My home state of Nevada is 150 years old today. Abraham Lincoln signed legislation making Nevada a state on October 31, 1864.
To celebrate the Silver State’s Sesquicentennial in Blog Law Blog fashion, here’s a some resources on Nevada blog law:
My home state of Nevada is 150 years old today. Abraham Lincoln signed legislation making Nevada a state on October 31, 1864.
To celebrate the Silver State’s Sesquicentennial in Blog Law Blog fashion, here’s a some resources on Nevada blog law:
Eriq Gardner, legal-issues journalist for the Hollywood Reporter, has penned the ABA Journal magazine’s new cover story: “The Righthaven Experiment: A Journalist Wonders If a Copyright Troll Was Right to Sue Him.”
As a funny aside, the online version of the story says “Posted May 1, 2012 5:20 AM CDT.”
As I write this, it’s April 26, 2012 7:35AM CDT.
Righthaven, the Nevada-based copyright thugster that sued scores of mom-and-pop bloggers with heavy-handed lawsuits seeking six-figure awards, has had its engine – or it’s malignant beating heart, the metaphor’s up to you – pulled out of it. The U.S. District Court in Las Vegas has ordered the transfer of all of Righthaven’s copyrights – the copyrights it used as its basis to sue – to a court-appointed receiver to auction them off against $186,680 owed to creditors, including Righthaven defendants who won fee awards.
The first auction may start on Monday.
Last week, Steve Green, the reporter who has most closely followed the Righthaven story, asked me what I thought of the revelation that MediaNews Group broke off its deal with Righthaven. Here’s what I told him:
The law has long had a special affection for newspapers. That’s reflected in a long line of Supreme Court cases. Given that history, it has been very dispiriting to see newspapers try to game the law in pursuit of a quick-money scheme, especially one that involves suing readers.
The participation of MediaNews Group was especially troubling to me, given that they operate many of the nation’s most important and well-respected newspapers. Thus, it is a great relief to see that MediaNews has parted ways with Righthaven.
A newspaper is sometimes described as a community talking to itself. Can a newspaper uphold that vision while partnering with Righthaven? I don’t think so. And that’s a point that I think most publishers understood as soon as Righthaven pitched them.
MediaNews Group was the only big news organization that put aside the sense of public trust we expect of newspapers to take part in this misadventure. They have shown integrity and good sense by now walking away.
The copyright-lawsuit factory that has sued scores of bloggers appears to be nearing the financial precipice. Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun and Vegas Inc. reports that Righthaven is pleading with the U.S. District Court in Nevada to stay an order to pay $34,045 in attorneys fees arising from Righthaven’s failed lawsuit against Kentucky resident Wayne Hoehn over a post on a sports-betting message board. Judge Phillip Pro dismissed that lawsuit in June, holding that Righthaven lacked standing to sue Hoehn, and, additionally, that Hoehn’s reposting of an entire column from the Las Vegas Review-Journal was protected as fair use. As a result, Judge Pro ordered Righthaven pay Hoehn’s attorneys fees. On Friday, Righthaven asked Judge Pro to stay his order while it is appealed to the 9th Circuit. Green writes:
Righthaven … said the gridlock over its lawsuits has hurt its finances – and expressed concern that attorneys for prevailing defendants like Hoehn may seize its assets and put it out of business.
Righthaven, begging for mercy. I don’t even have the words to describe the irony here.
When a company breathes the word “bankruptcy” as part of a plea for delaying the payment of some debt, it generally means the implosion is already well underway. That being the case, we can expect anyone who has a judgment against Righthaven to rush to seize assets as fast as possible. That will force Righthaven to run to bankruptcy court to get the protection of the automatic stay available for bankruptcy filers.
I haven’t seen Righthaven’s emergency request to Judge Pro, but I can’t imagine there’s any good reason to grant it unless Righthaven is able to post a bond – which they might not be able to do if they are nearing bankruptcy. This is something that the bankruptcy courts can sort out, and will probably will have to.
And, by the way, yes, this means Righthaven defendants could end up controlling – through a creditors’ committee – the copyrights that were used as the basis for suing them. It also means that a lot more Righthaven documents could be opened up to public scrutiny.
Lawsuit mill Righthaven has now suffered its biggest setback yet: MediaNews Group, publisher of the Denver Post has walked away from its year-long partnership.
As one of the biggest newspaper chains in the United States, MediaNews was Righthaven’s prestigious business partner in a volume business of suing hapless bloggers for copyright infringement. Even as Righthaven has been dealt a string of blows in court, the partnership with MediaNews gave Righthaven real cred.
Now that’s gone.
Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun and Vegas Inc. explains what’s happened and provides the context. Key to the story is that MediaNews Group’s change of heart corresponds with a change in management. New CEO John Paton has different ideas about what MediaNews should be doing in the face of the digital transition – and it’s not suing readers.
In his previous job as CEO of Journal Register Co., Paton tweeted about Righthaven, “Such a bad idea for newspapers. I’m speechless,” Green relays. And Wired.com quotes Paton as saying that partnering with the Las-Vegas-based Righthaven “was a dumb idea from the start.”
That leaves Righthaven standing alone except for its maiden business deal with the Las Vegas Review-Journal. (That relationship looks intact for now.)
So this answers the question of whether other big newspapers owned by MediaNews Group – such as The Detroit News, The San Jose Mercury News, and the Salt Lake City Tribune – would be joining hands with Righthaven. Happily, it ain’t so.
It’s a good day for newspapers, a good day for bloggers, and a good day for law.
Righthaven – the copyright thugster and blogger-suer extraordinaire – continues the nosedive it began with its Democratic Underground defeat in June, the revelations from which led me to suggest the Nevada bar should consider attorney misconduct charges against Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson.
Here’s some of the latest to happen since then:
Insignificant rebellion? South Carolina attorney Todd Kincannon is looking for people who’ve been sued by Righthaven to be clients for a class-action litigation he’s putting together. He’s even looking for people who’ve already settled. Wow, I don’t recall ever seeing people have a potential cause of action because they’ve settled. Righthaven hoped to blaze new legal trails – but not like this!Righthaven has a website! I don’t know when this started, but it’s the first I’ve noticed it. When Righthaven originally hit the news, they didn’t have a web presence, but now they have this intimidating looking site. And what’s funny about it is, the first time I looked at, the television in our home happened randomly to chime in with a sound clip of the Darth Vader Theme from Star Wars. (For reals!) On its website, Righthaven declares itself “THE NATION’S PREEMINENT COPYRIGHT ENFORCER.” It’s also got a funny kind of graphic which, I have to say, kind of looks like the view down the trench of the Death Star. The only thing that interrupts the Dark Side theme is what looks like a gigantic bacterium that is dividing in two. And that, at least, certainly looks foreboding. Now, there’s no other pages or any other content except for the graphic, which has the slogan and contact information embedded in it. (Much of the text is hard to read because it disappears into the background in a typographic meltdown.) Now, you do realize what that means: By my putting up the one inset picture of the Righthaven website (upper right), I’ve copied 100% of the website. Uh oh. And since it’s Righthaven’s own website, this is one copyright infringement suit that they actually wouldn’t have standing problems with. Now, what I’ve done is fair use. Helpfully Righthaven’s misfires have helped establish solid precedent that taking 100% of something can qualify as fair use. Now, a solid fair-use defense hasn’t stopped Righthaven from suing in the past, but maybe it will in the future, since …
Cha-CHING! After losing on fair use in Righthaven v. Hoehn, 2011 WL 2441020 (D. Nev. June 20, 2011), Righthaven’s now been order to pay $34,000 in attorneys fees. “The wheels appear to be coming off the Righthaven trainwreck-in-progress,” says Ars Technica. And that’s gonna matter for a business that thrives on low-dollar settlements somewhere in the $2,500 range.
Will Righthaven declare bankruptcy before the year is out? Hmmm. Difficult to see. Always in motion the future is.
Las Vegas business magazine VEGAS INC’s new cover story is Righthaven. This is your chance to catch up in a couple of minutes on the last 16 months of sordid lawsuits against random bloggers, some of them retired or unemployed, for $150,000 plus seizure of their domain names. It’s the most important story in blog law going. The author is, of course, Steve Green, who has been reporting on the Righthaven litigation mill from the beginning. With this recap, he brings you right up to today, where we find the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s “little friend” on the ropes but frantically trying to reinvent its legal strategy in order to stay alive and keep pulling in cash.
