Senate Candidate Sued By Copyright Troll 253
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the lesson-in-the-law dept.
from the lesson-in-the-law dept.
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."
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.
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:The more the better (Score:1, Informative)
You may want to read this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070203977.html
Harry has already done enough to ruin the country.
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: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:-ENOPARSE (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:The more the better (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, if I photograph you walking down the street, the photograph is mine, not yours. (Absent an agreement or relationship to the contrary.)
If you do not own the copyright in the article, and want to perform an act restricted by copyright, then, you'd either need a licence to use it, or else have a particular fair use defence (US) or fair dealing exception (European).
If you host a copy of the article yourself, you've performed an act restricted by copyright by virtue of uploading it to your webserver, and likely other acts too.
Is it "fair use" to host / redistribute an article about yourself? I'm not a US lawyer, so couldn't express any form of valid opinion on this, but, my understanding is, since fair use is a defence, you'd need to cough up for litigation first. In Europe, it would depend on which state you were in - under English law, the "fair dealing" sections would not permit this, absent, perhaps, a very short period of time after initial publication of the article, for "news reporting" - but that's tenuous at best, t omy mind.
(Just my thoughts, not legal advice, no warranties, don't run as root etc.)
Re:The more the better (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The more the better (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 paparazzi don't.
Re:Buying rights with the purpose to sue! (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:The more the better (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" with the media and they should report what *she* wants? HILARIOUS!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012559-503544.html [cbsnews.com]
Or just take your pick. She wants most of the federal government abolished, and is more or less anti-science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharron_Angle [wikipedia.org]
Re:They are sociopaths (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The more the better (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The more the better (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...
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:The more the better (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 noise, not much else.