Website operators use new defenses to fight R-J copyright suits

Las Vegas Sun ^ | Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010 | 10:50 a.m. | By Steve Green

[stefanbatory]

are these people somehow in bed with Dingy Harry?

[Jean S]

... and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names.

Wow, that's the first I've heard that. They want to own the domain names? For what purpose?

[pnh102]

Shrug. Move these sites out of the country. Problem solved.

[17th Miss Regt]

Hmmm. An interesting attack might be to examine each article cited in a Righthaven lawsuit for any evidence of plagiarism from other sources and in particular, violations of copyright from the other sources. Then sic the other source on the LVRJ for the copyright violation.

[montag813]

Shrug. Move these sites out of the country. Problem solved.

And if you, an American, make money off the site? Not as simple, eh?

[luckybogey]

Thanks for posting. As a “mom and pop” blogger, I have been following this very closely...

[Jean S]

How will moving the sites out of the country protect the U.S. resident site owners from alleged pass violations?

[Jean S]

Er, past violations, sorry.

[DJ MacWoW]

As I understand it, moving to an out of country ISP changes the rules. Someone told me that another site like FR moved to a Panamanian ISP and are now protected from government interference etc. Apparently it wouldn’t do anything about past problems but would avert any more. I don’t know exactly how it works but there is some protection.

[Brytani]

No, this isn’t political. They’ve also sued DU as example. Sites of all types are being targeted. They’re gutter-feeding lawyers of the worst kind looking to make a quick buck.

[Jean S]

Excactly, FR is one of the sites being sued by this group for past violations. Moving the site offshore now will not protect Jim and other sites like Free Republic from this lawsuit.

[Red_Devil 232]

For what purpose?

[justlurking]

are these people somehow in bed with Dingy Harry?

Not likely. The Democratic Party of Nevada and Democratic Underground are among their targets.

The article says that some are claiming Righthaven is engaging in barratry: abuse of the legal system to harass.

I note that barratry is a felony in Texas, and also that Righthaven has filed suit against the Second Amendment Sisters, who are based in Lakeway, TX. If any of the SAS folks are here, you might consider filing a complaint against Righthaven in Texas.

And, barratry is a misdemeanor in California. Jim, if your attorney doesn't already know this, you might want to ask him to consider filing a complaint against Righthaven.

[DJ MacWoW]

It won’t protect him and FR this time but would in the future. There may come a time when our own government will try to shut us down. And that really does concern me.

[Jean S]

I agree, that is a good point.

[mainsail that]

Wrong, the main server is in Virginia so a federal judge can order Verisign to block your domain

[DJ MacWoW]

What main server? They can block a Panamanian ISP from this country?

[expatpat]

You would have to move out of the country, along with all your assets.

[Jean S]

Twenty-two of the suits have been settled and closed under generally undisclosed terms, though court filings revealed two defendants paid $2,185 and $5,000, respectively, to close their cases. The settling defendants haven't had to forfeit their website domain names.

This is the sleeziest thing I have ever seen.