Posted on 10/28/2011 1:49:25 PM PDT by rellimpank
Newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit filer Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas was hit Wednesday with an order to pay $119,488 in attorney's fees and costs in its failed lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase.
This was by far the largest fee award against Righthaven, but likely will be dwarfed by an upcoming award in Righthaven's failed suit against the Democratic Underground. Before Wednesday the largest fee award against Righthaven was for $34,045 — an amount Righthaven says it's having trouble paying or even posting a bond to cover.
DiBiase has a website covering no-body murder cases, or cases where a murder is suspected but the victim's remains have not been located. He was sued by Righthaven last year over allegations he posted without authorization a story on such a murder case by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Righthaven ping
Ping.
They (Righthaven) have certainly reaped what they sowed!!!
LMAO!
And the good news keeps rolling in.
They bit off a tad more than they could chew. This one clearly raised fair use questions.
Still it’s hard to think this has hurt them all that much, given the amounts they have raked in. They used creative accounting to keep the money they extorted or near-extorted before from being retrievable, which means a judgment like this forces them into bankruptcy. Doesn’t keep them from showing up under another corporate identity, however.
BIG SMILE
I am deeply sadden.
The only time now or probably forever I’ll root for the DU.
Maybe they’ll finally realize that the community of lawyers do not fight for them..........NAW!
How can this be? $34k is such a piddling amount, especially for a law firm, let alone a lawyer.
If Righthaven doesn't pay due to bankruptcy, can DiBiase collect from the paper they represented in the suit (the Review/Journal)?
You're right, they could dissolve and reform under a new name, but who would hire them after their previous clients get burned for all those fees? OTOH, if all judgements against Righthaven go away with their bankruptcy, it becomes good business to hire them (there's no financial risk).
In most cases you would think a BK is close at hand. But keep in mind that Righthaven is partly owned by the same investors who own Stephens Media. Also, SM has agreed to a restated SAA that has clauses in it that MediaNews Group apparently found unacceptable since they declined to extend their contract with RH.
What the new proposed agreement is I don't know, but I could guess that in order to get around one fair use hurdle, this new agreement lets Righthaven sell licenses to the intellectual property in question. Before, Righthaven had no market for this property that someone else's use could horn in on. MediaNews Group said no thanks, we want to sell all such licenses ourselves. Stephens Media is apparently in bed with Righthaven and had no such objection.
I wasn’t aware of prior judgments against Righthaven reaching to the media whose copyright they claimed to (sort of) hold — so no burning of these media has yet happened, other than Righthaven’s boasted protective services becoming ineffective (i.e. the media paid Righthaven for a pig in a poke). The idea seems to be that Righthaven’s stings would help their media clients ward off the stealing of their intellectual property, but that Righthaven itself would keep the proceeds of such stings.
Neither am I. My point was that if righthaven is allowed to duck these judgements, the newspaper(s) they represent should be required to pay. If that doesn't happen, the precedent is set that anyone can hire a company to legally harrass a citizen at no risk to himself. That sounds like a bad idea to me...
Looks like the situation Righthaven posed was new to the courts. It took some head scratching to get the law straight on it, and it seems now to be tending in the direction that Righthaven is a crock. A newspaper might be able to plead ignorance in the past that Righthaven’s cannon was loose, and so no harassment could be imputed to it. But now it can’t, and the situation you envision could occur.
I seem to recall you had some interest in Righthaven???
My understanding is that these cases are being thrown out -- and the targets of Righthaven awarded compensation for their legal fees -- because Righthaven never really owned the copyrights on the things they claimed they "owned" and therefore had no legal standing to sue anyone for copyright infringement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.