Political Forum (Democratic Underground) Fights Back Against Righthaven Copyright Troll Suit

[Skinner]

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Political Forum Fights Back Against Righthaven Copyright Troll Suit
Bogus Copyright Claims Used to Threaten Democratic Underground

Las Vegas - The online political discussion forum Democratic Underground is fighting back against a lawsuit filed by copyright troll Righthaven LLC, arguing in court documents filed Monday that the short excerpt of a news article at issue in the suit is a clear case of fair use.

Democratic Underground -- represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Winston & Strawn LLP, and attorney Chad Bowers -- was sued by Righthaven on August 10 for a five-sentence excerpt of a Las Vegas Review-Journal news story that a user posted on the forum, with a link back to the Review-Journal website. Righthaven has brought over 130 lawsuits in Nevada federal court claiming copyright infringement, even though they do not create, produce or distribute any content. Instead, they create lawsuits by scouring the Internet for content from Review-Journal stories posted on blogs and online forums, acquiring the copyright to that particular story from Stephens Media LLC (the Review-Journal's publisher), and then suing the poster for infringement.

As part of its lawsuit business model, Righthaven claims damages of up to $150,000 under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provisions and uses that threat to attempt to push defendants into a quick settlement. In the answer and counterclaim filed Monday, Democratic Underground asked the court to affirm that the excerpt of the article does not infringe copyright and is a fair use of the material, with no damages due to Righthaven.

"Democratic Underground is the largest independent discussion forum for liberals on the Internet. Thousands of people discuss and debate political issues on our site every day, particularly now during election season. Online discussion often requires quoting from news sources -- a legal fair use of the material," said Democratic Underground founder David Allen. "By targeting short excerpts of news articles with their sham copyright claims, Righthaven is chilling free and open discussion on the Internet."

Righthaven has claimed that its activities are intended to have a deterrent effect on the reposting of news stories online. But instead of allowing websites to remove or amend the content in question, Righthaven goes straight to court, seeking to profit by gaining sums far greater than any actual harm the newspapers may have suffered. Righthaven has already sued numerous noncommercial bloggers, such as Allegra Wong; political advocacy groups, such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Inc.; and political parties and candidates, such as the Democratic Party of Nevada and Sharron Angle.

"Despite what Righthaven claims, it's hard to interpret these lawsuits as anything else besides a way to bully Internet users into paying unnecessary settlements," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "At the same time, Righthaven is trying to discourage the practice of quoting and linking that is both essential to the interconnected Internet and helps drive significant traffic to newspapers online."

For the full answer and counterclaim: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/AnswerandCounterclaim.pdf (Adobe PDF)

Read more: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/09/27

[Cassandra]

1. I'm so glad...

the right wing is against frivolous lawsuits. :puke:

[prairierose]

4. You've got that right..what would these guys do if...

they actually managed to get tort reform passed? They'd have to get an actual job...oh the horror...

[drm604]

8. I'm not so sure that the right wing supports this.

Considering that Righthaven has also attacked Sharron Angle, I think their motivations are purely financial with little regard to political affiliation. I'm hoping that individuals and organizations from all sides will fight Righthaven on this.

[Ganja Ninja]

25. Sharon Angle wasn't considered a Republican candidate by the GOP until she won the primary.

The GOP fought to keep her off the ballot in November. This is typical Rovian shit.

[drm604]

32. According to Wikipedia they've also sued Free Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Review-Journal#Copyright_trolling

I don't think this is a right versus left issue. They seem to be doing this strictly for the money.

[dotymed]

160. Damn, there goes my

"truth in advertising" schtick..."RIGHThaven.....

[drm604]

162. I think the "right" in Righthaven is from "copyRIGHT". n/t

[RamboLiberal]

88. You got that right

RH troll & his LVRJ partner have sued numerous 2nd amendment/gun sites as well.

RW actually think this is a lefty Obama plot - they tie Gibson back to working with Michelle Obama at law firm in Chicago on intellectual property. Google Righthaven Obama.

This troll is equal opportunity!

[Roland99]

9. +1

[live love laugh]

113. "Righthaven"...The name is fitting. I'd bet the value of the suit they are Republicons. nt

[bobburgster]

149. Had those exact same thoughts! n't

[peacetalksforall]

171. What about 'pull yourself up' Libertarians? Those liber-superior to other human beings in

every way Libertarians? The most severe ones.

[nxylas]

156. The birther nonsense is enough to disprove that meme

They keep bringing the same lawsuit over and over again, no matter how many courts throw it out.

[Renew Deal]

2. The Righthaven scam is all about bullying people that can't defend themselves.

I'm very happy that DU is standing up for itself!!! :yourock:

[SlimJimmy]

43. Agreed.

Standing up to these jerks is the right thing to do.

[baldguy]

76. Typical RW authoritarian behavior.

[Hugin]

3. .

:thumbsup:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

5. I'm confused aren't these the people who hate frivolous lawyers and trial lawsuits (or is it the

other way around :+)?

[rhett o rick]

134. Why do you try to understand hypocrites. nm

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

185. I should have specified that it was rett o rickal. Drumroll. nt

[Ian David]

6. All websites and blogs should purge themselves of any mentions or links to LVRJ.

Just to be sure they're safe, you know?

[karynnj]

44. I doubt the links themselves are copywrited

Although it would be tougher, if they win on this, I would guess we could rewrite what they wrote to convey the content and then link.

[Ian David]

96. Doesn't matter if the links are copyrighted. You'd still have to purge them.

1) If you post content from a site, you have to link back to it.
2) LVJR sues sites that do that.
3) So you have to get rid of any content from them AND links back to them.
4) If they don't play nice with the internet sites, the internet shouldn't let them play in any of our reindeer games-- no links to them from anyone.

[karynnj]

110. Wow - I agree with your #4

I am confused as to what case they have if you just had the link. Are they just issuing a huge number of nuisance suits that they hope people settle rather than incur court costs?

[Ian David]

159. Yes. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

172. It's the Internet (loosely formed and connected) Mafia.

[True_Blue]

117. Users here should boycott LVRJ too.

If they don't want anyone reading their articles, fine. I won't be visiting their site anymore after this.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

10. Good for you for fighting back against the slime! Kudos to the DU administrators!! n/t

[Ferret Annica]

11. It amazes me that many right wing forums change articles to reflect racist and homophobic view point

and this does not happen to them.

I mean, for example; Liberty's Flame run by a wing nut from Ohio has threads like this one for example reprinting this article:

http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/dont-ask-don-t-tell-legal-action/log-cabin-republicans-3.html

With this typical for them headline:

Republican Fudgepacker Group Releases Endorsements

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13460&Disp=4#C4

This festering hole of a forum is full of this crap. And this forum is but one example. You would throw-up if I showed you the worse ones with more interlocutors to them. This is a good example because it will never go anywhere or do anything.

[MedicalAdmin]

35. Good Lord - I followed the link. Why did I follow the link?

Excuse me while I go and bleach my eyeballs.


Blech. Reminds me of the changing room after junior high gym class; smell and stupid in abundance.

[Ferret Annica]

108. I sympathize, and understand where you are coming from

Just take comfort I didn't use the worst example of these Free Republic spin offs in my post. It isn't half as bad as the worst one.

[Turborama]

12. What "harm" could the Las Vegas Review-Journal have "suffered"? Nobody had heard of them until now.

They should be grateful to you for giving them free publicity.

In fact, they should count themselves lucky that you don't charge them for it.

Thanks for posting this update and for standing up to these "Copyright Trolls".

[EFerrari]

15. They should pay Skinner for sending business their way.

That's right!

[14thColony]

58. It's even worse than that

Unless I'm utterly misreading the article, Righthaven finds the alleged infringement, buys the copyright for the article from LVRJ, then sues the alleged infringer ex post facto!

So a company that's not a publisher of jack shit, and didn't write the article, gets to claim THEY suffered the damages on a copyright they only bought AFTER they saw an opportunity for a lawsuit. What's the term for this? Racketeering? Extortion? I guess that counts as a "business model" nowadays.

[Ian David]

99. They don't even send a takedown notice or a cease-and-desist.

They just swoop in from out of nowhere and file suit.

[Occulus]

111. That will not sit well with the presiding judge, assuming it goes that far.

I expect a summary judgment in favor of DU.

[OrangeGrapes]

182. Now that Righthaven is doing this...

they're getting even more publicity. It's a plot, Speedracer! Ha-ha!

[leveymg]

13. Hope the Judge hands Righthaven an Abuse of Service charge for this slapsuit stuff

In the meantime, I guess the LVR-J is on the sh-t list, and we should alert whenever we see a quote or a link to that rag.

[TexasObserver]

14. DU should win this on summary judgment.

[BlueCollar]

16. any way to countersue in this situation?

I googled Righthaven LLC....some interesting stuff there.

[happyslug]

23. Done already read the Answer, it included a counterclaim

n/t

[BlueCollar]

24. Thanks...

but the "prayer for relief" is a little "thin" IMO...

[happyslug]

36. That is where a Motion for Summary Judgment comes into play

Under the Federal Rules, you have your pleading stage (Which is over) then you go to the Discovery stage. Once both sides have finished with the discovery state (i.e. have all the information the other sides has) then one side or both sides make a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion for Summary Judgment is that based on the facts known to both sides, someone wins as a matter of law OR it is unlikely that the other side will prevail at trial (In Pennsylvania Fact Pleadings system these are two actions, an action for Judgments on the Pleadings i.e. based on law what is plead leads to one side winning. The Second action in Pennsylvania is a Motion for Summary Judgment, where one side says given all of the facts of this case it is more likely then not that they will win at trial).

This being a FEDERAL CASE, the request for Damages can wait till the Motion for Summary Judgment State, but then DU will know why and how the Plaintiff filed this action and can include those new facts in the Motion for Summary Judgment.

[66 dmhlt]

52. Love it when the term "little friend" appears in legal documents

From the PDF Answer and Counterclaim cited above:

2. This case is a particularly abusive instance of a broad and aggressive strategy by
Stephens Media, working in conjunction with its “little friend” Righthaven as its front and sham
representative, to seek windfall recoveries of statutory damages and to exact nuisance settlements by
challenging a fair use of an excerpt of an article that Stephens Media makes freely available on the
Internet, and which it encourages its users to “Share & Save” at least 19 different ways.

(Snip)

In that manifesto, Mr. Frederick warned: “don’t steal our content. Or, I promise you, you will meet my little friend called Righthaven.”

[blondeatlast]

73. I LOL'ed! I'm a paralegal and would love to have prepped that baby.

:rofl:

[Occulus]

112. I'm NOT a paralegal and *I* would have loved doing the prep work.

Does Righthaven really think it can get away with this forever? I mean, this is clearly not what US copyright law intends.

You can't make a business model out of filing suits. Eventually, they will be stopped, at which time they can expect an avalanche of suits against them.

I hope we're not the only ones filing a counterclaim.

[blondeatlast]

71. A counterclaim was filed, using the LVRJ's own practices against them. You can read it at the EFF's

link.

[Downwinder]

17. Shall we start itemizing damages?

I consider DU essential cognitive therapy for Multiple Sclerosis and if necessary can get a Doctor's statement to that effect.

[happyslug]

33. That will be done after the Discovery part of this litigation

Discovery is where both sides are to exchange information. After that exchange, and if both sides are satisfied that a full exchange of data has occurred, then and only then can both sides file for Summary Judgment. In that Summary Judgment motion is when the issue of actual damages can be brought up, including an itemized list of damages.

Please note I suspect a large fight over Discovery in this case. Who knew what when AND how did this use harm the Plaintiff. I suspect both sides will do dispositions of each other as to WHY this is in litigation. After all of that then a Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing this case and asking for money to sanction the Plaintiff for abusing the Copyright law.

[kpete]

18. wow...?

where would a shy cut and paster like me go?
i would be lost without a place to deposit my favorite info,
and btw Skinner, DU, thanks, kpete

[Dr.Phool]

19. Countersue the shit out of them for filing a frivolous lawsuit!

The courts don't like that shit.

[sabrina 1]

20. K&R

Good for DU for standing up to them.

Seems to be purely for money. I hope everyone they sue fights back and that in the end the cost of their legal fees will break them.

Also, maybe there is a way to sue them. If it's this easy to file lawsuits, everyone should do it, to THEM.

[HillbillyBob]

67. Now if we could get them and the Phelps clan made at each

other they can sue back and forth ad nauseaum

[closeupready]

21. K&R

Go, David!

[happyslug]

22. And its all "pampango" fault

"pampango" was the person who posted the link in question. DU made that claim in its counterclaim, through I wish someone would post the Complaint of the Plaintiff, it is impossible to understand the "Answer" without a copy of the Complaint.

For you non-lawyers out there, a Complaint is the name given to the documents filed by a Plaintiff where the Plaintiff claims someone did the Plaintiff a wrong. An "Answer" is the Defendant's response to the Complaint. Thus to understand the "Answer" one has to have the "Complaint" to see what is being agreed to and disagreed with. A "Counterclaim" is attached to the "Answer" as a listing of what the Plaintiff did wrong to the Defendant. Most of the "Counterclaim" would be better off named a "New Matter" i.e. items that are NOT claim of the Defendant as to the Plaintiff, but facts that are needed to decide this case but were NOT made by the Plaintiff. "New Matter" occurs in those jurisdictions that still use "Fact Pleading" (as my home state of Pennsylvania does) as oppose to "Notice Pleading" as does the Federal Government and some states.

The difference between "Fact Pleading" and "Notice Pleading" is that the former all facts must be stated in the pleadings, "Notice Pleading" just requires that both sides know what is the underlying cause of action as oppose to pleading all known facts. "Fact Pleadings" started to replace common law pleading starting in the 1840s, "Notice Pleadings" started with the Federal Government in the 1930s. "Notice Pleading" came out of the situation where a Plaintiff may not have access to all of the information needed to take his case to court, for it is in the hands of the Defendant. "Fact Pleading" did not address this problem even when "New Matter" was introduced.

I had to do some research on this years ago and as late as the late 1800s, what we call "Discovery" was not permitted. "Discovery" i.e. the exchange of information between the parties after the pleadings were done is a product of the 20th century. By the late 1930s it had become a permanent part of Federal case law and when the US Supreme Court introduced "Notice Pleading" it was do to the fact that additional facts would come out in the Discovery part of litigation not the pleading part. "Fact Pleading" jurisdiction also added discovery to their rules either before or after the Federal acceptance of "Notice Pleading" but given many states have cases where the facts are really not in dispute, "Fact Pleading" does a better job of flushing out such litigation then "Notice Pleadings" so most state courts have kept "Fact Pleading" do to such cases.

The Federal Courts tend to see more complex cases that are better flushed out via discovery and this preferred by the Federal Government. Notice the difference is more a reflection of the type of cases each court is seeing NOT any difference in law. Furthermore, given the expansion of "Discovery" even in "Fact Pleadings" jurisdiction, the differences between the two types of pleading is more academic then real. In a "Notice Pleading" you may not be able to do "New Matter" but then you plead it as part of your counterclaim (as apparently was done in this case). Even in "Fact Pleading" jurisdiction, "Discovery" is permitted. Just pointing out the differences and why these new facts were plead as a "Counterclaim" as opposed to "New Matter".

I notice the following "Fact" in the "Counterclaim": There are 162,000 DU members at the time the Counterclaim was filed. We are a community of 162,000 people plus lurkers.

