Posted on 09/09/2010 7:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 09/09/2010 7:45:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Last month, we told you about a provocative new venture by a lawyer named Steve Gibson, who has filed more than 100 copyright infringement suits in the last few months. Gibson acquired copyrights from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and has filed suits based on those rights against bloggers and others who allegedly posted stories without getting permission or paying reprint fees. As we noted then, Gibson's IP holding company, Righthaven, is the first of the "copyright trolls."
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
Sounds like he is an enemy.
We have a lawyer in FL that goes around looking for small businesses that can’t afford to comply with every nuance of the handicapped act.
You know, totally revamping bathrooms in a small restaurant or such. From what I heard he’s destroyed a lot of people financially. And he lines his pockets with the proceeds.
Looks like the righthaven keyword is one to monitor.
Someone said somewhere that Steve Gibson was a pedophile who also smoked crack with hookers. I don’t know who, but I believe it was a Las Vegas Review Journal reporter. He might want to check that out.
If it wasn’t fair use it was shear concern.
where in this state and what’;s the name?
You should burn a bag of Qurans in his back yard and then call the local Imam.
He’s a flamer.
Hunt was born in Overton, Nevada. He received a B.A. from Brigham Young University in 1966. He received a J.D. from George Washington University in 1970. He was a Deputy district attorney of Clark County District Attorney's Office from 1970 to 1971. He was in private practice in Las Vegas, NV from 1971 to 1992.
Hunt was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Hunt was nominated by President Bill Clinton on March 27, 2000, to a new seat created by 113 Stat. 1501. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 24, 2000, and received his commission on May 25, 2000. He served as chief judge from 2007-present.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, 1992-2000
Hunt is a Latter-day Saint. Among other positions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he has served as a stake president.
I can see a lib lawyer going around buying blog posts and stories that are posted on Conservative sites like FR and then filing lawsuits over copyrights.
Requiring excerpting on everything may save some serious legal headaches in the future.
Here is a recent article I read while looking. I’m not sure if this is the guy I read about last year, but it does look as if he’s making nice business suing people.
I guess that’s what a lawyer is supposed to do, but I have a problem with finding small things in a law and then exploiting it wholesale.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/aug/20/20th-anniversary-ada-proving-divisive-ybor-busines/
Jim, what’s with this lack of standing? If there was or is lack of standing; there should be no lawsuit period.
The way I read it the defendant was claiming Righthaven didn't have standing and the judge tossed out the defendant's claim.
Jim, you have to clobber these creeps. They don’t care about the first amendment. They care only about bleeding people dry.
Lack of standing I would think means nothing. It’s a phony made up claim by judges who know they are not going by the law. It is empty.
I totally agree. This is the way to go. Other places have done this and done just fine. It will work out here too.
No, lack of standing has its place in the courts. If not then I could sue Free Republic for violating the L.A. Times copyrights. Being I have no ownership of the L.A. Times then I have no standing in such a case.
If lack of standing wasn't a legal consideration then every lawyer in the country would gin up cases in which their clients had no involvement in just to rake in the bucks.
The problem is judges use it as a way to legislate via the punt.
This guy is “purchasing” from the journal their right to enforce their copyright. However, I would think that whatever right he buys come with whatever defense could have been asserted against the original owner - in this case, the fact that the journal had chosen for some time to “sit” on their rights, and not make the requisite demands under the copyright act’s safe harbor.
Yes.
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.