Righthaven denies perpetrating a fraud upon the courts
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleTuesday
26 July 2011
8:37 a.m.
Related Stories
- Righthaven: The controversy over copyrights (7-25-2011)
- Quick answers on Righthaven (7-25-2011
- What others are saying about Righthaven (7-25-2011
Righthaven Archives
Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas, the serial newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit filer, denied allegations Tuesday that it’s trying to perpetrate a fraud upon the courts.
Righthaven’s lawsuit campaign over material from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post has been stalled by questions about its standing to sue.
Critics say copyright assignments Righthaven uses for lawsuits – 275 filed since March 2010 -- are flawed because the newspapers maintain control of the copyrights despite the assignments.
But Righthaven says it has rewritten its lawsuit contract with the R-J to once and for all give it standing to sue.
Critics continue to dispute that, with filings last week in a Righthaven lawsuit against the Pahrump Life blog charging its latest claims are an effort to “revitalize Righthaven’s fraud’’ and that Righthaven has been practicing law without a license.
These critics — operating as Amici (friends of the court) — are the Democratic Underground, which is a Righthaven defendant in another case; Jason Schultz, a copyright expert at the University of California-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall Law School; and Citizens Against Litigation Abuse, a South Carolina group fighting Righthaven on several fronts.
With U.S. District Judge James Mahan in Las Vegas planning a hearing on Righthaven’s standing issue this week in the Pahrump Life case, Righthaven said in a Tuesday court filing that the critics’ "unbridled accusations, such as `fraud upon the court,’ have no place in zealous, but tempered, advocacy."
"While Amici (friends of the court fighting Righthaven) apparently sincerely believe that the Internet should be a 'copyright free zone' whereby anyone can use another’s copyrighted works without permission or compensation, this point of view is clearly at odds with the U.S. Constitution’s grant of a limited (copyright) monopoly in order to incentivize creation,’’ said Righthaven’s filing.
"Amici’s challenge to Righthaven’s standing must be seen as what it is—an effort to advance its policy agenda. Such arguments are better made to Congress as opposed to overburdening the courts with poorly reasoned legal arguments that seek to limit the freedom of contract," the filing said.
Righthaven reiterated in its filing that under its latest lawsuit contract revision with Stephens Media LLC, the owner of the Review-Journal, it has standing to sue as it’s the sole owner of each assigned work (story, column, editorial, photo, graphic) – and "is vested with authority to sue for all past, present and future infringements related thereto."
Righthaven also denied it’s involved in champerty, which involves a party with no interest in a dispute inciting litigation over that dispute in order to earn a profit.
Righthaven said that since it acquires ownership of copyrights for its lawsuits, it has an interest in infringements of those copyrights – meaning its actions don’t involve champerty.
Righthaven also disputed claims it’s been practicing law without a license.
"The fact that Righthaven (not a law firm) and Stephens Media may share the proceeds of any recovery related to copyright litigation based on assigned works is neither unlawful nor does it constitute an 'illicit contingency fee agreement' as asserted by Amici (friends of the court fighting Righthaven)," the company’s filing said.
Separately, Righthaven has paid $3,815 to Randazza Legal Group for its representation of former lawsuit defendant Michael Leon.
Leon’s case was dismissed after he wasn’t served in time and U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro ordered Righthaven to pay his fees over the protests of Righthaven.
When Righthaven didn’t immediately pay, Randazza Legal Group asked Navarro to freeze $3,815 in Righthaven assets.
The payment of the $3,815 nullified that request.
Randazza Legal Group is also seeking $34,000 in fees for successfully representing defendant Wayne Hoehn in a Righthaven case, while attorneys for prevailing defendant Thomas DiBiase are seeking another $119,000 in fees from Righthaven.
Additional, larger fee awards are possible against Righthaven, particularly in its heavily-litigated suit against the Democratic Underground.
That’s the case where U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed Righthaven as a plaintiff for lack of standing and later sanctioned Righthaven with a $5,000 fine for misrepresentations including covering up Stephens Media’s role in the lawsuits.
Share
Discussion 5 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
- Live from Billboard Music Awards: Stevie Wonder closes with ‘Superstition’; Adele wins 12 awards
- Firefighters extinguish blaze in east valley
- Cancer claims life of Bee Gees co-founder Robin Gibb, 62
- Travel business rebounding as agents adapt to tech-savvy generation
- My column: Legislative leader to unveil sweeping political reforms
Righthaven is lying! This is a group of shyster Lawyers out to make a quick buck. They need to be put out of business and send this gang to prison in Gitmo.
I see RIghthaven is concerned about "overburdening the courts". Of course when they do it its fine but when someone defends themselves or things don't go their way then the courts are being overburdened?
Again their arguments are weak and based on a foundation of sand. The new SAA agreement gives them "ownership" in name only. They have no control over the works, nor do they earn royalties while the real owners, Stephens Media, still retain full control including, licencing, publishing, displaying, and earning royalties. The fact that Stephens media can "buy" back the copyright after 5 years is yet another kick-back scheme to give this fraud an air of legitimacy.
The entire Righthaven enterprise is a fraud and will be found as such.
OJ said he was not guilty also.
Just because you state you did not do something does not mean you did not do it.
The profit is out of the Righthaven business model. They will end their game soon.
They will have one last appearance in court though when the time comes in BK court to get rid of all the judgments against them.
Their final use of the system to walk away from a very poorly planed scheme.
This is all one big fraud. If you want to sue someone for copyright, HIRE AN ATTORNEY and sue them. Righthaven plays it off like they're the victim, but it's not about copyright, it's about making money plain and simple. Why all the smoke and mirrors of forming a corporation to buy partial interest in news stories and sue for copyright? Why not just set up a law firm that Stephens Media can hire for these cases? Or, Stephens could ACTUALLY sell the rights to the stories once and for all.
It's a sham and a shame and luckily the court system is taking care of business.
Chunky says:
Righthaven is grasping for straws but they have no choice now else they'll be immediately buried. Soon is not soon enough.
Hopefully the courts will hold Mr. Gibson professionally responsible as well.
That's what Chunky thinks!
What right do you have in a copyright if you do not have the right to license its' use and you cannot publish it yourself? A bare right to sue? How is that different from the bare right to sue which has been found insufficient to confer ownership or standing? A right to share whatever you earn through litigation? How is that different from champetry? Methinks Chunky is on to something and what we are hearing are the screams as the legal quicksand Righthaven and Stephens Media and Gibson stirred up drags them all under.
If Righthaven continues to bring cases of alleged infringement without clear title to the works it claims to own, it is indeed committing a fraud upon the court. Having already been penalized with a fine of $5,000 for misrepresentation, Righthaven's continued campaign could be construed by some as engaging in negligent misrepresentations, deceptive practices, operating under false pretenses, and submitting false claims - opening Righthaven to the charge of malicious prosecution, which could result in the award of compensatory and punitive damages to each of the 275 accused infringers if they win suit. For those who have already settled with Righthaven, this avenue might be a way to recover their funds, since the courts are reluctant to interfere with privately negotiated settlements.