Righthaven sues Democratic Underground website over R-J posting

[RamboLiberal]

The Democratic Underground, which operates a big political website from Washington, D.C., is the latest website owner to be sued for copyright infringement after a portion of a Las Vegas Review-Journal story was posted on its website.

The Democratic Underground was hit with a federal lawsuit in Las Vegas on Tuesday by Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company that obtains copyrights to Review-Journal stories and then retroactively sues over alleged infringements.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/11/righthaven-sues-democratic-underground-website-ove/

Righthaven, the company "grubstaked" by the Las Vegas Review Journal, which is basically going around suing any and every site that posts any of its content, continues to up the ante in abusing copyright law. Every week, it's filing more lawsuits. We've actually been hearing from some of the sites that have been sued, and many are lawyering up to fight Righthaven, because the claims are getting increasingly ridiculous. Righthaven appears to not take into account any of the context of the pages on the sites it's suing. For example, many of the sites it's suing involve users -- not the site owners -- posting content in forums. In those cases, the site owners are almost certainly protected by the DMCA safe harbors (assuming they've set themselves up with the Copyright Office for DMCA safe harbor protections). That doesn't seem to be stopping Righthaven, though, which is making some fascinating (and blatantly wrong) legal claims.

For example, one of its recent lawsuits is against the political forum Democratic Underground, where a user (not the site owner), quoted a mere 4 paragraphs of a 34 paragraph story -- and included a link to the full story. No matter, Righthaven sued. As it does in all of these lawsuits, it's demanding $75,000. The number is carefully chosen, because it's less than what going to court will likely cost. The idea is to just get people to pay up, even if the legal claims are bogus. Beyond the $75,000, it's laughably demanding that the domain name of the site be turned over as well.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100812/01454910601.shtml

I hope DU can prevail against this b*****!

[tularetom]

1. DU is in good company - they sued everybody and his dog

that ever printed a word that appeared in it's rag.

[RamboLiberal]

2. Yep - including Free Republic

of course those idiots are over there chortling that DU got sued. Be funny if the Conservative & Liberal sites banded together to fight this slimeball.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2569133/posts

Sad part is some web owners can't fight this jerk and are having to cave & pay him off. He's making $$$$ just by having some workers do Google then purchasing the copyright from the scum paper & its owners, then filing the suit. I hope someone has the $$$'s to fight and beat his ass in court.

And if web owners lose then it's one more nail in the coffin of newspapers. The web drives readers to their sites. If they prohibit fair use of stories on their sites then it will be all the sooner for their demise.

Nobody will be reading their rags.

[howaboutme]

3. Fair use?

So what happened to the concept of fair use? Copyrighted material should be able to be used by others not looking to make a profit. The concept of fair use should be primarily accepted unless it can be proven that others have significantly profited from the use of said copyrighted material.

This concept needs to be set in concrete by the courts so that "you tube" and other venues can be used freely for the public's interest instead of being restricted under a false guise.

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

[Pab Sungenis]

9. There is no fair use under the DMCA.

You can order any amount of copyrighted material to be taken down. Whether or not you can collect damages with what might be considered fair use is still unsettled, but the DMCA allows no exceptions.

[RamboLiberal]

11. Problem is this cretin is skipping the take down step

Claims it would too time consuming to first demand websites take down the copyrighted material. He's going straight for the $$$$$$'s.

[Sgent]

21. Its a bit more complex than that

To maintain qualified immunity from copyright suit ISPs and Hosting providers must take down a file after being given a DMCA notice, unless the user in question submits an affidavit that it is not an infringing work (They have 2-3 days).

If the affidavit is submitted, then the copyright owner can go after the end user for violations. If not submitted, and the host/ISP refuses to take down the work, then the copyright holder can go after both the ISP/Host and the original user.

Fair use remains a defense to copyright infringement in litigation, and the DMCA doesn't effect that one way or another. The DMCA (in this instance) just requires that the work be taken off line if the ISP doesn't want to get sued, or requires that they receive an affidavit from their customer that its not an infringing item (for instance, if they believe it is non-infringing due to fair use).

[xultar]

4. I'm craving some good old rightwing conservative scrotum soup.

[EC]

5. Won't Righthaven LLC have to pay all court costs when

they lose? With the list of all the sites they are sueing that could really add up. But since they set the amount low hoping for deals instead of going to court, I'm thinking they'll back down just before court...

[howaboutme]

7. I could be wrong

but this concept represents more of what is wrong than what is right in the world of copyrighted claims by the media.

Isn't the internet based upon a publicly funded concept and not of one for profit? Perhaps Righthaven LLC should be required to develop their own internet and be required to pay the public interest in the interim.

[Jim Lane]

17. They'll have only limited exposure to paying big bucks if they lose.

The general rule in the United States is that a losing litigant is responsible only for certain court costs, notably NOT including the successful party's attorney's fees.

