RSS
Righthaven Hires 'Star' Copyright Maximalist Lawyer To Try To Dig Itself Out Of The Deep Hole It's In
from the that'll-cost-you dept
Righthaven has been coming up on the wrong end of its lawsuits again and again and again and again and again lately. So, apparently, the lawyers at Righthaven have realized they're in way over their heads and have hired a so-called "superstar" copyright litigator, Dale Cendali, who's well known for regularly defending copyright maximalism positions and publicly stating that any reduction in copyright protectionism would lead to a decline in content production:
Anyway, she's definitely a big name, and that may at least help Righthaven in the short-term in no longer tripping over itself every time it tries to make a legal argument, but I can't see it helping in the long-term. As Eric Goldman points out in the story above, it also mucks with Righthaven's business model:
If copyright protection were reduced, then the incentives to innovate would also be reduced, undercutting the constitutional scheme. The scale, complexity and number of original works would likely drop.Of course, the actual research on this topic suggests otherwise. Also, it's a bit bizarre that later in the same post, she points out (incorrectly) that copyright is about reflecting "a balancing of interests." If that's the case, why does she claim that any move to reduce protection would reduce output?
Anyway, she's definitely a big name, and that may at least help Righthaven in the short-term in no longer tripping over itself every time it tries to make a legal argument, but I can't see it helping in the long-term. As Eric Goldman points out in the story above, it also mucks with Righthaven's business model:
"Their model assumes lots of quick settlements, and their profit/loss projections may not have anticipated just how many -- and how hard -- defendants would fight back in court. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ms. Cendali's fees in this case end up being many multiples of the maximum damages that Righthaven could possibly hope to get from Pahrump Life. That's hardly a path to riches for Righthaven,"
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Hiring a big gun to clean up the mess.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hiring a big gun to clean up the mess.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
All copyright lawyers fellate iguanas
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Definition of stupid is
Learning, evolution, whatever you call it, the idea is pain avoidance. Driving in the rear-view mirror.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Pro Bono?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What is a "right sized copyright"?
So what type of enforcement is right sized? If some kid wants to download information on suicide techniques and the rightholder says, "Sorry, that's not allowed."
Come on. The Rightshaven cases are about fair use and where we draw the line. They're not about someone saying that only one person can watch a DVD at a time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Definition of stupid is
Napster --> gone.
MP3.com --> gone.
Limewire --> gone.
Anyone defended by Charlie Nesson --> close to gone.
Many defendants targeted by RIAA --> poorer.
Legg Mason --> $20m poorer
Google --> $100m poorer and it's not done yet.
When the courts look at issues like this, they seem to take the side of the copyright holders most of the time. Oh, there's an occasional fair use victory, but for the most part the rightsholders win.
So I'm guessing you're a copyright maximalist, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, and by the way, get rid of the antiquated "safe harbor" crap. Cyber-lockers thrive by encouraging John Q. Public to upload files and "share" them to earn CASH rewards-make pirates out of the public. That's where to focus efforts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Definition of stupid is
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Isn't monetary profit the real incentive behind innovation these days? It used to be the cessation of copyright on a given creation within a reasonable time frame, but thanks to the content industries this motivation doesn't really exist anymore. Thanks to the insanely long extensions they've managed to lobby for, copyright was rendered meaningless for all but a privileged few in society. Copyright is now used as a club instead of what it was originally intended for, and the collective whole pays the price because none of the really important innovations our culture truly needs are profitable enough. Plus we're starting to see a disturbing trend regarding what can only be described as theft of that which is public domain. Pfft, and they argue file sharers are the immoral ones.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment