Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Righthaven hit with third fair use loss over R-J material
Vegas Inc ^ | 6/20/2011 | By Steve Green

Posted on 06/20/2011 1:07:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

A Kentucky man did not infringe on a copyright when he posted an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal column on a message board without authorization, a federal judge ruled today.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Philip Pro in Las Vegas on fair use grounds is the third fair use loss for Righthaven LLC, which sues over Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post material. Earlier losses over Review-Journal material involved entire and partial R-J stories.

Pro today dismissed a Righthaven lawsuit against Wayne Hoehn on grounds that Righthaven lacks standing to sue over Review-Journal material, as already determined by another federal judge in Las Vegas.

Perhaps just as significantly, Pro’s ruling found Hoehn’s post of the column on the madjacksports.com site was protected by fair use as Hoehn did not profit from the post, the column was largely informational as opposed to being creative and that Righthaven presented no evidence that Hoehn’s posting of the column harmed the market for the column.

The Review-Journal column at issue, by then R-J Publisher Sherman Frederick, was called "Public employee pensions – we can’t afford them."

(Excerpt) Read more at vegasinc.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: copyright; copyrighttroll; fairuse; lasvegasreview; righthaven

1 posted on 06/20/2011 1:07:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Excellent!


2 posted on 06/20/2011 1:11:38 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (FreeRepublic.com. Now, More Than Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Aw, poor Righthaven . . . they’ll have to come up with a new way to try to stop a free people from communicating with each other.


3 posted on 06/20/2011 1:12:01 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I’ll bet your smile is hugh right now, Jim.


4 posted on 06/20/2011 1:13:53 PM PDT by RandallFlagg (Let this chant follow BHO everywhere he goes: "You lie. You lie. You lie.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

This is good. More people need to keep fighting back on this garbage, whether it be sports blogs, gardening blogs, or political blogs (that also goes to our “friends” on the other side of the aisle. JR -I put “friends” in quotation marks).
These bottom feeding scum need to lose bad and get put out of business.


5 posted on 06/20/2011 1:14:15 PM PDT by Fred Hayek (FUBO, the No Talent Pop Star pResident.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

about dang time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


6 posted on 06/20/2011 1:14:56 PM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Hugh and series.


7 posted on 06/20/2011 1:15:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; John Robinson
Photobucket

P.S. - To Jim and John Robinson: A big thank you for getting yesterday's 503 error fixed!

8 posted on 06/20/2011 1:16:27 PM PDT by lonevoice (Where the Welfare State is on the march, the Police State is not far behind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Great, but what kills Righthaven is when they have to pay attorneys fees.


9 posted on 06/20/2011 1:18:45 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/righthaven-llc-v-hoehn

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2011cv00050/78697/


10 posted on 06/20/2011 1:19:20 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

More great news! The Righthaven scam may be coming to and end.


11 posted on 06/20/2011 1:20:21 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55566447/Righthaven-v-Wayne-Hoehn-Defendant-s-Reply-to-Plaintiff-s-Response-to-Defendant-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-for-Lack-of-Subject-Matter-Jurisdiction


12 posted on 06/20/2011 1:20:21 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

13 posted on 06/20/2011 1:26:00 PM PDT by South40 (Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Outstanding.


14 posted on 06/20/2011 1:26:06 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Tea Party: 'Give us our country back.' - GOP: 'Give us our power back.' Two very different things..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Does this mean we can post Las Vegas Review-Journal material in full at FR? Not that I want to, just curious...

Is this ruling consistant with LATimes vs. FR?

15 posted on 06/20/2011 1:31:32 PM PDT by lwd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lwd

There is nothing consistent in regards to fair use. But, hopefully, these kinds of losses will discourage copyright trolls.


16 posted on 06/20/2011 1:37:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

But in light of this ruling how can they keep your money, Jim? That’s what I think about when read this. They took your money and they have no standing. It’s not right.


17 posted on 06/20/2011 1:51:46 PM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it's the new black. Mmm mmm mmm...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ReneeLynn

Our money is most likely water under the bridge. Righthaven will soon be broke if not already so.


18 posted on 06/20/2011 1:56:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Early copyright history derived from efforts by authority to control the spread of the printing press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

IMO, the internet will eventually moot copyright altogether. The toothpaste is out of the tube.


19 posted on 06/20/2011 2:15:00 PM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Our money is most likely water under the bridge. Righthaven will soon be broke if not already so.

It's called "piling on", also known as "kicking them when they're down." Head for you local Small Claims Court and sue to get the first few thousand back. Have them served by Registered Mail, Return Receipt Requested.

If they show up, state your case to the Judge. If they don't, you win by default. Either way you're paying them back with a pain in their collective ass.

Best,

L

20 posted on 06/20/2011 2:15:44 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
But Pro, in looking at the details in the amended lawsuit contract, found Righthaven still lacks standing as Stephens Media still maintains too much control over the copyrights it assigns to Righthaven. Under case law, a party filing copyright infringement suits has to have exclusive ownership of copyrights and Righthaven still doesn't have that, Pro found.

"Even assuming that the May 9, 2011, clarification (to the contract) can change the jurisdictional facts as they existed at the time of the filing of the suit, it still does not correct the deficiencies with respect to lack of standing," his ruling said. "It does not provide Righthaven with any exclusive rights necessary to bring suit."

WUH-WUH. Righthaven both didn't get what it paid for and it lost its resulting lawsuit.

21 posted on 06/20/2011 2:24:25 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Also they cannot be represented by a Lawyer in small claims court.


22 posted on 06/20/2011 2:29:04 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

A Judge in Las Vegas named “Pro”? What mob does he work for?

Agree with the verdict but, still, doesn’t inpire fair justice.


23 posted on 06/20/2011 2:39:51 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

How about a suit against Righthaven and LVRJ? They were in cahoots on this.


24 posted on 06/20/2011 4:58:58 PM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: abb; Jim Robinson

Abb posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 4:15:00 PM: “Early copyright history derived from efforts by authority to control the spread of the printing press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law IMO, the internet will eventually moot copyright altogether. The toothpaste is out of the tube.”

Careful on this one. Copyright laws and patent laws are not only an important part of the American legal system but also an important part of capitalism. If people can’t profit from their invention or their writings for a limited period of time, as specified in the Constitution, it will severely limit the profit motive for authors and inventors. Our Founding Fathers created a system that nurtured free enterprise and the original reasons for copyright and patent laws are important.

On the other hand, fair use is an important exemption from copyright law. It is absolutely essential that people who want to comment on something be able to quote enough of it to prove why they disagree, and in some cases that means the entire text. That is what is at stake here — copyright is legitimate, but abuse of copyright to prevent criticism of somebody’s ideas is totally wrong.

What Righthaven is doing is especially egregious because the operation doesn’t even suffer any “damages” until the reassignment of copyright, and it’s nothing but a sham set up by the newspaper to collect damages.

It looks like Righthaven will be destroyed by this ruling and that is a very, very good thing.


25 posted on 06/20/2011 9:42:16 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I’m late to the discussion. You probably already know this, but I just learned that the obamas and Steve Gibson of right haven all worked at the Chicago law firm at the same time. Michelle and Steve did intellectual property law.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1144773/pg1


26 posted on 06/29/2011 7:51:36 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson