Senate Candidate Sued By Copyright Troll 253
The Iso writes "Las Vegas based company Righthaven found two articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle reprinted on her web site without permission, so it did what it always does: bought the rights to the articles from the Review-Journal and sued the alleged infringer, seeking unspecified damages."
Next (Score:5, Insightful)
The more the better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The more the better (Score:5, Insightful)
pft! Those case will just have "undisclosed settlements" -- and Righthaven will have more politician owing them when it comes time to vote on legislation.
Re:The more the better (Score:4, Insightful)
Not likely. If Angle wins, and that is highly likely, Righthaven can look forward to subtle changes in the law. Politicians do not see being trolled as a "favor" and tend to be very good at using power to punish their enemies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After looking at all the companies that Righthaven has sued and the fact that they are suing a person who will likely replace Harry Reid in their own state, you've got to wonder what they are thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do. All "Obamacare" is is a requirement to have insurance, which they do. You can't "go on" Obamacare because the public option was shot down by the insurance industry special interests.
Re:The more the better (Score:5, Insightful)
And Congress is exempt from the requirement to have insurance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
minimum wage laws
OSHA regulations
equal employment laws
the Americans With Disabilities Act
and the cash cow, a one-year lobbying restriction that applies to executive branch employees...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of "Biting the hand that feeds you" isn't it?
I wonder what their plan is - they're irritating a politician, who actually has enough contacts and power to damage the whole enterprise of suing people for large sums of money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I get it that lots of people don't like Harry Reid. That's fine. But angle is amazingly, dangerously, stupidly incompetent, and perhaps crazy.
She made a lot of noise about "second amendment remedies" if she doesn't get elected, and now has to back track that and either avoid questions, or blatantly state that she's not really advocating armed revolution. Always a good sign.
http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/politics/Another_Angle_issue_emerges.html?ref=279 [lvrj.com]
This one is golden. The idea that she should be "friends"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The more the better (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only did she NOT advocate any armed revolution, she said so.
She may have said "I hope that's not where we're going", but she sure did sound like advocating for it as a next step if the votes don't go her party's way: http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/243092/new-harry-reid-ad-says-angle-over-line-second-amendment-rhetoric-elizabeth-crum [nationalreview.com]
"our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, and in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have
Re:The more the better (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG, from reading her Wikipedia article she is my ideal candidate. Amazing how to some these people are *crazy* and to others they are saints.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The funniest aspect is how she was a birther and possibly a truther, and had many other kook positions, during the primary, but when she won that, those parts of her campaign disappeared from her website ... until Harry Reid posted them on *his* website, and she objected that he was distorting her positions. I think she actually sued or filed a complaint with the FEC. A real nutter. I think she'd be pretty harmless in the Senate, being much too kooky to be effective and trustworthy. She's good at making
Re:The more the better (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully Righthaven finds more politicians to sue. Lots more. Then maybe - just maybe - will we get some consumer friendly copyright laws.
No, you will get safehaven laws to shield politicians from these suits instead. Just like the Do-not-call-list specifically contained exemptions to let politicians call you.
Re:The more the better (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it really infringement if you're republishing an article about yourself? Are the laws clear on this issue? I only ask because I find that to be very odd.
Most lawyers will probably tell you that "clear" means that you have roughly a 51% chance of success, as opposed to a 99-100% chance of success, really.
Copyright protects the expression, not the subject matter, of a work. As such, the mere fact that an article is about you does not give you ownership of the article under copyright law - similarly,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Basically correct as I understand it, but if you're a private citizen, then I believe you retain some rights over images and descriptions of yourself. The creator of those images or descriptions would still be the primary copyright holder, but I don't think they can publish without your permission.
If you become a public figure (like a Senatorial candidate, for example), then it's a whole different story, and you're more or less fair game. This is why regular photographers get people to sign releases, but
Re: (Score:2)
That might be right in the US, but in the UK you retain no rights whatsoever. If I can photograph you from a public place, I can do almost anything I like with that image, including publishing it for money.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
You want links ... LMGTFY ... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ [righthavenlawsuits.com]
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/03/sharron-angle-hit-r-j-copyright-lawsuit/ [lasvegassun.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Righthaven has been at this for a number of weeks. Basically, they clearly don't understand how useful people linking to the LVRJ articles are, nor do they understand the application of proper liability. As far as Righthaven is concerned, if anyone anywhere copies three words from an article and links back to the original, that's bad. Techdirt's been following the situation [techdirt.com] pretty well. This post [techdirt.com] in particular highlights how ridiculous their stance is.
Knowing this, the AP/Yahoo don't want to risk a lawsuit
Re: (Score:2)
"A print copy (if the articles are in print only) sitting in a doctors' office might get what.. 50.. 100 reads..."
The doctor will get sued next.
What is the name of the person in charge? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the name of the person in charge of Righthaven? Seems to me that there is an evil, profiteering son of a bitch in charge of this hot mess of a company.
We need to start suing his ass.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Darl? Just sayin...
Buying rights with the purpose to sue! (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's call this a very interesting business model. Or should I say bizarre business model. Maybe one should start making a list of companies with bizarre business models, this should be on the top.
Also the Review-Journal publication should be careful to keep track of which articles they have sold off the rights, otherwise they may end up on the receiving end of a law suit.
Otoh as this troll appears to only handle Review-Journal articles, and obviously can easily buy copyrights from this journal (I can't think of many papers that are so happy to sell the copyrights on their articles - this must be a complete transfer of copyright, not just a license), it sounds like they are a related company one way or another, and basically suing on behalf of Review-Journal just under a different name.
At first I misread the headline as "patent troll". This is not too different. But at least these copyright trolls sue people that really should know better - it is after all much easier to unknowingly infringe on patents than copyrights. Copying stuff verbatim without asking permission is silly, especially when done by a public figure.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although, if someone is infringing on your copyright and you cannot afford to take legal action, shouldn't you be able to sell the work including all legal claims/liabilities?
Personally I would rather get rid of the doctrine of "holder in due course". Which seems to incite fraud, this just seems to incite vigilantism against those that thought that the victim was to inconsequential to worry about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it wasn't your copyright when they infringed it though... this is what the Judges should be throwing these cases out for, lack of standing at the time the alleged infringement took place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's sorta like how SCO's legal claims would be inherited by the highest bidder if it were ever liquidated.
I think it's called a successor in interest.
Re:Buying rights with the purpose to sue! (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. It's not that laws don't need to be reformed. It's that these kind of kneejerk, ahistorical, situationally expedient solutions usually have unintended results that are worse than the problem they are attempting to mitigate.
Consider: Your dad passes away suddenly, and you're going through his old effects and papers and realize that his partner's been ripping him off for years to the tune of millions of dollars. What can you do about it? Nothing, in your world, because you had "lack of standing at the time the alleged infringement took place."
Or you buy a house next to a scenic lake. After you've been living there a couple of months you start to feel sick. It turns out that the old Duponsanto plant for years had been dumping toxic waste into the lake and polluting the land. They cleared out about a year before you moved in, so you have no recourse because of "lack of standing at the time the alleged infringement took place."
But, on top of that, although the wording in the article is ambiguous, it seems likely to me that Righthaven purchased the rights to the work while the alleged infringement was still ongoing. So even going by your litmus test they would still have standing to bring suit.
Extinctio per absurdum (Score:2)
Sure, abolishing both would be best, but for now, hopefully criminalizing profiteering with copyrights and patents should stop at least some of the abuse.
I say let all the absurdities play out until things us so untenable that both patent and copyright get repealed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with suing for copyright/patent violation per se. You're forgetting that while yes, it causes fiscal harm to another, the "another" has already caused fiscal harm to the copyright/patent holder. In effect the lawsuit is just squaring the books and thus discouraging copyright/patent v
Copyright and provenance (Score:2)
With copyright at least you can clearly see that someone copied your work.
Not necessarily. True, copyright is the only intangible property right among the big three that requires access to the plaintiff's work as part of a claim of infringement. But if I hear a song on the radio, and then a decade later, I write a similar song, then I have infringed the copyright. George Harrison got nailed [vwh.net] for "My Sweet Lord".
Re: (Score:2)
It is therefore not a troll-scheme. Just a content producer seeking recompense for the use without permission of content that he has paid his staff to produce.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Takedown notices are only for the DMCA, where a service provider gets safe haven from prosecution for copyright infringement by a user of his service. He can keep his safe haven, so long as he does takedowns on request from copyright holders.
This is a plain old fashioned copyright matter. The creator of a website, has herself copied someone else's article. There is no requirement for a takedown notice.
