Defense attorneys want Righthaven to pay up
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleWednesday
13 April 2011
3:13 p.m.
Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC faces more problems in its most-regretted lawsuit, the one over a Denver Post photo that it dismissed Sunday against autistic North Carolina blogger Brian D. Hill.
Hill's attorneys today filed a motion seeking unspecified attorney's fees and asking for a hearing on the issue.
Righthaven says it didn't know about Hill's disabilities when it sued him.
Today's motion would seem to only prolong the problems it has faced in the case, including a judge criticizing Righthaven's business model and striking from the record comments Righthaven had filed critical of Hill's attorneys and warning people not to infringe on its copyrights.
"Righthaven’s conduct in bringing this lawsuit, and the manner in which it was prosecuted, was reckless, unreasonable, in bad faith, or solely for vexatious, obstinate, wanton, or oppressive reasons," said today's filing by Hill's attorneys with Santangelo Law Offices P.C. in Fort Collins, Colo.
"More to the point, should Righthaven be allowed to bring such profit-motivated lawsuits against persons, such as Mr. Hill, who are obviously not subject to this court’s jurisdiction, with minimal due diligence as to the facts and the law, coupled with inappropriate and unsupported in terrorem (threatening) requests, then simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss such cases to avoid the cost of litigation that Righthaven itself initiated, after defendants have put forth considerable effort in defense, could convert this court, and its officers into a vehicle to extract settlements from overwhelmed and ill-equipped defendants," the filing said.
Hill's attorneys noted Righthaven last year also tried to drop its suit against the Democratic Underground in federal court in Las Vegas, on the condition it not pay the Democratic Underground's attorney's fees.
Righthaven was unable to simply have that case go away, since the Democratic Underground had hit Righthaven and Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC with a counterclaim.
And efforts by Righthaven to avoid paying the Democratic Underground's legal fees are being opposed by the group's attorneys.
"Defendants agree that this case should be over -- indeed, it should never have started," Democratic Underground attorneys said in a December court filing. "But it should not end until Righthaven is called to account for the cost of the defense it provoked.
"This was a meritless lawsuit from the beginning, launched as part of a well-publicized business model in which Righthaven acquires interests in copyrights for the sole purpose of suing unsuspecting alleged infringers, and then seeks to leverage the cost of defending (and its own purported right to attorneys’ fees and domain name seizures) to coerce settlements. To allow Righthaven to avoid compensating those who have no choice but to defend would be unjust and unsupportable," the Democratic Underground filing said.
Righthaven sought to drop the Democratic Underground case after sustaining a fair-use loss in another case -- one of two fair-use losses for the copyright enforcer.
Righthaven hasn't yet responded to the motion by Hill's lawyers for attorney's fees.
Share
Discussion 7 comments
Comments are moderated by VegasInc editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.
Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their VEGAS INC account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.
If you have a LasVegasSun.com account, you are already registered.
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Can old Sahara site become a symbol of Las Vegas’ rebound?
- With Ron Paul’s infiltrators, clout of state GOP party further erodes
- Coolican: Courageous first move could bring success to north portion of the Strip
- School District to lay off 1,015 teachers, literacy specialists
- 9-year-old hit on Summerlin Parkway on-ramp
The Righthaven response should be an interesting work of, let's call it "creative thinking."
Beyond that, with RH voluntarily dropping the suit I have to wonder if Hill can sue for damages since RH is essentially saying they were wrong to bring suit in the first place.
Gibson the sociopath finally met his match, an autistic blogger from California. Such an anticlimatic decline for a windbag.
>> I have to wonder if Hill can sue for damages since RH is essentially saying they were wrong to bring suit in the first place. <<
of course they can ---- there are costs involved that need to be recouped. Why maybe it'll learn the (cough) attorneys down at Reichaven to think things through before going off half-cocked. I mean if I could see this coming from day one, and INAL, why couldn't they?
where's Sargent Frederick these days? No comment on the Reichaven sodomy program that's ongoing now? Seems strange, to me.
And as a side note --- I really like the new look of this site. But to Mr. Sun --- you're not getting indexed by google. you need to get that worked out asap.
Chunky says:
Hopefully Righthaven will get a taste of their own medicine!
That's what Chunky thinks!
"RH is essentially saying they were wrong to bring suit in the first place."
Essentially, you are wrong.
RH explicity stated that the suit was valid when they filed the dismissal without prejudice request which means they can re-file it anytime that they want to.
Hill's lawyers are playing a dangerous game. They made an open a door that they might regret to open.
I hear all this whining from Hill's friends and family that the suit is damaging Hill's health.
Yet, they are encouraging the suit to drag on.
I am glad that I don't have friends like that.
>> They made an open a door that they might regret to open.
bbbwwwwwwwaaaaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa. that the best you could come up with?
man, I'd be going after Reichaven as hard as I possibly could right now as they're very venerable. and no I don't care how tough you're talking since the judge carries a far larger stick.
your boys might not be out but they're at an eight count and stretched out on the canvass --- with the judge's boot on their chest.
SgtRock said: "RH explicity stated that the suit was valid when they filed the dismissal without prejudice request which means they can re-file it anytime that they want to."
First, so far as I know if they filed a voluntary dismissal it is *with* prejudice and is an explicit statement that no infringement occurred. In fact, that was pointed out in the story where Democratic Underground refused to accept such a dismissal from RH in their case not only because DU feel they are entitled to attorney fees but DU wants an actual judgment on "fair use" grounds. A voluntary dismissal by RH would have admitted no infringement had taken place, the story said.
Second, please point to the court records where RH said that. Or did you forget that the judge had all of the extra commentary stricken from the record as "immaterial and impertinent"?
Usually, when a small time entity (website, blogger, small newspaper, etc.) uses copyrighted information wrongfully on a website, the owner of the copyright will send a cease and desist letter (or email) on their lawyer's letterhead, causing the majority of the "violators" to remove the improper data. The lawsuits typically only are filed if the letter (and maybe a second letter) is ignored, or if the violator is a larger entity or direct competitor who really should have known better.
I know people who have received such letters, I know people who have sent them. In all cases, the problem was corrected and no further action was taken, other than the offender became more diligent and used more care to not allow it to happen again.
I think this little party is about to be over. If it becomes more expensive to operate due to backlash, it will go away. No doubt the copyrighted information shouldn't be used without permission, or license to do so, but posting a photo or article is hardly cause for being shut down entirely. People just need to be very careful about who'se information they use, and use it only with proper credit or license.
I think Chunky is correct.