Posted on 08/24/2010 6:43:56 AM PDT by mnehring
A website operator is accusing the Las Vegas Review-Journal of entrapment for inviting readers to share its stories online -- and then participating in lawsuits against readers who post that material online....
...The LVRJ.com website offers and invites its users to 'Save and Share' all of its articles no less than 19 times per article. In addition, the LVRJ.com website encourages and invites its users to 'Email This,' 'Save This,' 'Print This' and subscribe to its 'RSS Feeds.' This not only puts the users of LVRJ.com in a quagmire, but it is the opinion of the defendant that LVRJ.com is guilty of entrapment, or at least setting up the users of LVRJ.com for a potential lawsuit. While the LVRJ.com encourages and invites its users to 'Share and Save' articles a total of 23 times per article, LVRJ.com will file a frivolous copyright infringement lawsuit against its users, if they follow LVRJ's directions and invitations to 'Share and Save' articles published on the website."...
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Hey, I think I remember a freeper who suggested this, someone with the screenname like merning or meringue or merlinging or something.
abb, for your ping list, this is highly entertaining DW material.
ping
Yo! Dave Loan Arranger.. over here.
See all the confusion over your name! That’s why I chose something simple, and easy to remember!
Clicking onto R-J is like clicking onto a Trojan Virus advertisement link - Looks harmless and inviting then they blindside attack you.
I recall long ago being counseled to remove any
“welcome” from the “message of the day” file
on my UNIX systems as it provided a legal cover
to hackers and intruders. The “motd” now includes
a harsh warning about who is permitted on the
system and threatens legal prosecution against
violators. LVRJ has made the first error and failed
to clearly warn users of copyright claims and
intent to pursue a tort remedy.
The jurisdiction battle is every bit as important as the legal question of implied consent (imo). Having to travel to a dozen or more venues to have their complaint heard will quickly get expensive for the plaintiff.
Entrapment and Barritry are two good positions to take against these scumbags.
I’m waiting for someone to counter sue them along with defending against the suits.
If that's still the case, it seems to me that Righthaven has no harm. They bought the copyright with full knowledge that it's uniqueness and value had already become impaired. One expects they would have paid a lower rate for the damaged property than it might otherwise be worth. One could argue that the infringement occurred to the property of the former owner who factored the damage into his favorable transfer rate to Righthaven.
LVR-J is equivlent to a ten trick-a-night whore who offered john #4 (seven Saturdays ago) an "introductory freebie"-- and who now sics the cops on him for rape...
Bttt
Well said.
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.