If there were, it would of course give a free pass for copyright infringement to everyone on the internet,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
How do these people sleep at night. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The bad sleep well [wikipedia.org] indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That is a bit of an overstatement. Didn't you even read the summary? This suit will very likely benefit society as a whole; this is a REPUBLICAN candidate they are suing.
They are sociopaths (Score:5, Informative)
They cannot empathize with others, they cannot feel the emotions of another. They are totally and completely self centered. So long as something is good for them, they do it.
Most people associate the term with serial killers and it is true, all serial killers I'm aware of are sociopaths, but there are actually a surprising amount of them. Nearly 10% of the population is like that. Most are just inconsiderate assholes, the sort of people that just don't seem to care when they cause problems for others.
That's what happens with people like this. They seem to have no morals because they don't. They'll act perfectly justified in their actions, After all, it is all within the law, why shouldn't they do this? You are stupid for not doing it! Etc, etc.
You will also find, that when someone does something to them the same as they do to others, they get PISSED. It is COMPLETELY different when done to them and they can't see the irony in that.
Happened to a spammer some years ago. He got interviewed by a local paper. He justified his spamming as being no big deal, people could just delete it, didn't cost them anything, etc, etc. What he did was 100% fine according to him. He also bragged on his new $800,000 house. Enterprising Slashdotters figured there couldn't have been many houses sold in that area at that price in the timescale talked about. They were right: There was one. As a result he was signed up for more or less every mailing list there was. A postal truck full of mail would show up every day.
He was livid, threatened to sue any and everyone, hissed, spitted and screamed about how big a problem this was. No recognition, at all, that this was just like what he did to others. In his mind inconveniencing other people was fine, but him being inconvenienced was a crime of epic proportions. Reason is he can only understand his own emotions and needs. Other people are just objects to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They are sociopaths (Score:4, Interesting)
Is the only solution to force them to feel exactly like their victims?
This would generally make them feel like a victim, and tend to escalation of their attacks; because to a degree, they will see it as being retaliation; for example, the person who runs around mugging people for months ends up mugged himself; from there on, he'll continue mugging people, but he'll debiliate them in one way or another--knocking them out from behind, breaking a few bones, possibly killing them (though this would require a quite robust catalyst)--to prevent retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like how spammers started harassing Blue Security users after getting a taste of their own medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
The only real thing you can do is punish them for their actions. As I said, most of them aren't serial killers (obviously), they are just assholes. While they don't care about others, they are about themselves and most critters, including humans, are reasonably good at learning "If I do X, then Y happens."
So when they do things they shouldn't you punish them. This can mean legal punishment in the case they are breaking laws, or societal punishment in other cases. If you have a sociopath at work you may just
Re: (Score:2)
So that leaves conditioning as the only working treatment. But some things can't be punished by law currently (and neither should there be a law against anything and everthing).
But it's also possible to condition without punishment, but what kind of conditioning would work well on a sociopath?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the sociopath. As I said, all people are different. Might be giving them what they want when they behave.
At work we've got a couple professors that I strongly suspect are sociopaths. They are just assholes and don't seem to care about anyone else. However they are generally nice and civil to us (computer support). Reason is they've found out being nice to us means that we fix your problems faster, and will help you more. If you are jerks to us you can find yourself rather low on the priority list
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "one-size-fits-all, completely permanent" solution to assholes.
Some extreme solutions prove the contrary. ;)
But yeah, I see your point. Different people, different solutions. But for a disorder to have truly different levels of effect you would expect there to be some kind of spectrum... In that case the asshole who doesn't realize he's a jerk could very well be a very mild case sociopath. It's about lack of empathy right? And there is of course a spectrum of empathy ranging from absolutely none (sociopath) to a huge fucking lot, with neither end allowing people to f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Change it so that purchasing copyright with the intent to sue is illegal
Would it also be a violation for a law firm to take an infringement case on a no win, no fee basis [wikipedia.org]? Because in effect, there isn't much difference.
Re:They are sociopaths (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How do these people sleep at night. (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe they're scared that Sharon Angle will actually get elected. I mean, a look at her positions [wikipedia.org] SHOULD scare even copyright trolls.
Lets see... Thinks rape and incest should not be an exception for abortion? Check. Thinks global warming is a conspiracy? Check. Eliminating the IRS (like, actually eliminating it, not just grumbling at tax time)? Check. Wants to continue the failed prohibition of marijuana? Check, and possibly wants to restart the prohibition on alcohol. Etc..
