Skip to comments.Righthaven extends copyright lawsuit campaign to individual Web posters
Posted on 01/13/2011 11:42:25 AM PST by mnehring
Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC is now suing individual message-board posters, not just website operators...
..An attorney for Righthaven on Wednesday said those notices (DCMA) don't apply to individual website users who violate copyrights by posting material online without authorization.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
And yet their webpages still have share links for the large social networking sites.
Not only that but they have retroactively done it.
User posts an article, RightHaven buys copyright to article, Righthaven sues poster for posting the article even though it was posted before RightHaven even owned the copyright.
These guys are absolute legal scumbags.
Yep. Right after term limits.
Guess? Maybe you could say you are Blogging as an individual poster.
Marking for future tagline use.
HOSTS File Blocklist of RIGHTHAVEN Clients as of Dec 5 2010
Dec 10 2010 | JerseyHighlander
Posted on Fri Dec 10 2010 14:46:46 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by JerseyHighlander
Righthaven LLC — a bottom feeding legal outfit — has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal to sue ‘mom and pop’ websites, as well as nonprofit, political action, public interest, writers, and forum board operators for copyright violations. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue hundreds and thousands of these websites and counts on the fact that many are unfunded and will be forced to “settle out of court.” All cases are being filed in a Nevada Federal Court and must be fought in this jurisdiction. You are not safe from Righthaven if you are out-of-state.
- How Do I Avoid a Lawsuit?
How do end users of web content protest against this copyright troll outfit? We whip out the big First Amendment stick of Freedom of Association and boycott the RightHaven client media companies.
This article will focus on Windows operating system and a freeware program called HostsMan. I will give an Apple OS X alternative called GasMask but I have not personally used that software.”
Go after the advertisers who support LVRJ. Start draining their funds and they won ‘t be able to pay their employees.
send lawsuits for max americana to Hope N Change Obama, White House, washington DC.
One solution might be to submit the domains of Righthaven clients to various blacklists as sites to be blocked by proxy servers. Since they don’t seem to want traffic, we should help them out by making sure that users of proxies are kept from accessing their sites. This protects their valuable IP from prying eyes on the Internet and protects users from possible lawsuits. (After all, remembering what one has read may count as illicit copying!)
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..”
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.
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.
Here’s a specific case of a win:
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?
I believe this was brought up in several patent troll cases and it was ruled not being a violation of ex post facto as the law, itself didn’t change, the person who bought the patent was simply acting as the current agent of what was violated, in this case the patented item itself.
No, it’s not like creating a law after the fact. When a musician or a music company sells its copyright to music, the purchaser of the copyright has all the same rights to it that the originator had. It’s no different from selling your house. Once you’ve sold it, the new owner now has all the rights to it, including the right to complain and sue a neighbor over a property line infringement, misuse of an easement, taking rock, soil or gravel from his land or taling fruit from his trees. The previous owner may not have cared, but if the new owner does, it’s his right to put a stop to it.
If the blog or forum post containing the news article is still intact, the new owner of the copyright can still complain abut misue of it. The real problem arises when a lawyer misuses the law by ignoring Fair Use by not asking the “violator” to take it down and just going right into filing a shakedown nuisance suit against people who don’t have the resources to mount an expensive defense in federal court. It’s an abuse of process, but that doesn’t help the individuals who actually get served with these suits. Their choices are to fight, which they can’t afford, ignore it and get a default judgment against them for a huge sum, or settle for a few thousand dollars. The basis of the suit doesn’t have to be right or fair if you select your victims carefully because you know they’re going to settle. Thus, the merits of your suit never get scrutinized by the court. The realtor in Las Vegas who fought Righthaven won. That suggests that these suits don’t pass legal muster, but they don’t have to if the defendant has no means to go forward with a court case.
Well, if the website host owns the posts, then he/she/they own the alleged infringement, I would think, and thus the poster would have no liability whatsoever.
If anyone wants to know, my real name is JIM THOMPSON and I’m not ashamed to let them know!
If anyone wants to know, my real name is JIM THOMPSON and I’m not ashamed to let them know!
Could they force a blog/whatever to turn over IP info about their members? Big Brother is watching!
This sounds like mobsters strongarming grocery store owners for protection—would this violate any RICO laws??
This case is analogous to the change in international waters during most of our lifetimes. And I think they are about to find themselves dragged on up the steps of the SCOTUS, along with the copyright act, which will be weakened as a result of the greed (and maybe left-wing idealogy) of these pack of ambulance chasers. Thanks mnehring.
>On my way out the door I deleted ALL my posts/threads
If you know how, please tell us.
HUMMM, maybe our resident Attorneys could answer that one.
But here is the prohibited activities:
Sec. 1962. Prohibited activities
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income
derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity
or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has
participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18,
United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part
of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any
interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which
is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of
investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in
the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not
be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held
by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their
accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of
an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to
one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not
confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more
directors of the issuer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of
racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to
acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control
of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which
affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated
with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any
of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
(Added Pub. L. 91-452, title IX, Sec. 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat.
942; amended Pub. L. 100-690, title VII, Sec. 7033, Nov. 18, 1988, 102
I don’t know but this seems like racketeering to say the least.
Also, seem like if we want to post a story that was ‘already’ put out there as news
what’s the problem with disgusting the news?
Wouldn’t it be the same as if we were writing letters back and forth?
When will they go after the post offices to get our snails?
MaxCUA. They posted a couple that day. The mod even deleted one post entirely.
The mod fixed the source and title at #40.
What’s more the jerk never replied to any of the posters. Don’t recall them relying in the other threads either.
Looks like that person is STILL posting threads and attributing their blog and not the origiginal source in the source link.
Humblegunner keeps pointing it out, but MaxCUA isn’t abiding by the rules.
“I’d bet there are cases where bloggers don’t cite the actual source “
Very simple, never read anything by a blogger, they are the scu of the earth!
I agree. I just wish there were a way to prevent articles from blogs from appearing in the sidebar for me.
Sounds like MaxCUA is in collusion with or is working for RightHaven.
JimRob, do you always let us know individually if you’ve been asked for a posters IP address or ID?
I’ve been assuming that the govt would tell you to keep your mouth shut up about any such request.
I’ve only had one subpoena ever and no one asked me to keep my mouth shut about it. Turns out the poster was a troll who had already been banned.
Well, if they show up asking for me, remember my name is spelled J-I-M T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N. ;-)
By the way, I doubt the court is going to be thrilled about these guys trying to sue individual posters. I believe they’re already pissed about some of the bloggers being sued over trivial excerpts without being notified in advance by Righthaven. One judge is demanding to know from Righthaven why one recent blogger suit shouldn’t be protected by fair use even though he posted a full text copy. And Righthaven is asking for one of their own suits to be dismissed when the defendant counter sued and the court seems to be siding with the defendant.