Posted on 08/18/2010 4:47:02 PM PDT by redreno
New defenses are being asserted by websites and bloggers facing copyright infringement lawsuits for online postings of material from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner, Las Vegas company Righthaven LLC, has sued 98 North American websites and blogsites in federal court in Las Vegas since March -- typically demanding $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Verisign only operates the root DNS for .com and .net. There are other root DNS servers outside the US that would thumb their nose at a US court order.
Of course, the domain name would have to end in a foreign country code. And at this point, it would be difficult to move Free Republic outside the US and obscure the link with the current operators.
All these sites that R-j has/are suing? They should be counter-suing R-J for Extortion. They aren’t out to protect their copyrights, they are out to rob these sites of money for their profit.
As I understand it from the way it was explained to me, Panama obscures owners etc.
So they claim it is too much trouble to email the offending parties to ask them to remove the content in question, as mandated by the DMCA.
But it isn't too mcuh trouble to fill out the paperwork needed to file a lawsuit.
Patently absurd.
SAS ping to post#14
Someone has tried it successfully this thing: I believe it’s in rem jurisdiction or something. The federal judge simply tells Verisign to change the domain info and it’s done. .com, .net and .org are controlled by Verisgn.
And trying to change ownership and location might not be the smartest thing to do once a lawsuit has been filed :)
That was never my suggestion.
“Someone told me that another site like FR moved to a Panamanian ISP and are now protected from government interference etc.”
That would be Free Dominion — www.freedominion.com.pa — a Canadian website inspired by Free Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Dominion
“Free Dominion is a Canadian conservative website. It was inspired by Free Republic in the United States, and some members contribute to both sites.”
“In early 2008, the website was sold to Liberty News Service in Panama.”
If I’ve heard correctly, Canada doesn’t have free speech like we do; it’s much more regulated. This may explain why they felt it was necessary to move out of the country.
Money. This is nothing more than a revenue stream to Righthaven. They specifically go after smaller sites (I imagine FR and DU are probably two of the bigger fry they’ve taken shots at) using the fear of a massive lawsuit to scare the owners into settling. If they ever did actually win somebody’s domain name, they’d probably turn around and sell it to somebody else.
}:-)4
Free Dominion was sued or being sued by Canada’s “Be Nice to Everyone” board. So they moved.
Wiki but whoever wrote this has a way with words.
Barratry, when used elsewhere, may refer to the buying and selling of positions (which are expected to bring greater income in time) within civil authority. This venality is the secular counterpart of simony, which is the buying and selling of positions (notably benefices) within the church.
In his Inferno, Canto XXI, Dante places barrators in the Eighth Circle, fifth bolgia of Hell.
Thanks for posting this! Sounds like there may be cracks forming in Righthaven’s scheme.
I have noticed that they aren’t suing the NRA—LOL!
This is so un-American. Whatever happened to just the facts be printed. Most journalists are retelling a story of another person’s tragedy or triumph, disseminating information or posting current events. How can it be their own intellectual property.
As with everything else “fair use” has been perverted and distorted. Will the sources now be suing for libal and slander? A vicious circle.
Actually the problem is that there is a little-known loophole that they are using to sue these people. The DMCA only applies to a site if they have a “Designated Agent” form filed with the US Copyright office listing contact information. No one knows about this, so none of these sites have done that.
The SCO Group (i.e. Caldera) tried a similar approach when they attempted to collect payments for copyright infringement on Unix from all the various companies distributing versions/variations of Unix.
It was a long, drawn-out affair involving many companies and much legal rangling, but in the end, Novell whipped out it’s, ahem, lawful ownership of the Unix copyright and SCO cowered in fear before going bankrupt. It was a beautiful thing to behold.
I hate SCO.
One can only hope the same happens to this company.
This is my current understanding on how to protect yourself.
Most of this information comes from these pages, especially the first one.
- http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1146844/pg1
- http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/p/avoid-righthaven-lawsuit.html
* File a “Designated Agent” paper (it can be you) with the Copyright Office. Costs about $135.
* Follow a policy of Will Remove — you have to post this as your policy and follow it. If you hesitate to remove an item upon request, the DMCA can’t protect you.
* No pay-per-click ads — so it can’t be claimed you were profiting “directly” from the content.
* Place ads to the side of the page, and not with the articles, so they can’t claim you were profiting “directly” from the content in question.
* Establish local legal Jurisdiction so they can’t sue you in the lawyer’s home state. Have a statement that the users of your website “are operating passively under the Jurisdiction” that you are based in.
* Quote no more than 50% of the source material, and include your own commentary *interspersed within* the the text. Don’t quote the text and THEN have your commentary. Quote a paragraph, then your comments, another paragraph or two, then more comments, etc.
* Do not claim copyright over any content posted by others
* Follow all DMCA Safe Harbor procedures to the letter.
The above list applies to any website that might quote from another source, especially forums where other people might post quotes not knowing all the legalities.
* Take a look at the disclaimer at the bottom of the page at:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1146844/pg1
The owner posted this: “Take a look at our disclaimer at the bottom of the page here for an example of a proper DMCA “safe harbor” disclaimer. You are welcome to copy and use as much of our disclaimer as you like on your own websites.”
* The list of Stephens Media newspapers is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts?page=670#670
FOR MORE INFO...
* http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com
* http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com
* http://www.thearmedcitizen.com
* http://www.facebook.com/pages/stop-the-LVRJRIGHTHAVEN-witch-hunt/131089883577553
See also the EFF Blogger’s Legal Guide on Intellectual Property
* http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP
Website owners need to be sure to remove any posts on your sites which might contain copyrighted content... especially if those articles are coming from newspapers. Newspapers are hurting for revenue now and some may be watching these suits with envious eyes. Get their articles off your sites, if at all possible.
We need to watch this situation carefully. Until there is a solid legal definition of “Fair Use” that we can rely on all forums and blog owners need to be very, very careful what articles they quote (and even link to ???). No one really knows right now what is safe.
There is a list at the top of the forum. It says “Copyright List”. It is current.
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.