Sure, she's a republican, and so I'm going to disagree with her on a lot of things (like eliminating all federal influence over education and letting half the states teach that evolution is a lie made up by the devil), but I think her platform goes beyond reasonable. Is copyright trolling against dangerously out-of-touch politicians justified? Probably not, and it's not going to stop her, but this is really more funny in my book for now than an outrage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How do these people sleep at night. (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who originally wrote the articles don't even benefit from it.
This is why copyright reform is necessary. It sums up the problem in the most concise way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the authors benefit from it: it enforces their copyright. A monopoly is a good thing to have.
Competition law (Score:2)
A monopoly is a good thing to have.
The U.S. Congress disagreed with you when it passed the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Monopolies such as copyright and patent are necessary evils if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe the persons that sold the copyright should have done their homework and charged a higher price for a copyright with ripe damages.
Re:How do these people sleep at night. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they're scared that Sharon Angle will actually get elected. I mean, a look at her positions SHOULD scare even copyright trolls.
Lets see... Thinks rape and incest should not be an exception for abortion? Check. Thinks global warming is a conspiracy? Check. Eliminating the IRS (like, actually eliminating it, not just grumbling at tax time)? Check. Wants to continue the failed prohibition of marijuana? Check, and possibly wants to restart the prohibition on alcohol. Etc..
Her hard-line views are what got her nominated.
What's funny is seeing all the "Tea Party" politicians running from the cameras, now that they've gotten nominated and don't want the broader public to know what their views are. Back in the regular world, politicians don't miss a chance to get in front of a camera and brag about their grand accomplishments and the more to come.
When a politician doesn't want media attention, you know something is *seriously* wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Sharon Angle is something, ain't she? She's crazy.
However this here:
Eliminating the IRS (like, actually eliminating it, not just grumbling at tax time)
- everybody should want that.
AFAIC the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started to steal money and redistribute that money to contractors - military and civilian alike. Politicians saw the SS money and needed to take it.
Why pay income taxes at all, if you against wars? That's first.
Then there is the entire issue of Freedom. The gov't is telling you: we own you. We own your wages and we'll give you what we decide out of the money you earn. T
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and there is no scientific basis for these doubts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change [wikipedia.org]:
[...] no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate
That is, unfortunately, a problem with Wikipedia (Score:2)
While they are generally good about demanding sources (though I've seen some very unsourced articles) there is no checking on the quality of sources. Now that in and of itself isn't a massive problem since of course sources are listed, and readers can check them for themselves. The problem is that a lot of people these days take Wikipedia to be The Truth(tm). If it says it on Wikipedia, it must be right. It is their first and last source for info. Whatever it says, goes.
My coworkers and I have joked about h
Re: (Score:2)
End the ban on offshore drilling
Not until the FBI and others figure out exactly what checks and balances are needed to keep another disaster of the scale of Deepwater Horizon from happening again.
one thing that's always pissed me off is how Democrats get up and say "We need to stop relying on foreign oil!" and then at the same time support laws preventing us from using the oil on our own soil.
Perhaps by "foreign oil" the Dems are talking about petroleum in general, as opposed to renewables such as wind and solar. Once biochemists figure out how to scale up algae biodiesel and switchgrass ethanol production, the calm night won't be quite as much of a problem.
Re:How do these people sleep at night. (Score:4, Funny)
On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies
Re: (Score:2)
ha ha ha, it's the quickest and the easiest and the best way of making the most money (or taking the most resources), and it stays the best, the easiest and the quickest way forever.
A virus or a bacteria uses your body to survive, if they are not deadly, you survive and let them survive in you, that's one way to use you. Beating people up and taking their stuff is the quickest way of becoming much richer than the rest, around you, that's what governments are based on - they take your stuff that they didn't
Re: (Score:2)
* You are a sociopath/psychopath.
* You do it because "you have no other choice".
* You redefine worthwhile being to not include your victims. (usually via some kind of ideology/religion)
* You manage cognitive dissonance by using mental compartments. (and humans are very good at that)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes more sense if you approach it from the (legally justified) point of view that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is entitled to some compensation for the infringement of their copyright. Then it just becomes an outsourcing service. Righthaven is suing Angle in lieu of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and has
That's it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, if there's anyone who really, truly believes--on their own, not because a few pushy groups with money to finance campaigns--that the current system is the way things should be, then this country has really gone tits-up. Are there ways that some of these abuses could be curbed? Sure, there are; but it should not be, by any stretch of the imagination, be necessary. There is no way anyone with a hand in copyright law before this generation would have wanted this type of bullshit.
