I don't know the logistics of the copyright law, but what I have garnered from perusing the web on Righthaven is that these guys go to newspapers that have web sites and offer to purchase the copyright ownership rights to the material posted on their websites. I have a feeling that they don't actually "pay" for the rights, but they get the rights transferred to them in order that Righthaven (rather than being a lawfirm acting on behalf of the newspaper) becomes the plaintiff in any copyright infringement action. So Righthaven (which appears to be basically an arm of Attorney Steven Gibson) trolls the net looking for stories and articles which they allegedly have copyright ownership rights to and when they see one posted on the web, they file a shakedown lawsuit.
What is interesting is that Righthaven would appear to have no actual damages. If someone re-posts one of these newspaper articles, the only legitimate entity which could claim damages would be the newspaper or the author, who misses out on hits to their website thus losing potential advertising revenue. Righthaven is not collecting revenue for selling the articles, they are collecting on the lawsuits (and I imagine they are sharing the revenue with the newspapers as part of the deal to transfer ownership of the copyright to Righthaven).
Obviously Righthaven doesn't care about the actual damages either to themselves or the newspapers and they are apparently only looking to recover the punitive damages for the copyright violation (I don't know how much it is per posting, but it could be substantial and I don't think it needs to be tied to any actual showing of damages).
So after they troll the internet and find a "violation" they file a suit and then shakedown the website for whatever it can get.
This is a classic legal scam.
I don't think you can get lower than this.
They only have to claim statutory damages. In that case damages can go between $750 and $30,000 per work. Defendants who can show they weren't aware can get it reduced to $200 per work. You'll notice the suit claims "willful infringement." That was to pump the maximum statutory damages to $150,000 per work if it can be proven.
So, the lawyer involved (Righthaven) does not own the articles, only the copywrite?
It sounds like the publishing world’s answer to derivatives.
Maybe they can sell the ink of the articles to someone else....or all the articles and verbs of being.
Truly a weird reach to make some money.
When you talk to your lawyer, ask him/her specifically to look into champerty and maintenance.
Many lawyers have never heard of the torts, yet champertous contracts can, depending on jurisdiction, be void for public policy or attract liability for costs.
They may well be applicable in your case given the fact situation presented in this thread.
“So after they troll the internet and find a “violation” they file a suit and then shakedown the website for whatever it can get.”
and in times of low revenue they can remove the uncertainty and simply post the “offending” article themselves, then come in the next day and file the lawsuit.
As I recall, one must establish actual damages in order to sustain a lawsuit in Federal Court.
You may have hit the bullseye on how to get a Summary Judgment for dismissal and costs.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!