Posted on 01/13/2011 11:42:25 AM PST by mnehring
We don’t need tort reform for this, we need copyright reform. Unfortunately, Congress is pretty much owned by the large corporate copyright interests, a.k.a. the copyright cartel, so reform is not likely. In fact, expect things to get worse.
Everything that’s happened since November, 2008 has been like a Twilight Zone episode......
>>as DX used to say. I got two words for you! Suck it!
LOL! NW-FR “4 life..”
bump
I think JimRob should start a website called copyrighttrollingthugs.com
Put articles on it about Righthaven lawsuits and also LOTS of advertising.
If all freepers click on it once or twice a day, it could generate some good income.
There are a lot of anti-Righthaven sites out there that do just this and a couple of Facebook groups as well.
Guess I better start using my “ghost IP” for any message board posts that I do from now on.
If they’ve got an issue with me, then they can go and get my ID from the internet service provider in China.
Rotsa Ruck!
Wow. BTTT.
67 posts so far. You would think this thread would attract more comments than that.
Well, back now to read the article. Thanks for posting it!
Here’s a good clearinghouse for such subpoenas, although mainly about SLAPP suits.
http://www.casp.net/slapps/cyberslapp.html
Here’s a specific case of a win:
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/10/5400.ars
Freedom of political speech was crucial for that one, so I don’t know how it would apply to a general copyright suit. But in general the plaintiff should have to show a high probability of success in the suit.
But first of all I’d ask the court why the plaintiff didn’t use the DMCA takedown provision. Plaintiffs have a legal duty to reduce damages, IOW, they can’t try to inflate the damage done in order to make a bigger claim. DMCA takedown is the quick and sure way of limiting damages, and this company completely ignores the process.
Hey that’s a good idea and would keep banner ads off FR itself
ROTFL! I have that episode saved on my DVR.
Maybe that poster is a troll trying to ‘set up’ websites for suits from Wronghaven.
Oh, please. Get a clue.
Who was that?
The Fair Use Doctrine applies to anyone. It’s just that this realtor pushed the issue in court. Righyhaven picked the wrong guy - somebody with the financial means to defend himself. IIRC, he also got legal fees from Righthaven. Righthaven likes to pick on little blog sites and forums run by ordinary people of limited means because they can’t afford a full-on legal defense. So they settle for relatively small sums. It’s extortion through intimidation. It’s no different than shakedowns such as the Mafia, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, ACORN, the NAACP and often the government perpetrate.
Could someone summarize the article and post a link only with it?
Honestly, I don’t want to give them any more business by posting links to their material anyway.
BTW, I have a question about a local news source which says it’s material is copyrighted. It’s the Syracuse Post-Standard and has this at the bottom of the page....
“Copyright 2009 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.”
Does that put anything from the Post-Standard on the do not use list?
“Will we ever have tort reform in this country?”
Not so long as lawyers make up a supermajority of our legislators and judges. The foxes really are running/ruining the henhouse.
The proposed Internet ID would make this tracking down of individual posters much easier for Righthaven.
Isn’t that a violation of ex post facto rules?
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.