Eric Goldman, back from Russia, looks to have used jet-lag fueled wakefulness to do a recap of two weeks’ worth of Righthaven rulings on his Technology & Marketing Law Blog. So, if you don’t have time to read all those decisions, Professor Goldman has done you the service of knocking it all down to 1,429 words.
Okay, so if you’re too lazy to read that, here’s my recap of Goldman’s recap:
Righthaven v. Hoehn, 2011 WL 2441020 (D. Nev. June 20, 2011):
Judge Pro followed Judge Hunt’s Democratic Underground ruling in holding that Righthaven lacked standing, and then went on also to say that Hoehn lost on fair use. Goldman is rightly skeptical of some of Judge Pro’s analysis, saying:
Judge Pro’s discussion on the second point (nature of the work) has attracted some criticism, perhaps justifiably so. It’s difficult to say that a 19 paragraph editorial doesn’t have the same level of creativity as other highly creative works. I tend not to obsess about the details of any fair use analysis given its nature as an equitable defense. The judge was twisting the analysis to make it clear Righthaven should lose. Denigrating the editorial’s creativity is an awkward way to get there, but it demonstrates that judges aren’t buying what Righthaven is selling.
Yeah, I think that’s well put. At the end of the day, you can get way too carried away with the fair-use factors. I tell my students that the most important question in fair-use analysis is just, “Does it seem fair?” (But don’t base your brief around that. It tends not to get explicit endorsement in the case law.)
Goldman notes that Righthaven has lost on fair use three times, including two cases now, including Hoehn, where the defendants re-used THE ENTIRE work. Crazy, because that’s often a show-stopper for fair use.
As a jurisprudential corpus, this fair use caselaw is becoming quite defense-favorable.
Yup. Righthaven is doing more to expand the doctrine of fair use than just about anybody in the past few years.
At this rate, if Righthaven keeps it up, they’ll do more to expand fair use than Google. And it’s hard to do anything better than Google. Especially, you would think, when you’re trying not to.
Righthaven v. Barham, 2011 WL 2473602 (D. Nev. June 22, 2011); ?Righthaven v. DiBiase, 2:10-cv-01343-RLH-PAL (D. Nev. June 22, 2011):
The same Judge Hunt who gave Righthaven the smackdown in Democratic Underground on lack of standing does it again here.
Righthaven v. Virginia Citizens Defense League, 2:10-cv-01683-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. June 23, 2011):
Judge Navarro rejects a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on fair use and lack of standing, but notes that the Democratic Underground decision came out after the briefs for Virginia Citizens Defense League were already in. Goldman thinks she’ll get on board eventually:
My guess is that she will be persuaded on summary judgment.
Goldman’s bottom-line assessment:
Righthaven’s business is “in tatters.” Everything’s going wrong for them all at once.
Short of completing a hail mary pass in the Ninth Circuit, there is only one possible endgame for Righthaven, and it won’t be pretty.
Yup. I agree with that too. And I’ll add that your chances of getting an appeals court to come to your aid are likely to drop precipitously when you’ve tried systematically to hoodwink judges at the trial court level by playing fast and loose with the facts.
So, that’s a little over 500 words, recapping a recap of a little over 1,400 words. Have I just showcased what is so liberating about blogging as a literary genre? Or what is so ridiculous about it?
Hmmm. Well, either way, I do feel rest assured that what I just did was thoroughly legal.
Todd Kincannon, the South Carolina lawyer representing Dana Eiser of the Lowcountry912 blog, sent me a petition that he just filed in the South Carolina Supreme Court alleging that Righthaven is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
I’ve posted the petition to my own server: [pdf].
I’ve been waiting for someone to do this since I heard about Righthaven splitting litigation proceeds with its newspaper partners. You can’t do that. Lawyers can’t split fees with non-lawyers.
If a lawyer splits fees with a non-lawyer, then that means a non-lawyer is collecting fees for practicing law. And you have to be a lawyer to practice law. That’s the logic of it.
As the petition says: “[A]n entity in the business of seeking assignments, pursuing litigation in its own name, and splitting the proceeds with the assignor commits a fraud on the court and the unauthorized practice of law.” (Pet’n, pp. 4-5).
After I get a chance to take a better look at the petition, I’ll write with more.
There’s a remarkable blog post by Jeff Bercovici of Forbes.com – it quotes Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson as saying last week’s defeat in court, which found that Righthaven had no legal basis upon which to sue, “raises an interesting question as to who does have standing.”
Bercovici goes on to quote Gibson as saying, “[I]t is our position that we can reapproach the court [to clarify who, in fact, has the standing to sue].”
Is Gibson in denial? The court said Righthaven was “likely dishonest” multiple times with the court. The order used words like “brazen, “egregious,” “flagrantly false,” and “[possibly] outright deceitful.” The court said previous decisions were “tainted” by Righthaven’s failure to make required disclosures in other cases. Righthaven and Gibson are in serious trouble. Like career-ending, out-of-business type trouble. (It’s not even inconceivable that, depending on what all has transpired, that this is go-to-jail type trouble.)
I suggested to reporter Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun that the court’s language was “the kind of stuff that, if you are on the wrong side of it, would likely cause all the blood to rush to your stomach.” And I blogged something similar.
But I guess not for Steve Gibson. If he is keeping a stiff upper lip, that’s one thing. But if he seriously thinks it’s a good idea to reapproach the court and ask for clarification on who has standing to sue, then he may be having a slight break with reality. Or maybe this is just a manifestation of the kind of hubris that got him to this point in the first place.
I believe it is time for the State Bar of Nevada to begin an attorney misconduct investigation of Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson and, perhaps, other lawyers at the center of the Righthaven enterprise.
When I first read about the Righthaven lawsuits, I thought what Righthaven was doing was morally deplorable, but I assumed that Righthaven was on solid legal footing. I believed, as apparently did many judges, that Righthaven had become the legitimate owner of the copyrights upon which it was suing.
Righthaven’s acquisition of those copyrights from Stephens Media – mostly to stories from the Las Vegas Review-Journal – were prerequisites to being able to sue hapless bloggers and other individuals, and then threaten them with $150,000 statutory damage awards for having reposted articles or photos. By doing this, Righthaven got many individuals to settle for a few thousand dollars each, allowing Righthaven to do a volume business of minor shakedowns. The Righthaven business model, while vile, appeared to be perfectly allowable under the law.
But now we know that was not actually true. This week, Judge Roger Hunt of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order [pdf] in the case of Righthaven v. Democratic Underground that paints a withering portrait of plaintiff conduct in the case. We now know the assignments of copyrights by newspaper owner Stephens Media to Righthaven were, in fact, sham transactions. And because of Righthaven’s failure to be candid about the underlying arrangements with Stephens Media, it is now clear, as the court found, that Righthaven made material misrepresentations to the court.
Based on the federal court’s findings, this looks to be egregious attorney misconduct.
The federal court appears to be on the verge of sanctioning Righthaven. But the State Bar of Nevada can go much further. The bar has the ability to subject Gibson and other lawyers at the center of the enterprise to professional discipline, including, if warranted, disbarment.
I very much regret suggesting a misconduct investigation against any attorney, but this situation appears to be one with many real-life victims, and the behavior at issue, based on Judge Hunt’s findings, is wholly incompatible with the ethical standards expected of lawyers.
Consider what has happened: Righthaven lawyers constructed a sham transaction, and then made multiple misrepresentations to courts and third parties in order to hide the sham nature of the transaction. This was done in a bid to get a number of unsophisticated, unrepresented defendants to fork over substantial settlement payments, largely out of fear or because of their financial inability to mount a defense.
The potential to pervert our civil justice system in this way is one of the most important reasons attorneys are required to demonstrate a high moral character as a prerequisite to receiving a license to practice law. Righthaven’s behavior, in my opinion, is incompatible with that standard.
Let’s look at the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.3, called “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” states that “A lawyer shall not knowingly … Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal … ” Another provision, Rule 8.4, states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; [or] Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]”
Those rules appear to have been violated in substantial ways. Consider the following quote from this week’s order from pages 10 and 11, discussing the Strategic Alliance Agreement (“SAA”), between Righthaven and Stephens Media:
As the undersigned issued one of the orders Righthaven cites for this argument, the undersigned is well aware that Righthaven led the district judges of this district to believe that it was the true owner of the copyright in the relevant news articles. Righthaven did not disclose the true nature of the transaction by disclosing the SAA or Stephens Media’s pecuniary interests. As the SAA makes abundantly clear, Stephens Media retained the exclusive rights, never actually transferring them to Righthaven regardless of Righthaven’s and Stephens Media’s current contentions. Further, Righthaven also failed to disclose Stephens Media in its certificates of interested parties, despite Stephens Media’s right to proceeds from these lawsuits. (Dkt. #79, Ex. 1, SAA Section 5 (granting Stephens Media a fifty percent interest in any recovery, minus costs).) … [T]hose orders were tainted by Righthaven’s failure to disclose the SAA and Stephens Media’s true interest …
And on page 15 of the order:
As shown in the preceding pages, the Court believes that Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the Court. Here, however, the Court will only focus on the most factually brazen: Righthaven’s failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in Righthaven’s Certificate of Interested Parties. … Making this failure more egregious, not only did Righthaven fail to identify Stephens Media as an interested party in this suit, the Court believes that Righthaven failed to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in any of its approximately 200 cases filed in this District.
Based on these findings, it appears that Rule 3.3 was violated multiple times by one or more attorneys on the Righthaven side. Moreover, again, based on Judge Hunt’s findings, Rule 8.4 was violated in a very significant way in the Democratic Underground case. Of course, Rule 8.4 was likely additionally violated in many other Righthaven cases as well, if not all of them.
I don’t know that Gibson or other attorneys committed misconduct. That is up to the State Bar of Nevada to determine. I certainly can say at this point that there is strong reason to believe serious misconduct has occurred, and it’s more than enough for an investigation. Gibson and others should, of course, have the opportunity to defend and explain themselves. But the matter should, at least, be taken seriously by the bar. That is especially the case where many people have been hurt and public confidence in the legal profession may justifiably be undermined if nothing is done.
This week copyright thugster and blogger-suer-extraordinaire Righthaven was dealt a stunning defeat in court. (Court’s written order [pdf])
It is a total victory for defendant Democratic Underground, but the ruling’s importance goes far beyond that. Unless overturned on appeal, it clearly signals the end of Righthaven’s current business model. The order also signals that even with restructuring, Righthaven might not have a viable enterprise going forward.
Things were going kind of bad for Righthaven up to this point. But now they’ve gotten suddenly disastrous. Why? Now there’s a newly revealed document – one obtained through the diligent efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation – that shows the relationship between troll-for-hire Righthaven and newspaper owner Stephens Media. That document is their overarching contract, the Strategic Alliance Agreement (“SAA”). Once you learn about it, you can see why they wanted so badly to keep it secret.
Righthaven, in suing bloggers for reposting stories or portions of stories from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, had represented that Stephens Media had assigned to it the copyright being sued over in any given case. But now, having scrutinized the SAA, the federal court in the Democratic Underground case has concluded that the copyright was never validly assigned.
And misrepresenting facts to a court is a very, very bad thing to do.
Why wasn’t the copyright validly assigned? It turns out that Stephens Media executed a form assigning the copyright, but, pursuant to the SAA, Stephens Media retained all exclusive rights with regard to that copyright except the right to sue. And a copyright assignment is not valid unless an exclusive right is transferred as well. So, for instance, Righthaven was not conferred the exclusive right to reproduce the article. (And that’s sort of what copyright is all about.)
It would be like transferring title to an automobile to someone but having a contract in place that says they can’t drive it, sit in it, lend it someone else, or even keep it in their garage. In other words, it’s a sham transaction.
I’ve looked at the order, issued by Judge Roger Hunt of the U.S. District Court in Nevada, and I found it to be very thorough and carefully reasoned. The really remarkable thing about the ruling, however, was its tone, which, while not intemperate, was certainly unusual in the staid world of judicial writing.
Look at this from page 6:
Righthaven argues that the SAA’s provisions, which necessarily include Section 7.2, do not alter the unambiguous language of the Assignment or limit the rights it obtained from Stephens Media in the Assignment. This conclusion is flagrantly false — to the point that the claim is disingenuous, if not outright deceitful.
I’ll bet Righthaven maven Steve Gibson felt the blood rush to his stomach when he read this. This is strong language for a federal court.