To summarize, the extent of copyright should be to protect your work from other people making a profit off of it; if no one else is making money (DIRECTLY) off of it, then STFU, you're not losing anything you wouldn't have already not gotten already; if they are, then you get a) a nice injuction, and b) the sum total of what they made off of it (that you should have)...and maybe attorney's fees. And if you didn't make it, but you acquired the rights to it later, then STFU about anyone having used it before you had the rights; if the original owners didn't care, then you shouldn't either.
Re: (Score:2)
suing for something that someone else made (wrote, in this case), and being able to do so simply because you gave them a few bucks for the rights to it...just ridiculous.
Can she force them to disclose how much they paid for it, then limit damages to how much it was worth when they paid for it. Surely, if complete rights to something are worth $X, the danmage caused by an unauthorized copy cannot possibly be greater than $X; in the same way that if you have 3 cars I can't steal 4 from you.
Like watching dumb and dumber (Score:2)
On the one hand why is the senator infringing copyright?
On the other hand why is anyone allowed to buy a copyright then sue without giving the infringer an opportunity to simply take down the infringing work?
Two wrongs make a right, dumb and dumber, disappearing up one's own back passage. Take your pick.
Copyright law is irreparably broken.
Let me get this straight .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame...?! (Score:2, Interesting)
An image comes to mind of an old lady erratically weaving down the road at 7mph in her Buick Roadmaster and I deliberately run out in front of her (I know, inaccurate analogy)...
Some math here... (Score:2)
Is this really what this is about? Going to court so you can pay off 2 months worth of cellphone and ISP bills?
What goes around comes around.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's some deep irony here. After the Nevada primary Angle changed her website to make her seem more consistent with the mainstream values of the Republican party. The Reid campaign, sensing an opportunity, archived her old website and put it online at http://www.therealsharronangle.com/ [therealsharronangle.com] This, of course, really irked the Angle campaign who attempted to use copyright law against the Nevada state Democratic party to squash the publication of the site.
Righthaven/Stephens Media (Score:3, Informative)
The Righthaven/Stephens Media copyright trolling was covered [pajamasmedia.com] by a lot of the conservative blogosphere a few weeks ago. Righthaven (the trolls) has a deal for all of Stephen Media's 70-odd newpaper properties (including the Las Vegas Review-Journal). Wired had a story [wired.com] about their business plan.
A trademark lawyer blogged [likelihood...fusion.com] about why their business plan isn't a good one (hint: most bloggers don't have deep pockets).
Finally, Clayton Cramer posted a blacklist [blogspot.com] plus some links to BlockSite [mozilla.org] and SiteBlock [google.com] to block all Stephens Media properties from Firefox/Chrome.
It was a bit of a cause célèbre for about a week, but I'm sure this will kick it up again...
Re:is it really copyright trolling? (Score:5, Informative)
Righthaven did not create the article in question. They bought the rights from the creators solely so they could sue the infringer and profit from her. That sounds like copyright trolling to me.
Re:is it really copyright trolling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they sued doesn't mean they have a valid case (assuming the case hasn't yet gone through the preliminaries).
Re:is it really copyright trolling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately copyright law is not all that sensible these days. Big media has pushed for, and got, a lot of changes made, all of which make things more of the "zero tolerance" kind of setup. One example would be statutory damages. One would think that copyright damages would have to be actual and punitive only. After all, the whole point of copyright is so you can make money on your work. So to succeed you should need to prove damages. In the event of willful infringement, a court might then also impose punitive damages, that is pretty common. Tripling the actual damages is often the case.
However that'd mean someone downloading 100 songs online might get sued for like $400. You'll notice that's not the case, they are sued for millions. How's that? Because the law specifies statutory damages. That means that doesn't matter what the intent was or if there was any harm, you can get hit with a ton of damages. Up to $250,000 per incident.
Makes no sense at all in the reasoning for copyright, which according to the Constitution is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." However it is real useful to step on people.
So while the case may be bullshit in the logical sense, it may well be on the up and up with regards to copyright law. I have no idea, it is far, FAR too complex for anyone who isn't a legal expert in it to understand.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes no sense at all in the reasoning for copyright, which according to the Constitution is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." However it is real useful to step on people.
