Las Vegas Sun NewsJudge unseals Review-Journal/Righthaven contract
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleFriday
15 April 2011
4:41 p.m.
Related (.pdf)
A federal judge in Las Vegas on Friday unsealed the agreement for prosecuting copyright infringement lawsuits between Righthaven LLC and Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC.
As expected, the Jan. 18, 2010, Strategic Alliance Agreement shows the previously-confidential deal calls for Stephens Media to receive a cut of Righthaven's lawsuit proceeds, minus costs. That cut is 50 percent.
Over the objections of Righthaven and Stephens Media, Chief U.S. District Judge for Nevada Roger Hunt issued an order allowing the public to see the agreement allowing for copyrights from Stephens Media to be assigned to Righthaven for lawsuit purposes.
Laurence Pulgram, an attorney representing Righthaven defendant the Democratic Underground in the case, said this agreement shows Righthaven only obtains limited rights -- and this discovery may undermine all of Righthaven's lawsuits over Review-Journal material.
"By rejecting Righthaven's and Stephens Media's efforts to keep the document secret, Chief Judge Hunt has allowed the various victims of Righthaven's campaign of intimidation to know the truth. The document in question, a Strategic Alliance Agreement, gave Righthaven the right to sue on Stephens' Media's copyrights, but no other rights in the copyrights, which we believe will defeat Righthaven's standing to sue any of those it has targeted," said Pulgram, an attorney associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the San Francisco law firm Fenwick & West LLP.
Defense attorneys fighting Righthaven say that in order to sue, Righthaven must have complete ownership of the copyrights. They say that providing Righthaven only rights to sue undermines the purposes of the Copyright Act.
"Righthaven’s practices create a secondary commodities market for copyrights, or exclusive subsidiary rights in copyrights, to be used only in suing others who may have valid defenses, but cannot afford to raise them – or engage counsel whatsoever," said a filing Thursday by attorneys in another case representing the Media Bloggers Association.
"This is inimical to the purpose of the Copyright Act, which was intended to protect the intellectual investments of creators, rather than creating lawsuit mills that use registered copyrights – only after their infringement was discovered – as a source of income, rather than a shield against others’ misappropriation."
"As many defendants in Righthaven actions have argued, Righthaven does not truly own the copyrights it sues over,'' Marc John Randazza, one of the attorneys for the Media Bloggers Association, said Friday in a blog post titled in part "Does the House of Cards Collapse?"
He said Righthaven's lawsuits seem to run afoul of case law.
Righthaven has disputed this argument about its lawsuits.
It's unknown if Righthaven's lawsuit arrangement with the Denver Post provides only limited rights. If so, defense attorneys may argue that deal undermines those suits as well.
Righthaven's 264 lawsuits filed since March 2010 over Review-Journal and Denver Post material have attracted attention in media and legal circles nationwide, as they're a departure from the usual practice in the newspaper industry of asking that infringing online content be taken down before resorting to litigation.
Hunt's ruling came Friday in a Righthaven lawsuit against the Democratic Underground over the partial posting of a Review-Journal story -- and a Democratic Underground counterclaim against Righthaven and Stephens Media.
Share
Join the Discussion:
Previous Discussion:
Discussion 12 comments
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Most Popular
- It’s back! New Wet ‘n’ Wild wins over frolickers thirsty for Vegas water park
- Deadline strikes: A look at major legislation that made, missed cut
- New Firefly location welcomes customers, begins task of regaining their trust
- Las Vegas resort beaches offer oasis in middle of the desert
- Mo Denis and the walking dead: Majority leader keeps recycling legislation alive as ‘zombie bill’
This is the smoking gun. Stevens Media and Righthaven have entered into an illegal arrangement. This should not only close every case but require Righthaven to refund every penny in settlements and then some. Righthaven is about to be sued out of existence. Righthaven is finished and there is a good chance Gibson along with some Stevens Media executives will face criminal charges as well.
Righthaven maintains that copyright infringement is rampant on the Internet. It probably is.
So why not operate as a service that finds blatant infringement, notify the copyright owner, and collect a finders fee? The copyright owner can then sue using normal methods with an attorney on a contingency fee.
This might not fit the classic definition for champerty, but it sure fits the spirit.
Righthaven could have just represented Stevens Media like a legitimate law firm but Stevens Media did not want all the bad publicity associated with it so they devised this scheme to allow Righthaven to merely claim copyright ownership. The problem is that Righthaven has perjured themselves on every court filing claiming they are the owners of the copyright as well as falsely filed themselves as the copyright owners with the US copyright office. This needs to be investigated in the criminal courts because this smacks of fraud.
"Despite any such Copyright Assignment, Stephens Media
shall retain (and is hereby granted by Righthaven) an exclusive
license to Exploit the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights for any
lawful purpose whatsoever and Righthaven shall have no right or
license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from
the Exploitation of the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights
other than the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery.."
However in their court filings:
7. Righthaven is the owner of the copyright in and to the Work.
30. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to reproduce the Work, pursuant to 17
31. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the
Work, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106(2).
32. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to distribute copies of the Work, pursuant to
17 U.S.C. 106(3).
33. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to publicly display the Work, pursuant to 17
"Does the House of Cards Collapse?"
Yipper!!!
It sure do...