Also important in this order, the court signals that Righthaven is unlikely to be able to fix its business model’s legal problems with some minor adjustments. The court writes on page 8, in a footnote:
The Court does not determine whether or not the amended SAA would transfer sufficient rights to Righthaven for it to have standing in suits filed after amendment as the Court need not make that determination to rule on these motions. Nonetheless, the Court expresses doubt that these seemingly cosmetic adjustments change the nature and practical effect of the SAA.
It may be that the only things that would fix the business structure so that Righthaven could keep on suing people as it has been would be things that either Stephens Media wouldn’t be willing to agree to. And if that’s true, Righthaven’s through.
Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun has a great article covering in considerable detail blogger Brian Hill’s motion filed in his effort to defend himself against a Righthaven copyright infringement lawsuit.
It’s great reading.
Based on the quotes in the story, Hill’s got himself some excellent lawyers They are David Kerr and Luke Santangelo of Fort Collins, Colorado. Great arguments, well written. Fine lawyering. Good job, guys!
Hill, a 20-year-old blogger out of North Carolina, was sued for the Righthaven-standard demand of $150,000 plus forfeiture of his domain name. Hill blogged that despite the fact that he is unemployed and receives disability payments, Righthaven still would not agree to settle for less than $6,000.
I’ve just come across a nice blog post on Righthaven, written by law student Sean Harrington and published on the official blog of the Minnesota State Bar Associations’s Computer and Technology Law Section:
Harrington has a quick analysis of what is happening with two antique defenses that are getting a workout by Righthaven copyright-infringement defendants: champerty and barratry. The post also provides some brief analysis of the relation of Perfect 10 v. Amazon case to Righthaven litigation against someone whose website/blogging platform displayed inline-linked images.
The latest Righthaven news is that folks in my own state of North Dakota are fighting back against the copyright thugsters. Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun reports that Righthaven sued Scott Hennen and Rob Port of The Say Anything Blog, based in Minot (rhymes with “Why not?”), North Dakota.
The suit is yet another one claiming copyright infringement for reposting the TSA pat-down photo from the Denver Post. The bloggers, for their part, are claiming fair use of the photo and have filed some kind of counterclaim. I’m not sure what the purpose is in filing these counterclaims. The one set of papers I saw, which was not from Say Anything, counterclaimed for declaratory judgment. Counterclaiming for declaratory judgment is basically turning around and suing the person who sued you in order to get a pronouncement from the court that the person was wrong to sue you in the first place. I just don’t get how that adds anything to winning the original lawsuit. But, at any rate, I I’m glad to see my fellow North Dakotans fighting back.
Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun interviewed me about Dana Eiser’s rule 11 motion against Righthaven:
Separately, two law professors who have been critical of Righthaven expressed skepticism about threats by Righthaven defendant Dana Eiser to ask a federal judge in South Carolina to order Righthaven to refund settlement funds from prior lawsuits.
Attorneys for Eiser made the threat Sunday as they challenged Righthaven’s standard lawsuit demand that Eiser forfeit her website domain name to Righthaven.
“I’ve never heard of anything like this, and I can’t imagine how it would work. Eiser’s heart is in the right place. I’d love to see Righthaven have to give back the settlement money, but I don’t know of any legal way of forcing them to do that,” said Eric Johnson, an associate professor of law at the University of North Dakota. “Eiser’s attorneys don’t cite any legal authority supporting their claim – at least in the motion.
“Courts perceive very strong public-policy reasons for not overturning or interfering with settlements, even when they seem very unfair,” Johnson said.
The full article also contains quote from Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University Law School. Neither Professor Goldman nor I see much prospect for success here. But I like the chutzpah.
Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun reports on the latest Righthaven news – Dana Eiser, the blogger behind Lowcountry912, is looking to force Righthaven to refund its previously collected settlement amounts.
That would be awesome if it could work.
If you democratize the media, putting the power of the press in the hands of anyone who is moved to publish their thoughts, you are going to hear from conspiracy theorists.
That’s part of the explanation, I think, behind the conspiracy allegations made about copyright thugster Righthaven. Many bloggers have intimated that Righthaven has connections to the Obama administration, and is thus part of a left-wing conspiracy to silence right-leaning citizen pundits. Others have pointed to the conservative ties of Righthaven-partner The Las Vegas Review-Journal, along with its apparent reluctance to sue Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle, and thus people have suggested that Righthaven is part of some right-wing racket.
