of respect for the man and his work.
If it is your position to demean Horowitz and insult me while praising Soros for funding dissidents during the Cold War, then quite frankly, you're wasting my time and yours. You're just not going to find many Soros fans around here.
Soros’ foundations started in 1979, first to fight Apartheid and then Eastern European communism, but the OSI didn’t get created until 1993.
I remain correct, and your source remains wrong. The EFF was founded before the OSI.
DU isn’t letting Righthaven or LVRJ off the hook according to this source. I was going to start a thread but decided to update this one instead.
From Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Democratic Underground Responds to Righthaven Copyright Troll Lawsuit
Commentary by Kurt Opsahl
Righthaven is attempting to make a business out of suing Internet websites for copyright infringement. It has filed 180 copyright actions so far without ever first asking that a work be removed from the target websitein each case alleging willful infringement and attempting to extract settlements by threats of statutory damages (up to $150,000), attorneys fees and seizure of the domain name.
Democratic Underground — represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Fenwick & West LLP, and attorney Chad Bowers — was sued by Righthaven on August 10 for a five-sentence excerpt of a Las Vegas Review-Journal news story that a user posted on the forum, with a link back to the Review-Journal website.
Democratic Underground, a political message forum, refused to be intimidated by Righthavens action. They retained counsel and responded with a counterclaim that joined Righthaven affiliate and funder, Stephens Media, LLC (publisher of the Review-Journal), and laid bare the numerous defects not only in Righthavens claims, but in its business model itself. Not surprisingly, Righthaven now wants outso badly, in fact, that it has moved to voluntarily dismiss its claim with prejudice in order to avoid a decision on the merits. However, Righthaven pleads to be let off the hook for Democratic Underground’s fees and costs defending the lawsuit.
Democratic Underground responded to Righthaven’s motion yesterday. DU agrees that this case should be overindeed, it should never have started. But it should not end until Righthaven is called to account for the cost of the defense it provoked. To allow Righthaven to avoid compensating innocent defendants who refused to be coerced would be unjust and unsupportable. Accordingly, Democratic Underground asked the Court to deny the conditions Righthaven wrongfully proposed for the motion for voluntary dismissal and instead grant summary judgment in its favor.
In addition, Stephens Media has filed a motion to be let out of the case, piously claiming that it is just an innocent bystander, having done nothing but assign a copyright to Righthaven. To the contrary, Stephens Media has publicly admitted that it grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven,” and made numerous public statements discussing Stephens Medias ownership interest in Righthaven, its control over who Righthaven sues, and Righthavens business practices that are based on agreements with Stephens Media: with its general counsel representing, for instance, that I can tell Righthaven not to sue somebody. Democratic Underground responded to that motion as well, asking the court to reject Stephens Media’s attempt to walk away from the copyright troll it created, and allow the counter-claim so that the online forum can receive full justice.