Posted on 07/21/2010 12:09:10 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the new mass filesharing suit brought in Washington, DC, on behalf of a filmmaker, Achte/Neunte v. Does 1-2094, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen, and two ACLU organizations have filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a motion by Time Warner to quash the subpoena. EFF commented: 'We've long been concerned that some attorneys would attempt to create a business by cutting corners in mass copyright lawsuits against fans, shaking settlements out of people who aren't in a position to raise legitimate defenses and becoming a category of 'copyright trolls' to rival those seen in patent law.'"
And reader ericgoldman notes a case that arguably falls under the same umbrella: "Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, wrote a blog post declaring 'Copyright theft: We're not taking it anymore.' Apparently upset that third-party websites are republishing its stories in full, the newspaper 'grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven ... a local technology company whose only job is to protect copyrighted content.' Righthaven has brought 'about 22' lawsuits on behalf of the newspaper, including lawsuits against marijuana- and gambling-related websites. Frederick hopes 'if Righthaven shows continued success, that it will find other clients looking for a solution to the theft of copyrighted material' and ends his 'editorial' (or is it an ad?) inviting other newspapers to become Righthaven customers. A couple of months back Wendy Davis of MediaPost deconstructed some of Frederick's logic gaps."
bookmark.
THE NEW FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: The right to control access to information, and the ability to suppress any discussion of the content of such information.
Seems reasonable.
I believe this is one area where they'll have trouble with their lawsuit against FR...
I don’t believe Facebook activism is generally useful, I changed my facebook image to green, and yet the Mullahs still control Iran.
However, there is a Facebook group up to spread awareness about the lvrj and RightsHavenLLC,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/stop-the-LVRJRIGHTHAVEN-witch-hunt/131089883577553?v=wall&viewas=0
The NO freedom of the press.
Do these rules only apply to right leaning sites or all sites?
PING
A business model based on the principle of guys who resell the golf balls they retrieve from dredging the water traps on golf courses after hours. Or the street hustler in my old neighborhood who sold little flags and flower bouquets that he had gathered the night before from the cemetery.
I suspect that's the main criteria ~ that the party republished substantial parts of an article without surrounding it with discussion material, and they have money.
Suing people without the means to pay the damages is, for the most part, a foolish pursuit particularly if you are a lawyer with time to spare!
Ping
Thanks for the post!
Thanks for the post!
I wonder who is funding Righthaven?
“Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law, the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright.”
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/judge-copyright/#ixzz0uLYcojtC
Did an evaluation take place?
Why on Earth would they have a problem with this? He linked the piece to their website. It helps get publicity for them.
From the article:
Farnham adds that he was only trying to share items that he believed would interest people searching for real estate. “I thought it was a compliment to the paper that I wanted to get that information out,” he says, adding that his posts linked back to the newspaper. “I had honest intentions.”
I have never seen anything except blog postings posted here in full so why are they suing?
That is not a defense. If they publish on their own sites, they are liable to be sued. I have no sympathy if they were publishing full articles, or a significant portion of them. I do sympathize if they only posted small excerpts with links to the sources, which should fall under fair use.
Sites like FR, DU, etc., do NOT fall under this. The publishers need to send specifically-formatted DMCA takedown notices for content added by users. The DMCA is generally a bad law, and even the takedown notice provision has been abused (it needs strict minimum penalties for fraudulent notices), but in general the requirement of the notices is one of the few good things about the law. It is supposed to protect site operators from getting sued over the submissions of users; otherwise, it would be too dangerous for anyone to run a site that facilitates public discourse.
just found this article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal and posted in its entirety on Craigslist Pakistan...
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.