The other reason, I think, that people tend to think Righthaven must be politically motivated is a sense that what Righthaven is doing is so mean and absurd, there must be some ulterior motive.
But the real explanation is both simple and sad. They’re just jerks.
I use the word “jerk” advisedly. I’m a law professor, and I try to resist using intemperate language. But that’s the most accurate word I have.
It says something nice about the human race, something about our inherent idealism and irrepressible hope, that so many people want to come up with a morally-driven rationale for Righthaven’s behavior. But the fact is, many people don’t care about anything bigger than themselves. Righthaven is their product.
This is a point I’ve made before: As you go through a week, you accumulate numerous opportunities to sue people. Most of these would-be lawsuits aren’t worth more than a dollar in what lawyers call “nominal damages.” But it is a peculiar feature of the Copyright Act that silly, trivial infringements are compensable in the thousands of dollars. That’s thanks to the law’s provision for “statutory damages.”
In many of its cases, Righthaven has the legal right to sue and recover statutory damages. That’s a power that the U.S. Copyright Act has conferred. But our whole legal system is predicated on the fact that people will use it but sparingly. That includes lawsuits over copyright infringement.
Our current copyright law is a creature of decades past, a time when the only real participants in the media were businesses with a threshold level of capital and business management. Back then, the concept of statutory damages might have made sense. And it still might make sense so long as copyright owners exercise a level of decency and self-restraint. But Righthaven has proven that you can’t count on everyone to do the right thing. Where the law has created a legal way to extort money from hapless netizens, Righthaven has stepped in for some quick cash.
They’re not evil geniuses. They’re not right-wing extremists. They’re not left-wing zealots. The truth is much worse. They’re just jerks.
Denver’s Westword has a report about Righthaven’s lastest victim: a chronically ill 20-year-old mildly autistic hobby blogger who allegedly reposted a Denver Post picture of a TSA patdown. Righthaven said they could make the suit go away for $6,000. The blogger, Brian Hill, who is on disability, says he doesn’t have the money to pay, or the money to hire a lawyer, or the money to travel to Denver to defend himself.
The Media Law Resource Center notes that with a complaint filed last month, Righthaven is now going after commenters, not just bloggers and others who own their own websites.
Combined with the fact that Righthaven is suing over photos that may have been gathered far from their affiliated newspapers’ websites, we’re seeing a considerable expansion in the breadth of Righthaven’s activities.
The MLRC blog post has links to the complaints filed in the commenter lawsuits.
(Let me give a big shout out of thanks to whomever posted the court docs to archive.org. I love seeing original court docs posted somewhere besides scribd.com!)
Steve Green in the Las Vegas Sun reports about a new spate of lawsuits filed by Righthaven against bloggers who have reposted a photo from the Denver Post showing a TSA pat-down of a passenger’s crotch: Blogger, websites sued by Righthaven over ‘TSA enhanced pat-down’ photo
What’s new – and troubling – with these latest lawsuits is that the people being sued may have had no idea that the photo they were using originated with the Denver Post. Since the photo went viral, it’s showed up in Google image search results disconnected from the Denver Post.
Bloggers worried about getting sued by Righthaven had previously been able to steer clear of newspaper sites owned by companies doing business with Righthaven. But that is no longer a way to insulate yourself from Righthaven’s wrath. Using an image from a completely random website – one you might deem unlike to sue, or at least likely to share a commodious understanding of fair use – might land you in the Righthaven drift nets.
I am not a big fan of using the word “troll” to describe people enforcing intellectual property rights. And I’ve resisted using it to describe Righthaven litigation against people who reposted stories from newspapers. But what Righthaven is now doing can truly be called trolling.
Jesse Fruhwirth of Salt Lake’s CityWeekly.net warns that it looks like a copyright-suit hailstorm is brewing with the Salt Lake Tribune.
He points to this notice to readers posted by the Tribune, and he notes that the Denver Post did the same thing about a month before they unleashed copyright thugster Righthaven on a small-time blog in South Carolina.
From Steve Green in the Las Vegas Sun:
We should all be grateful to the Las Vegas Sun for devoting so much coverage to the Righthaven lawsuits, and to Steve Green for doing such a good job with it.