[xxqqqzme]

29. I realize,

grammatically, your post is one paragraph. But damn, it was hard to read because here were no 'rest areas' for the eyes. And I am familiar with what you are explaining.

[happyslug]

39. I broke it up into four paragraphs

I did not do that in the first place for they was no easy split in my line of thought, things evolved into the next topic. I thus just looked for a point where such a shift occurred and made an arbitrarily new paragraph. Hope that makes it easier to read.

[Javaman]

Thanks for the information!

Does anyone here know what stage the lawsuit is in? Is it close to ending?

[happyslug]

142. Complaint filed August 8, 2010

The answer was filed on September 27, 2010, thus this is just the start of the litigation.

[xxqqqzme]

157. Thank you.

Sorry for the delayed response. My campaign kept me 'on the road' yesterday.

[66 dmhlt]

49. Here's a copy of the Complaint [PDF]

It was filed on 8/10/10:

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/20100810RighthavenvDemocraticUnderground.pdf

[blondeatlast]

74. Great--thanks! nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Fuck them with a foot-wide cactus.

To me, copyright extremists are even lower than teabaggers.

[Staph]

27. How much is the lawsuit going to cost?

I will happily ante up my share to stop these slimebuckets. And you don't even have to send Grovelbot out to collect . . . oh, go ahead and send Grovelbot -- he's my Internet boyfriend!

[Downwinder]

31. I'm still waiting to be served.

I don't want to contribute, I want to be part of it. Aren't we all part of "et al?" I consider myself to be so.

[BadgerKid]

34. My van down by the river has no address! n/t

[Downwinder]

38. They could at least publish in my local paper,

it is part of their chain. I won't buy it, but someone will tell me it is there. Then I can get it from the dumpster.

[happyslug]

42. You were served when DU was served

Under the Federal Rules, when you served a President of an Organization, that is valid service on that organization. This action is against DU NOT its membership thus no need to serve you.

[avaistheone1]

28. Talk about frivilous lawsuits! Disgusting!!

Good luck DU. I know you will win. I hope the court delivers a great big juicy fine to RightHaven.

[davepc]

30. Any way to donate to the legal effort directly?

[Skinner]

166. You can donate to EFF

http://www.eff.org

I don't think you can specify where the donation goes. But it will help.

[byronius]

37. DU lives forever. It just does. This bump in the road shall be shaved.

And paved.

[orbitalman]

40. Boy, don't assholes like that, just burn ya? n/t

[Tsiyu]

41. kick

for exposure

:kick:

may DU emerge triumphant...:thumbsup:

[newtothegame]

45. "largest independent discussion forum for liberals"

Really?

[lark]

66. Right on, DU

"largest independent discussion forum for liberals"


Far out!! Glad to be part of this awesome group. :grouphug:

[Buns_of_Fire]

102. And to think I knew it when it was just knee-high to a bush...

:cry: ('Scuse me. I just got a little verklempt there, thinking about all the water that's passed under the dam and over the bridge since then...)

But that's not the point today. Today, we look forward to hopefully nailing Righthaven's greedy, extortionist, blackmailing, scumsucking asses to the wall. They're nothing more than shakedown artists, and :thumbsup: to DU's powers-that-be for fighting back.

:yourock:

[blondeatlast]

77. You got a problem with that? nt

[newtothegame]

78. No I think it sounds like an awesome concept. The DU Admins should start a website like that. nt

[blondeatlast]

83. They did.

But they were kind enough to let you participate as well.

[newtothegame]

86. Am I understanding that corporate apologists like yourself are now calling themselves "liberals?"

Wow. You took that whole Bush* "Clean Air Act" and really ran with it didn't you?

[blondeatlast]

91. Specifics? nt

[Kolesar]

98. If you feed them, they will keep coming back...eom

[Jamastiene]

46. Good.

I'm happy to here DU is fighting back against this frivolous scam operation, imho, instead of just taking it and settling.

[pgodbold]

47. WOW I had no idea this was going on. Sent a small donation to help with expense. Thanks.

[katty]

48. 'Righthaven' - so who is paying them to provide this 'troll service'?

there has to be a money trail, otherwise, they would not go to the trouble to even bother.

[KamaAina]

63. LVRJ owner Stephens Media is described as "grubstaking" Righthaven

which is a joint venture between the law firm that's filing all the suits and a Stephens-controlled company called "SI Content Monitor LLC".

[katty]

82. i see, fishing for the shakedowns

[DirkGently]

50. Smash these guys. Their entire business model is a grotesque abuse of the law.

[AllyCat]

51. Way to go DU! Fight this turkey...

[rug]

53. Hey, you pasted six paragraphs.

[krispos42]

125. IBTL?

:rofl:

[mstinamotorcity]

54. You go Skinner

Give em HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Solly Mack]

55. k/r

[ooglymoogly]

56. And these are the idiots who want "their" country back.

[Alcibiades]

57. Funny thing is, sites like DU are GREAT for content providers

How many times do you see a story here and then click the link? If you're like me, you almost always do. Sites that post content want eyeballs, and places where things are aggregated--such as DU--provide them.

[True_Blue]

120. I always visit the link on stories I find interesting.

It sure does seem like they're shooting themselves in the foot here, I've actually been reading a lot of articles there lately because of the Senate race in Nev. Well I won't be going to LVRJ anymore after this.

