RSS
Those Who Settled With Righthaven Consider Taking Action; Righthaven Threatens Them With More Suits
from the digging-deeper dept
With a Nevada court realizing that Righthaven likely never had standing to sue in the hundreds of lawsuits it filed for copyright infringement, the 100 or so sites, people, and companies who already settled rather than fight are considering what action to take, and whether or not it makes sense to try to get their money back. Most settlement info wasn't made public, but stories reported settlements in the $5,000 range. For some larger companies it might not even be worth the legal fees. Of course, Righthaven's response to reporter David Kravets from Wired asking about the possibility of settlers asking for their money back? Why, it's to threaten to sue them again:
“As of today, there should be no question whether Righthaven has standing,” Gibson said.Classy guy.
Gibson noted that rights holders have three years to file a lawsuit from the time the infringement occurs — meaning the bloggers who settled might be sued again if their settlements or lawsuits are vacated.
“The statute of limitations,” he said, “is three years for copyright infringement.”
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I have a business...
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why not?
After all, if you're going to dig yourself a hole, you might as well dig one all the way to China.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hmm
What is it for fraud?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why not?
Actually, they will threaten to sue and try to get a settlement. Actually going to court doesn't generally end well for Righthaven.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Class Action?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
anyone know the link?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Unless it was part of the settlement agreement...lol
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Settling is NOT and admission of guilt. period". See after NOT? it should be "Not an admission", why is there a d? I actually highly doubt the commenter typed it, its something I see a lot in comments on web pages. Another example is when I constantly see "defiantly" when in the context of the sentence used, it's clear it should be "definitely".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That makes no sense, Steve. Do you think this ruling cemented the standing issue in your favor?
Maybe that sentence was taken out of context, but I don't get what he's saying.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A couple of questions
1. In a legitimate case doesn't the plaintiff have to issue a cease and desist notice to the possible infringer? The infringer then either complies or tells the troll to pound sand and it moves forward. In these instances wouldn't the cease and desist order have been complied with albeit forcibly but technically complied with, hence they are no longer infringing and Stephen's Media can go off an die somewhere.
2. Is it worth the risk of 're-suing' after you and your troll cohorts have just been dragged through the mud and justifiably so? How likely is a judge to side with you when you have set the precedence?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A bit more context to the quote regarding Righthaven's standing to sue
"Righthaven and Stephens Media have altered their licensing arrangement in a bid to obtain legal standing, Gibson said. The agreement has always granted each side a 50 percent stake in settlements and verdicts.
The altered arrangement, however, has not been tested in court. Hunt, however, labeled the licensing changes “cosmetic,” but declined to rule if the new agreement gives Righthaven the right to sue.:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Did anyone who settled lose their domain name to RightHaven?
That might make a counter suit worth significantly more. Especially if it censored your unrelated speech, or affected your business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ha!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Nevada State Bar looking into Righthaven
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jun/16/state-bar-still-reviewing-grievances-against-rig ht/
Gibson is in a world of heart. He is so arrogant that he thinks he can talk his way out of anything but given his lousy track record in the courts I think disbarment and even criminal charges are looking more likely.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Righthaven can't retroactively remediate standing
However, I don't think that Righthaven can remedy its lack of standing. I don't think the right to sue is transferable for past copyright offenses. The way the scheme worked was that Righthaven would look for posts that used Stephens Media copyrighted material, then Righthaven (via agreement with Stephens Media) would claim to have copyright to that material and sue without notice. But even under that scheme Righthaven had to claim copyright over the material *while it was still posted*, which is why Stephens Media never sent takedown notices, so that Righthaven could claim Righthaven's rights were violated. But since Righthaven never recieved a valid transfer and because the material is taken down, if Stephens and Righthaven amend their agreement it can only apply to **future** suits. The change in the agreement can't be used to retroactively remediate their past suits. The lack of standing still, for lack of a better term, stands. The statute of limitations is irrelevant since Righthaven never had standing to sue.
Stephens Media, on the other hand, is still free to hire a law firm in the normal way and sue for copyright infringement. But for some really weird reason they seem utterly averse to doing business in the rational, legal way.
IMO, IANAL.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Check the bold words...
*puts on shades*
Hasn't stopped eating crow.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment