[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.

[luckybogey]

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

[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.

[reader25]

I wonder when Righthaven will start suing readers for accessing their website. Smucks!

[DGHoodini]

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.

[dirtboy]

Righthaven and the R-J, however, have argued the lawsuits are necessary to stop theft of the R-J's copyrighted material and that it would be impractical to contact all the alleged infringers to request they stop infringing.

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.

[basil]

Thanks for posting this! Sounds like there may be cracks forming in Righthaven’s scheme.

[swheats]

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.

[BuckeyeTexan]

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.

[PastorBooks]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

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.

This wouldn't be any trouble at all if ['Civ keeps his ideas to himself].

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

I’ll bet that Facebook has a lot of LVRJ article excerpts posted (via their Link feature). Let’s see Righthaven try to sue them.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Righthaven and the R-J, however, have argued the lawsuits are necessary to stop theft of the R-J's copyrighted material and that it would be impractical to contact all the alleged infringers to request they stop infringing.

But it's not impractical to file federal lawsuits against them, hun?

[LomanBill]

"When it sues its own consumer, and will even sue its content’s interviewee who has re-posted (a story involving himself), a dysfunction arises," she wrote."

 

 

What's next - suing anybody who talks about "their" news in public without the consent of the Apparatchik?   Maybe writing an entire NewSpeak(tm) dictionary and then suing anybody who writes the words therein upon the wall?

 

The 1st amendment has always been a thorn in our would-be owner's side.....

 

A dysfunction?

"COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS DESPOTISM"

---Thomas Jefferson.

Yep.

 

 

[Marty62]

What Exactly is LVRJ claiming as a CE against FR? Do you have a link?