[Alcibiades]

161. But it's not even the LVRJ

But this Rightshaven phoney-baloney group that does nothing but squat on copyrights they think will be violated. It's perverse.

[Haole Girl]

59. It's important to fight for what you believe in

Don't back down.

Even if you lose, you'll always know that you fought.

Good luck.

[woo me with science]

60. Good for you.

We've got your back.

[Hekate]

61. Best of luck to you, Skinner.Here's my shout-out to EFF; I urge DUers to check their links in the OP

Home page http://www.eff.org/

[Lisa0825]

128. Hey, they are on FB too!

http://www.facebook.com/eff

[chimpymustgo]

62. K&R.

[kirby]

64. Yet, just this morning I alerted a post for copyright issues

and nothing was done. The post 'pasted' huge portions of an article rather than a short summary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=457765

[druidity33]

70. and if you go back to that thread...

you'll see that it was edited "by the Admin" for copyright reasons. Sometimes these things take a little time...

:shrug:

[kirby]

75. He edited it AFTER I posted on this thread...

My original alert was ignored/not acted on for at least 5 hours (I dont recall exactly when I alerted. probably around 10am EST). I'm glad to see it was finally acted upon.

[blondeatlast]

79. There's this concept in law (and in life) called "acting in good faith."

You did, so did the poster, and the mods would have eventually.

Get over yourself.

[kirby]

84. Get over myself?

Why such an attitude? What did I ever do to you?

[LanternWaste]

119. Precisely how long should it take...?

"My original alert was ignored/not acted on for at least 5 hours..."

Precisely how long should it take, and on what objective basis is that answer given...? Have you addressed this concern to the admins?

[Jamastiene]

85. Nice post, Righthaven.

:P

:hide:

[kirby]

87. Ha Ha

If I were Righthaven, I would not have taken the time to alert so that DU could correct a potential problem.

Of course if the original poster would have followed the rules and not posted 70% of the original article, this would all have been moot.

[Jamastiene]

153. I understand.

I was joking. I'm glad you alerted. :thumbsup:

[KamaAina]

65. The plot thickens: The attorney involved just sold his law firm to a heavy hitter

Detroit-based Dickinson Wright, chaired by former mayor Dennis Archer, with offices in four states, DC, and Canada. They must think there's some big bucks involved here. :scared:

[vanbean]

97. Which attorney? Link?

[KamaAina]

104. The attorney is Steven Gibson

http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com

Righthaven LLC is owned 50/50 by two limited liability companies. The first is Net Sortie Systems, LLC, which is owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson – the Nevada attorney who is behind all of the lawsuits filed by Righthaven. The second is SI Content Monitor LLC, which is owned by family members of investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens whose investments include Stephens Media, LLC which owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

http://www.dickinsonwright.com/news2.aspx?id=666

Three Gibson Lowry Burris LLP attorneys will join Dickinson Wright: Steven A. Gibson, Jodi Donetta (J.D.) Lowry, and J. Scott Burris. The addition of these attorneys brings the total number of Dickinson Wright attorneys to more than 260.

Mr. Gibson will serve as the Las Vegas office's managing partner. He practices intellectual property law, both transactional and in litigation, focusing on trademark, trade secret and copyright issues, including related business transactions, mergers and acquisitions, with an emphasis on gaming-related matters.

[Occulus]

109. he may be well aware that he "needs" bigger guns

I don't blame him. The EFF has some major legal victories under its belt.

He should be worried. This looks like the sort of thing that gets settled on summary judgment. The part I love the most is how Righthaven files suit in some cases AFTER it has bought the copyright. I seriously doubt any judge would be amused by that....

You know, even if it were little ol' me getting sued by Righthaven (and they have gone after individual bloggers in the past), I honestly wouldn't be too terribly worried. This company is clearly abusing copyright law and they will eventually get slapped down.

[kestrel91316]

68. Here come the good guys in white hats!!!!!! YAY!!!!

[blondeatlast]

69. WINSTON & STRAWN?! Niiiiiiiiiice! I read the counterclaim, using RH's own practices

against them--very cool.

[msanthrope]

164. It was quite nice, wasn't it??? n/t

[The Wizard]

72. Counter claim for malicious prosecution (NT)

Every member should make a claim against Righthhaven.

[RoccoR5955]

80. I hope that EFF rakes them over the coals

several times. They are just out trolling for settlements, on frivolous lawsuits. Someone should put these bass turds out of business, and have them disbarred even.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Good job, DU! n/t

[BlancheSplanchnik]

89. what's that shit legal minded righties like to yell about tort reform?

god how I hate their scummy hypocritical self-serving money grubbing lying obstructionist greedy smelly asses.

[guruoo]

90. LasVegas Sun: R-J owner faces counterclaim in copyright lawsuit campaign

R-J owner faces counterclaim in copyright lawsuit campaign

By Steve Green (contact)

Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 | 12:33 p.m.
Related Document (.pdf)


The owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal has for the first time been hit with a counterclaim over its online
copyright infringement lawsuit campaign, with attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation accusing the
newspaper of entering a "sham" relationship with the Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner Righthaven LLC
-- and accusing Righthaven of copyright fraud.