One significant exception to that rule is that a payment of attorney's fees can be ordered upon a finding that a lawyer's or party's conduct was frivolous -- roughly speaking, not supported by any reasonable interpretation of existing law or by a good-faith argument for changing the law. The imposition of such sanctions is permitted in federal courts and in the state courts I know about (and I'd guess in all state courts, although some are more willing to impose sanctions than others).

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the targets of the LVRJ/Righthaven attack try this approach. I also wouldn't be surprised if at least one judge somewhere agrees that the suit is frivolous and pulls the trigger on sanctions.

[xultar]

6. it's laughably demanding that the domain name of the site be turned over as well.

FUCK THESE FUCKERS EVERYONE DONATE!

[RamboLiberal]

8. I'd love to see other media come after these SOB's

Like the Las Vegas Sun is. After all many media sites almost are begging you to post their stories. How many now automatically post the link whenever you cut some paragraphs from their website? Lots & growing.

I just hope some other struggling papers don't see this as a way to stay afloat.

And yeah I'm with a DU defense fund!

[robertpaulsen]

10. One word come to mind: FRIVOLOUS!

The lawyer pimping these bullshitters better keep the memory of Orly Taitz in mind.

[RamboLiberal]

12. This is the *******

[Sheepshank]

25. obviously a mouth breather

his mouthpiece is directed at his non functioning nose.

[Confusious]

13. The last line of the article sums everything up nicely

And appropriately.

Copyright laws have become a joke.

[kitkat65]

14. Just speculating here but what's to keep Righthaven from planting moles

who put their copyrighted stuff on other websites so Righthaven can turn around and sue?

[RamboLiberal]

16. Hadn't thought of that - helluva good point

Wish they'd get caught in the act. Be easily done. And I wouldn't put it above them or this media group. Or someone working for them to look like a star googler.

[gkhouston]

19. Nothing, which is why their "lawsuit first" approach might not play well in court.

They should have begun with a warning or a cease-and-desist letter, but of course, stopping the posting isn't their goal -- money is.

[Make7]

22. The DU Admins should reverse IP every post on DU with a link to the Las Vegas Review Journal.

If any of them lead back to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Righthaven, any parent companies, or any subsidiaries then they would have something compelling to introduce in court.

The interesting thing is that the Las Vegas Review Journal would have easily been able to track websites that were linking to their stories by referrer information. I just did a google search of DU and found some links to the Las Vegas Review Journal site posted a couple years ago. There is no way they could not have known that people were posting links to their website if they had just looked at the referrer information.

If they were truly concerned about copyright infringement, wouldn't they have checked out any site that was creating significant amounts of traffic for their own website a long time ago? And then asked the owners of any site they had a problem with to take down any of their copyrighted content and also prevent any new content from being posted?
 

[donco]

15. How about a

reverse class action, against them?

[Suji to Seoul]

18. Skinner, EarlG and Elad, please weigh in on this clown!

I am interested in what your opinions of this idiot's lawsuit is.

[gkhouston]

20. I expect we'll see a pinned thread sometime in the near future. The admins

are probably seeking legal counsel first.

[RamboLiberal]

23. I'm still scratching my head how they hell they claim they are damaged?

And in some of the suits they are settling for the number of times a thread has been hit * 2.95 which is their fee for buying an article. But if you can click on their link even from Google or another search article and they serve it up at their website for free - WTF?

Who the hell outside of Las Vegas or Nevada would normally even read their rag except for a story that might have national interest? Ala Sharon Angle, Harry Reid or some other incident like the CCW shoot outside of Costco.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal or even the Sun is not on my daily news media list and only way I ever read at their site is through a link from another site or a search engine on a news search.

I should make a note to see if their stupid rag is still around in 5-10 years. I wouldn't bet on it the way the newspaper industry is going.

[bemildred]

24. Oh good, SLAPP lawsuits, we must be important now. nt

[howaboutme]

26. A concerted effort is needed by the blogosphere to stomp on this abuse

This pattern of extortion and abuse of the DCMA should not be allowed to persist as it threatens the concept and fair and free use of the entire internet and blogosphere. It seems that there is common interest here from the blogosphere from DU to FreeRepublic (they are being sued too, see below). There should be common front and a counter suit. The Electronic Frontier Foundation may provide legal support.

Righthaven LLC needs to feel some major legal wrath before others of the same ilk jump on what they see as a cottage industry for money grubbers. They don't even send out take down notices via DCMA safe harbor policy.

Righthaven LLC is spoken of as an abstract entity that is doing this, when in fact it consists of principals that are making decisions. These principals need to feel public exposure and their names made public?

Some interesting points made here http://www.vegastrademarkattorney.com/2010/08/avoiding-wrath-of-righthaven.html

A listing of current law suits. http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/RighthavenTrail.pdf