Well, a number of historians have pointed out that copyright (and patent) laws have never produced such progress. Historically, they have only been used to block progress. And it's quite clear that this is usually intentional.
This is pretty much all that copyright laws can do, since "progress of science and useful art
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright is about my right to publish.
My right to control publication can be infringed whether or not I make a profit.
Under what circumstances does society have an interest in granting you this artificial right? Generally, the justification is that without the ability to make money off of the work, fewer works would get created, because the would-be creators (not to mention the supporting roles such as editor, QA, audio/video technician, etc) would be busy doing something else that pays the rent and keeps
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The copyright infringer has done exactly the same wrong, no matter who legally owns the rights. All we have here is the newspaper outsourcing their pursuit of copyright infringers to a separate company. And they've decided between them that the most effective way to do that is to assign the rights to the company that's doing the pursuing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it seems pretty sensible. Righthaven was not harmed at the time of publication. They clearly looked for an infringement and then brought the harm upon themselves.
On the other hand, it could be said that the Las Vegas Review-Journal had suffered harm, and Righthaven bought the rights, thus relieving LVRJ of the harm and taking it upon themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd look at it differently. Is there any reason why transferring ownership of this work would lose you the right to pursue misuse of that work? The reality here is that the car crash has already happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it baffles me that you can buy into a situation like that will full prior knowledge and still be allowed to even raise an action in court. In most situations if you knowingly put yourself in a position of harm in order to benefit through legal action (for instance, throwing yourself in front of a car so you can sue the insurance company) and were stupid enough to admit it, you'd be looking at prison time.
Wrong metaphor. Suing for copyright infringement isn't about compensation for harm, it's about enfo
Re: (Score:2)
More like they exploited the ignorance of the person whose rights were infringed and got a bargain on the sale by keeping it a secret that they could have sued the infringer themselves.
A more accurate analogy would be using a metal detector to snoop around on someone's land and finding a huge pile of buried gold, then making a low ball offer to the property owner who doesn't know about it.
Re:is it really copyright trolling? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that makes it sound like the LV Review Journal aren't party to it. In fact the owners of the NVRJ also own Rightshaven. They set up the arrangement to pursue copyright infringers.
http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Copyright_theft_Were_not_taking_it_anymore.html?ref=164 [lvrj.com]
There's no copyright trolling here. Just a case of setting up a separate company to do the pursuit of copyright infringement. A company which can then also offer that service to other content creators.
It's perfectly reasonable. Neither LV RJ nor Rightshaven are at fault here. The only people who are at fault are those who steal their content rather than create it themselves; who copy and paste rather than link; who go beyond fair use, and just reproduce the whole article.
Re:is it really copyright trolling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
he openly brags about his business plan being all about extorting settlement money which the victims generally would rather pay then spend more on legal fees
That might be a pretty fatal mistake. In a lot of jurisdictions, that would qualify as barratry. Even the RIAA make an effort to maintain the pretence that they want to end infringement and get fair recompense from pirates, and they're skirting dangerously close to the edge.
I really hope they try this in Texas, where barratry is a felony.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think for barratry the lawsuits would have to be generally without merit. These copyright infringements seem perfectly real. There might be a defence against them in cases where the copyright material has been posted in user forums. Safe harbour defence would work. But where a blogger has posted a news story from the paper, in full, and the blogger is the one being sued, then there seems nothing legally wrong
Re: (Score:2)
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK?
25 posts so far. Looks like most of them are saying it's *not* OK. A few bring up what a nutcake Angle is, but don't say anything about that making the lawsuit good.
Re:Really Slashdot? Really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody actually said that except you. Btw, Righthaven sued plenty of left wing sites too [blogspot.com]. They are apparently averaging several lawsuits per day so I don't really think there is a political agenda here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK?
Don't malign conservatives like that and don't malign slashdotters like that either. This woman is not conservative. She says she is, but a more precise classification would be "delusional." And those slashdotters like myself who find this a little amusing aren't saying it's okay, this is still a symptom of an incredibly broken copyright system and overly litigious society. Still, it sure as shit ain't sad when slightly bad things happen to dangerous politicians. She's going to a fraction of her warche
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfounded libel much?
Actually, TFA says that it's their business model. You can read about it in Wired: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/ [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be content if nothing came out of it...
Nothing but may-hem, May-HEM, MAY-HEM!!!