....

Besides recruiting attorneys to represent Righthaven defendants for free as a public service, attorneys for the EFF
are representing the Democratic Underground LLCin a Righthaven lawsuit over the posting by a message board
user of four paragraphs of a 34-paragraph Review-Journal political article.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/r-j-owner-faces-counterclaim-copyright-lawsuit-cam/

[backscatter712]

92. Go whoop some ass, Skinner! n/t

[chrisa]

93. DU fundraiser - 2010 pt. 2!

When DU counter-sues for frivelous lawsuit.

[mikekohr]

94. Fight back, kick ass, don't even bother taking names

unless it helps in the countersuit.

mike kohr
Bureau County (Illinois) Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

[SalmonChantedEvening]

95. Go'head DU.

Remember this: To win this case, you need do only one thing. Tell The Truth.

Kick their asses like it was Skittles Request Night. :bounce:

:dem:

[Raine1967]

100. Who is backing Righthaven?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/'

Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to compel quick settlements. Since Righthaven’s formation in March, the company has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers who’ve re-posted articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, his first client.

Now he’s talking expansion. The Review-Journal’s publisher, Stephens Media in Las Vegas, runs over 70 other newspapers in nine states, and Gibson says he already has an agreement to expand his practice to cover those properties. (Stephens Media declined comment, and referred inquiries to Gibson.) Hundreds of lawsuits, he says, are already in the works by year’s end. “We perceive there to be millions, if not billions, of infringements out there,” he says.

[vanbean]

116. You have a trailing quote mark at the end of your link that is prohibiting access.

Here is a fixed version of the link:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars//

[WheelWalker]

144. +1 Thank you.

Blessings.

[Raine1967]

Thanks for fixing that! eom

[earcandle]

101. Given it is fair use license and not plagerism, why don't the courts just throw these cases out

based on lack of standing?  Is there a movement to take away
our rights to share information?  Dumb.  Don't we have laws
already protecting us in this?  Whenever they make new laws
about something there are already laws about, you can bet they
are trying to water down the old law with the new law.  Don't
buy it. 

[harun]

103. I was wondering that as well. I am guessing ther "settlements"

are not what one thinks they are.

Anyway, glad to see we got the EFF on our side.

[earcandle]

148. Yes!

[laughingliberal]

105. Huge K&R! nt

[RamboLiberal]

106. Las Vegas Sun Story on EFF and DU fighting back

The owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal has for the first time been hit with a counterclaim over its online copyright infringement lawsuit campaign, with attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation accusing the newspaper of entering a "sham" relationship with the Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner Righthaven LLC -- and accusing Righthaven of copyright fraud.

-----

"This case is a particularly abusive instance of a broad and aggressive strategy by Stephens Media, working in conjunction with its 'little friend' Righthaven as its front and sham representative, to seek windfall recoveries of statutory damages and to exact nuisance settlements by challenging a fair use of an excerpt of an article that Stephens Media makes freely available on the Internet, and which it encourages its users to 'Share & Save' at least 19 different ways," the EFF attorneys wrote in their counterclaim.

-----

The Democratic Underground response then charged Stephens Media has its own copyright problems, alleging: "employees of Stephens Media have cut and pasted excerpts of copyrighted materials to which Stephens Media has no license or copyright rights on multiple occasions."

-----

The Democratic Underground counterclaim also said that in another Righthaven lawsuit, Righthaven attorneys said that excerpting the first two paragraphs -- or three sentences of a 28-sentence story -- would have been fair use even though that use exceeded 10 percent of the story.

In the Democratic Underground case, five sentences or less than 10 percent of the 54-sentence story were re-posted, the attorneys said.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/r-j-owner-faces-counterclaim-copyright-lawsuit-cam/

Also check this one out those of you that understand law & courts. Attorneys attack Review-Journal copyright suit arrangement. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/27/attorneys-attack-review-journal-copyright-suit-arr/

[blaze]

107. Skinner!! Do you need donations to help with the legal fees? nt

[Auggie]

115. +1

[Skinner]

167. We are receiving pro bono legal representation.

Democratic Underground might have to cover some modest out-of-pocket stuff. But the lawyers are free.

You can donate to EFF: http://www.eff.org

[blaze]

189. Done! Thanks for the link! nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

114. Why did you not decide to counterclaim for barratry?

A lawsuit like this is ripe for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. They have done that

From the PDF:

"18. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff is engaging in barratry, champerty, and
maintenance."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

176. That's as a defense...

You can file a countersuit claiming damages for it as well.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[myrna minx]

118. K&R n/t

[pleah]

122. K&R

[muriel_volestrangler]

123. Political Site Argues Fair Use In Righthaven Copyright Case

Of the 135-plus Web sites sued to date by Righthaven, Democratic Underground appears to have one of the strongest defenses, says Citizen Media Law Project attorney Kimberly Isbell. One reason is because the site only displayed five sentences out of more than 50 of the original article, "Tea Party power fuels Angle."

Another is that a user, and not the site owner, allegedly posted the excerpts; in fact, had the site followed some formalistic requirements set out in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it would have been able to argue that it was protected by the safe harbors, which generally immunize sites from copyright liability for users' posts.