Squirmy Shermy & Stevie the WonderAttorney and their little scam has just hit a brick wall....HARD!
It's been a rough week for the dynamic duo of SuperSuedom..
Sgt Rock has been wrong every step of the way. None of his predictions has ever come to pass with Righthaven.
Someone at the RJ had a couple of brain cells working:
"11. Stephens Media's Potential Liability.
Stephens Media understands and acknowledges that Stephens Media and Righthaven may
be liable for an Infringer's attorneys' fees as required by Law in connection with an Infringement
Action. Stephens Media further understands that a lawsuit brought solely to harass or to coerce a
settlement may result in liability for malicious prosecution or abuse of process. If any Claim
made by an Infringer in an Infringement Action results in Losses, other than Losses described in
Section 8, Righthaven shall be solely liable for such Losses and shall indemnify Stephens Media
from and against any such Losses but only if such Losses do not arise out of a misrepresentation
by Stephens Media or other breach by Stephens Media of a provision of this Agreement."
I'm from another common law country and I learnt about Righthaven from the Brian Hill case. I was shocked that there aren't professional standards to prevent Righthaven from acting how they are. If Righthaven win their cases it would have terrible legal repercussions, as it would set a precedent for companies to act like the mafia to shut anybody up they wanted to, close down their web sites and make them bankrupt. They aren't even interested in copyright laws, as they start to sue people without even informing them that they should take down the image and harass them into paying out of court. They're using the law to control what people say and make a quick buck.
It's obvious the people sharing the images didn't break copyright law with intent, as they saw the share button and innocently assumed it could be shared. They aren't even informed to remove the image, before Righthaven start harassing people who can't afford legal advice into paying out of court. They actually told Brian Hill to pay every month out of his disability checks. Is sharing an image with a share button on a non-profit blogging site worth harassing a person with a medical condition for $150.000? If anything, the newspapers should have copyright markers on the image or inform the readers how the image can be shared. If I was Brian Hill's lawyer I would sue Righthaven for the distress caused to him.
In my opinion, what Righthaven are doing is far worse than the people they're trying to sue.
And here is the clause that lets any AP subscriber off the hook (can you say AP distribution of the "pat-down" photo? Assuming the Denver Post had a similar agreement.):
"9.3. Stephens Media shall not sell, grant any Encumbrance on or in or assign, any of
Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights to any third Person during the Term absent prior written
approval of Righthaven;"
Quoting a lawyer or a briefing from a lawsuit and then saying, "We won!!!!" is silly.
Until the appeal process is completed or abandoned or a suit is dismissed or a settlement is reached, then one side may say, "We won!!!!".
Even then it may be a pyrrhic victory or not a clear winner....both sides can lose or both can even win a little.
Even from Green he says, "It's unknown if Righthaven's lawsuit arrangement with the Denver Post provides only limited rights." and "Righthaven has disputed this argument about its lawsuits."
Yeah.....duh.........the court system including appeals will have to sort that out.
Yes, Green writes cheerleading stories. (Shhhhh....don't tell anybody but the Greenspun operation hates the LVRJ operation and sometimes their "news stories" are just a tad bias every once in a while.)
Yes, you guys get suckered into reading the cheerleading and then translate that as it is real world factual information.
He is making you look like idiots.
Don't be a sucker.
Use your brains.
Lawyer A will say it is light blue and present his case.
Lawyer B will say it is dark blue and present his case.
The lower court judge may rule that is gray blue.
The upper courts will rule it is light blue with a touch of pink.
The Supreme Court will rule depending Kennedy feels about it.
The ballgame is far far from over.
The lower court judges seem not to like Righthaven are being very sloppy in their work. That will not help the defendents when the rulings go to the upper courts.
Rock, I cannot even comment on your post because it is utterly incoherent.
So, renting or leasing your copyright is the way to do it. Seems Righthaven lied in their complaints.
<<The ballgame is far far from over.>>
how long after a ballgame has ended do you sit in your seat, Sargent Frederick? 30 minutes? an hour? a week?
and who is going to pay for a supreme court challenge? Reichaven? get serious. they're bleeding money now. even a trip to the 9th busts out the finical model --- let alone to the supremes.
this was an idiotic idea to begin with, dreamed up by two greedy parties -- and if the end isn't here it's certainly very near. there's no way the court is going to get used like this --- period. or do you think judges are so stupid as to think that wet on their leg is rain and not the pee of Gibons? get serious.
>> (Shhhhh....don't tell anybody but the Greenspun operation hates the LVRJ)
that might be --- but at least they keep it to themselves --- unlike the paranoid little and former publisher of the RJ, who never misses a beat when breaking out his broad green brush of envy.
But hang onto the losing side Rock. It fits you well. Perfectly as a matter of fact.
What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be in court in the first place. They try to harass people into paying out of court and when it does go to court, they're abusing the system that's supposed to be for truth and justice, to make money. They don't act like a professional organisation who care about copyright. Why would they harass a young man with a medical condition to pay out of his disability money from an image on a non-profit site, just because they knew he couldn't get legal aid because of it being in another state?
If a judge supports their behaviour, it would have serious results for your legal system, as would create a precedent for pirate companies to act in that way.
Righthaven's website is down and their lawyers are jumping ship. I have a feeling Righthaven is preparing to go out of business.