Additionally, the article concerns politics -- and courts generally protect people's right to discuss matters of public importance, such as elections.

Already another federal judge in Nevada has indicated that she might find reposting an entire article a fair use. "Noncommercial, nonprofit activity is presumptively fair," U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro wrote in a separate Righthaven case. "This is because a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create."

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=136636

[Electric Monk]

132. DU should win this. k&r

[kristopher]

168. Offers good perspective. nt

[depakid]

124. It's probably too much to hope- but if this helps to stem the tide of ever more abusive

intellectual property laws, then something good will come out of it.

[POAS]

126. OK. Thanks for the note. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

127. It's like suspended animation, we are being held up every time we turn around by somebody.

They rob us of our freedoms every day.
Little things.
Then big things.
And then things like this.

It is the continuation of the ruination of this country by the right -- the ones that said they didn't support "trial lawyers".

Gawd I hope we win this one. It is ludicrous that anyone paid thos guys after being bullied by a lawsuit.
There should be some recourse to recoup those payments.

[WheelWalker]

129. No Retreat. No Surrender.

:kick:

[unkachuck]

130. K&R....Excellent!....n/t

[David Zephyr]

131. It's a liberty issue. Plain and simple.

!

[grantcart]

146. agreed and I expect it will be laughed out of court - hopefully with defendent's legal costs covered

[populistdriven]

133. GOD

[rhett o rick]

135. Going for the big guns are you? nm

[klook]

136. I'm making a donation to DU to help fight these parasites

and urge others who are able to do the same:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/donate.html

Good work, Skinner -- fight the good fight. We're with you.

[Trajan]

140. I'm with ya Klook ...

I haven't donated in some time ..... I cannot this very moment, but I promise to find the money in the next couple of weeks ....

I've been here for going on 9 years now - I love DU (well ... more of a love/hate relationship) ...

But I surely love Skinner, Elad and EarlG for what they have brought us here, and I will do my part to help defend it ....

Guns, knives and brass knuckles ? ... Nah ... Money is what is required here .... I will get it done ...

Thanks Thanks David, Brian and ... and (What is EarlG's first name ??? ...)

[lonestarnot]

137. Welp do we have money for Court costs and defense attorneys' fees? And is the MTD drafted yet?

[laylah]

138. There is tmi for my brain, Skinner; however,

please know I support you, and "our home". You are fighting the good fight against the pariahs. I am with all of you all of the way. If there is anything I can do, sans cash (can't pay the mortgage), I will be glad to. I have always been a damned good ltte kinda gal.

My thoughts and best wishes are with you all. If it were not for you group of fellas, many of us would be lost in the wilderness!

:hug:

Jenn

[AzNick]

139. Don't piss off a liberal

No you don't do that lol. We bring facts, what do you expect?!?

[gristy]

141. "20. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff lacks standing."

That's what I was thinking when I first saw this. But do they have standing because they acquired the copyright?

on edit: I read about half of the Answer and Counterclaim. It used to be that criminals could only mug pedestrians, steal cars, forge checks, and commit fraud. This kind of operation is certainly nothing if not creative.

To say that these folks are scum of the earth would be a gross understatement.

[happyslug]

143. You forgot the old legal joke about this type of case

Anyone can use a gun to rob someone, a real criminal uses a brief Case.

[marasinghe]

188. yea; the good old blackmail racket under black robe & white wig.

same stunt w.r. grace & co., the witches' brew corp., tried to do to farmers - by getting a us patent on the chemical formula of the compound in neem leaves (which south asians had used for thousands of years as an insecticide in rice fields; and as an ingredient in ayurvedic medicines), then suing indians to stop them from using neem as an insecticide, unless they bought licensed shit from w.r. grace.

or suez, the french water corp. with west africans using their own water. or coca cola with the indian farmers & the head waters of the ganges. or the us state govts. and the native americans' tobacco crops.

the new corporate model - same as the old. zero originality; all theft; & a side of extortion thrown in for free.

putting the robber baron back in: 'business as usual'.

[lonestarnot]

190. Nope, just a pencil.

[marasinghe]

145. hey Skinner, good luck in flushing these scum down the sewers they were spawned in. (n/t)

[still_one]

147. Is it any wonder why lawyers are not the most popular folks /nt

[bobburgster]

150. Thanks for fighting back!

The only way to stop such behavior is to challenge it.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

151. awesome! nt

[dipsydoodle]

152. Copyright troll

Notable examples

One commentator describes Harry Wall, husband of nineteenth-century British comic singer Annie Wall, as the world's first copyright troll.<3> Wall, a figure "notorious" for his personal antics as well as his copyright exploits, set up "the Authors', Composers' and Artists' Copyright Protection Office", to collect fees for unauthorized performances of works by often-deceased composers, based on the threat of litigation for statutory damages under the Dramatic Copyright Act of 1842.<3>

In the 1990s, the SCO Group's effort to destroy the free open source operating system, Linux, was viewed as copyright trolling by the approximately 1,500 companies from whom SCO demanded licensing royalties, based on a copyright that a court eventually ruled belonged instead to Novell. Novell, by contrast, had no interest or intention of enforcing its copyright against the alleged infringers.<4><5>

The term was also applied to two parties that separately sued google in 2006, after posting content they knew would be indexed by google's googlebot spider, with the industry standard "noindex" opt-out tags deliberately omitted. In Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc., adult magazine Perfect 10 was described as a copyright troll for setting up image links with the intent to sue google for infringement after google added them to its image search service.<2> In Field v. Google, a Nevada lawyer took "affirmative steps" to get his legal writings included in google's search results so that he could sue google, and was ruled to have acted in bad faith.<6>

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

last para with regard to "acting in bad faith" is interesting.

[klook]

165. Interesting info - thanks

It seems the common thread is owning works via purchase (or questionable legal maneuvering) only, and then ensnaring unsuspecting innocent users of the work and demanding compensation for the "injury." This is one of the reasons copyrights are allowed to expire. (Otherwise I could copyright the Magna Carta and sue every history textbook company.)

I hadn't thought of the SCO/Linux case, but that seems relevant. The whole argument in that ridiculous episode -- that Linux steals from Unix -- was destroyed when a) Novell was deemed sole owner of the Unix copyrights, and b) Novell took the position that Linux is independent of Unix and they had no interest in suing anybody over this.

SCO was just trying to muscle its way into becoming a fee collector for something it didn't create, didn't own, and had no interest in promoting or developing. So they were helping nobody but themselves, just like Righthaven.

[Downwinder]

177. Why not go the other way?

The Website operator has control of the items indexed with robots.txt, If they allow Copyright material to be indexed, it should tarnish the Copyright.

[unhappycamper]

154. Good.

I'm tired of posting one lousy paragraph of articles from military rags. :thumbsup:

k&r

[SemperEadem]

155. I"m surprised newspaper organizations

have not filed a cease and desist order against righthaven--after all, they are impacting their revenue stream.

How can someone who does not own the copyright, has not created the content nor disseminates said content file for copyright infringement? I've completely been going about things the wrong way if this is the case, LOL.

[DFW]

158. Press charges with the AG under the RICO act

This "Righthaven" is an organized extortion racket. It should be prosecuted as such.

Don't just countersue for damages. Get them behind bars where they belong!

[harun]

191. +1

[CBR]

163. OK. Thanks for the note. nt

[joeybee12]

169. Finally, something we all agree on! KNR!

[madmax]

170. K & R

[felix_numinous]

173. I agree creating ownership of ideas is a slippery slope.

It is one thing to claim copyright on pieces of art, compositions, movies and books. This is a blatant attempt to infringe a free internet by threatening to interfere with an inherent computer function to copy information.

It is akin to creating personal cars that can drive 160 mph, and then having speed limits that are much less. It is all about revenue, and finding another way to make money, this time off of the virtual highway. If they really wanted to prevent people from speeding, and especially if it were about real safety, they would make cars that cannot go that fast in the first place. But no, having cars that can go fast has to remain, to provide an illusion of freedom.

Now that copyright infringement is on the table, why have access in the first place? Preventing a link from copying to another site can be invented while assuring access to information, if that is the point of all of this. But it is not, it's all about taking the first step towards regulation of a free internet by buying turf.

"Regulation' will attempt to impede flow of information, which will only find other ways to travel since it is a basic human need. Extreme regulation would create a black market, a true 'underground' I'm sure in the name of terrorism, then a cyber war would ensue since there is so much money in it. That's the way these people roll.

I wish the DU administrators well and may justice prevail.

[begin_within]

175. The concept of copyright law is essentially:

You can't copyright an idea. You can only copyright your unique expression of the idea in a fixed, tangible format. I don't believe it is an infringement of a copyright to provide a link to another site. It is, however, an infringement to copy and paste text from that site onto this site. You can argue in court as to how much can be copied under the "fair use" principle, but in my opinion, and if I was a judge on the court, you can't copy any of it without permission of the copyright owner. I hope DU institutes a new policy that doesn't allow copy and paste and disables the paste function in the software.

[felix_numinous]

181. Thanks for this explanation,

It sounds like there is a sane and clear way through this suit, and I hope that is what happens for DU's sake.If DU creates a paste disabler, this site will protect themselves legally.

But I am sure individual people would find ways to override that function, requiring updated software, on and on....it sounds so clear on the surface, but I see it as a stepping stone toward something else.

[begin_within]

174. It's about time someone cracked down on copyright violations.

Far too many DUers seem to think that copyright law is meaningless.

[dogday]

179. Which DUers would that be?

I believe they are allowed at this site to paste just enough information to give you a sense of the article.

I am an artist on the internet and I allow my custom graphics to be used for personal use as long as a credit is given and the image is not manipulated in any way. I have no problem with this because I want my images to be seen.


On a personal note: Blaming other members for copyright infringement is not cool at all...

[Romulox]

180. Under the DMCA, you have a right to a "take down" notice, no?

Any way, kudos for fighting the good fight!

[Plucketeer]

183. K&R

[aquart]

184. Oh, I hope this costs them more than it does us.

[Old Troop]

186. It appears to me that these are equal opportunity greedheads. Note that

they acquire the copyright and then sue using themselves as the aggrieved party.

[LAGC]

187. Nail those suckers!

They only get away with it because most people don't have the resources to fight.

With the EFF intervening, hopefully they'll be put in their place.

[ibegurpard]

192. gogogo!!!

:clap: