Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
    

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:18am

   
   

   No one gives a flying fuck

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
    

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:20am

   
   

   Snore fest.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
    

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:22am

   
   

   Snore fest.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Mr. Oizo, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:23am

   
   

   I actually do care about abuse of the legal system. Don't you ?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
    

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:24am

   
   

   From the " This website sucks" Dept.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
    

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:29am

   
   

   No I don't. I love people getting hosed. They shouldn't have been a bad person in the first place. Righthaven is awesome.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   AJ (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:30am

   
   

   It's kind of sad how these legal predators can build a shell company/corporation to shield them from personal loss, where the average person is held personally responsible for his/her actions.
   
   I hope if this company folds up shop, that the judge goes after the lawyers personally. If the people they are extorting don't get the option of an easy out, neither should they.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   davnel (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:33am

   
   

   WHY?

   Mike:
   I'm repeating what I said in Ars Technica, it still applies:
   
   No, Righthaven won't pay anything to anyone. The only way the defendants will see anything is to have a judge include Stevens Media into the fray and get THEM to pay. Righthaven will be bankrupt by then.
   
   What really frosts me is the fact that the courts have allowed this crap to go on for two years, and have essentially ignored Righthaven's pranks. If you or I went into court and pulled even ONE of their tricks, we'd find ourselves in jail for contempt so fast our heads would spin. Why was this allowed to go on? And why is it being allowed to continue????

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   abc gum, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:41am

   
   

   Re:

   "sad how these legal predators can build a shell company/corporation to shield them from personal loss, where the average person is held personally responsible for his/her actions"
   
   Similar to the privatized profit - socialized debt problem.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    abc gum, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:42am

    
    

    Re: WHY?

    If corporations are people, why do they not go to jail?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    the orangebox, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:46am

    
    

    now if they can get those damn patent trolling lawyers to stop these shit john DOE suits it will be great

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    anonymous, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:51am

    
    

    Stephens Media, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Denver Post (hope i've got the names right), should be made to pay any monies that Righthaven themselves say they cant pay. after all, they were all in this 'scam' together, weren't they? they were all receiving payments from those that gave in, didn't fight back, weren't they? they cant all declare bankruptcy, surely, which seems to be the direction that Righthaven is going to head, in order to get out of paying for the cases it has lost/will likely lose.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Anonymous American, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 6:53am

    
    

    Re:

    I'll believe Mitt Romney's "Corporations are people" when we can imprison one.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    DannyB (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:06am

    
    

    Re:

    Yes, I do care about abuse of the legal system. Also abuse of copyright and patents.
    
    I love Righthaven getting hosed.
    
    Righthaven should have been a bad person in the first place.
    
    Righthaven is a boil on the posterior end of humanity.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    DannyB (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:06am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    s/should/shouldn't/g
    
    Sorry about that. Meant to say:
    
    Righthaven shouldn't have been a bad person in the first place.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    DannyB (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:08am

    
    

    Re:

    I hope the financial pain comes home to Stephens Media.
    
    After all, they wanted to inflict financial pain on others over the most trivial uses that could be wildly construed to be copyright infringement with no consideration of fair use.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    DannyB (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:08am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    I'll believe it when corporations can get the death penalty.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    FuzzyDuck, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:11am

    
    

    Copyright seizure

    Here's an idea, how about seizing the copyrights on whatever righthaven was "protecting", and use that to reimburse the victims.
    
    After-all isn't a person who gives an order to commit a crime equally if not more guilty of that crime? And since corporations are people... this should apply to them too.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:14am

    
    

    Guidance

    The judge is just attempting to help Righthaven. It is offering them guidance on future legal battles. Please stop with these smear campaigns.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Designerfx (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:27am

    
    

    Re:

    oh high, rightshaven employee! sucks to be you (or a lawyer on their team), doesn't it?
    
    You know, techdirt has these little gravatar things, you might want to look into what they are, as we can see the last 6-8 spam comments you've made in a row(and every comment like it on other articles).

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 7:51am

    
    

    Re: WHY?

    I don't understand why the DOJ doesn't go after them for anti-trust violations and anti-competitive behavior? Why are they going after Google instead?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:17am

    
    

    Re: Copyright seizure

    The big problem with copyright seizure is that most of these copyrights are now worthless. The value of news degrades rapidly as time goes by. So, seizure would not satisfy the judgment.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    davnel (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:23am

    
    

    Re:

    Ya know, it didn't dawn on me until you mentioned it, but if it can be proven that Stevens or any other organization tied by agreement to Righthaven, actually received money from Righthaven as a consequence of those agreements, they can be legally linked to the suits and made to pay.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:26am

    
    

    Hunt has really lost it. I hope the Ninth Circuit smacks down his shitty reasoning re: standing and here. He needs a bench-slap. Badly.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    davnel (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:27am

    
    

    Re: Re: WHY?

    The cases are much too small, with too little possible publicity or monetary value. The DOJ will leave these to the State courts, which don't seem to be particularly interested in controlling the likes of Righthaven.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:29am

    
    

    Re: Guidance

    This is no laughing matter. Stop marking my previous post funny. I am informing you people of how things are, not making a joke. I'm glad you freetards think this it is a laughing matter.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    davnel (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:32am

    
    

    Re: Re: Copyright seizure

    And, in point of fact, they had very little value the day after they were published. Only Pullitzer material has any real value after publication, which makes this entire horse opera even more ridiculous.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:42am

    
    

    Re: Re: WHY?

    Why are the corporations accomplices not in jail?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    

    Killercool (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:48am

    
    

    Re:

    Wow. Considering he based his ruling on a 9th Circuit ruling, I don't see how they can bench-slap him without invalidating their own circuit's stance on similar cases in the future (that is, the rewarding of legal fees to a defendant when the plaintiff's case is ruled as frivolous).

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:48am

    
    

    Re:

    Really? Why do you say that? Seems like a perfectly reasonable judgement to me. Remember, be specific.Righthaven was suing people over what was obviously fair use.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

31.  

    

    WDS (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:49am

    
    

    Covering the bases.

    I found it interesting that one of the first things Judge Hunt did was site precedent for the defendant being the prevailing party when the suit is dismissed for lack of standing. If memory serves me correct, this is one of things that Righthaven had tried to use for the basis of appeal in a previous case.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

32.  

    

    Killercool (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:50am

    
    

    Re:

    Also, other courts before Hunt have found that Righthaven has no standing to initiate a lawsuit concerning copyrights that it does not own, as it was decided to be impossible to only transfer rights to sue.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

33.  

    

    Killercool (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 8:54am

    
    

    Re: Covering the bases.

    California's... either progressive or crazy, when it comes to frivolous lawsuits. It's a regular thing in California for legal fees to be rewarded to the defendant when a case is dismissed as frivolous. But (I believe) it has to be dismissed as frivolous, not just dismissed.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

34.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:09am

    
    

    Re:

    No more or less than you do for your monumentally poor reasoning skillz.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

35.  

    

    me, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:14am

    
    

    Re: Guidance

    So then righthaven is just really bad at legal matters, and is using the judge, like a mentaly challenged child would use a tutor. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

36.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:25am

    
    

    Re: Re: Guidance

    Sort of, but the language you're using takes it to an extreme. They just need guidance to know exactly what the courts are wanting to see. They aren't the kid down the block who has to wear a helmet all the time.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

37.  

    

    BW (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:34am

    
    

    You mean EXECUTE one. (In FL or TX at least.)

    You mean EXECUTE one. (In FL or TX at least.)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

38.  

    

    me, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:42am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    I think the courts wants to see righthaven pay for it's lost cases, and you the kid down the block who has to wear a helmet all the time.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

39.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:49am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Personal attacks don't bother me no matter how bad your grammar is. You do be dun thinkin' 'bout talking about you me then? You've proven your point about how retarded I must be. Good job!
    
    With people like this supporting the Freetard movement, how can it fail?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

40.  

    

    DogBreath, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 9:59am

    
    

    Righthaven should known by now this was coming ...

    I mean the banjo music playing in the courts they appear in, would be a dead giveaway for most people.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

41.  

    

    DogBreath, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 10:01am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    With people like this supporting the Freetard movement, how can it fail?
    
    Hire Righthaven!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

42.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 10:51am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    You have done a great job showing how retarded you are on your own, bur I am glad I helped you truly express it. Your welcome:)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

43.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:12am

    
    

    Re:

    Hallo, Mr. Gibson. And welcome to the discussion.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

44.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:14am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Dude, this is so perfect: it shows up as you arguing with your shadow. Which is about right. Guidance? I'd love to see you across the counsel table from me if I were a judge. I'd give you guidance, friend.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

45.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:16am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    The problem, ultimately, was knowingly "failing" to provide information that would have led to a finding that Righthaven had no standing in the first place, based on its lack of ownership of the copyrights in question.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

46.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:19am

    
    

    Re: Re: Guidance

    Thanks for the information. Fine: I'm not laughing. It's sad how utterly wrong your information is--and you know it, if you've read any of the opinions and underlying caselaw. I'm pretty sure that (1) you have, and you're a sad shill, holed up in a SRO motel because of this shitstorm; or (2) you haven't, and therefore should.
    
    Please: do not even attempt to claim that you're educating anyone. At the very best, you're incorrect. And I'm going to stick my neck out and guess that your motives are not what you claim, and that you're simply lying. Liar.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

47.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:20am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Nice spelling, grammarian. Fail x 2, even in form, let alone function.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

48.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:22am

    
    

    Re:

    Again, great grammar: plural/singular fail.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

49.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:24am

    
    

    Re: Re: Guidance

    You know there's a duty of competence among lawyers, right? And you know that "using the judge" doesn't really qualify, right again?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

50.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:37am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Check the snowflakes. They're slightly different.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

51.  

    

    hmm (profile), Oct 27th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    
    

    Re: WHY?

    Because the judges have allowed Stephens media to dig a hole for itself so deep that you can hear propaganda for the red army?
    
    Stephens Media is pretty much doomed (as clearly shown by its shareholders trying to jump ship and offload as much of their assets as possible)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

52.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 1:29pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Please respond to my "duty of competence" post. The crickets are deafening, snowflake.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

53.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Even if I did, how would you know it was me responding? You can't tell the difference between the ill-educated, grammar murdering buffoon above and what I post.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

54.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 2:45pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    I doubt you could guess my motives, friend. I can tell by the tone of your post that you haven't managed to guess them yet.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

55.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 3:46pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    On this you're right. That's fixed now. I know which one needing guidance you are. Now please answer the question. I'll recognize you.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

56.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 3:49pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Well, then? Now that I know you're the more-educated of the two snowflakes, let's hear it. No use hiding the ball, professor--my imagination will be worse than what you tell me, no doubt.
    
    Or are you under a gag order? That WOULD be telling.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

57.  

    

    dwg, Oct 27th, 2011 @ 3:55pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Hey, friend: do you know when a defendant gets attorney's fees and costs in a copyright infringement action? When a suit is frivolous is when. And so, how many court findings of frivolous litigation by the same plaintiff, on the same facts = guidance, and how many = proof of wrongdoing by that plaintiff?
    
    I've never heard the legal standard for this, but I sure want to hear it now. With citations, please. It sounds to me like you must have one.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

58.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 5:36am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    I know that you were too stupid to be able to tell the difference between snowflakes earlier. Why would I think you knew anything about the law?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

59.  

    

    dwg, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 9:49am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    That's hysterical. So is your dodge. Pathetic--I would've loved for you to try to actually back up a single thing you said. I mean, you know, if this is actually the same guy with a different snowflake for a new day and all.
    
    And you have the audacity to judge others' understanding of this matter? You're just a talking head--no substance behind a single one of your assertions. Either answer me or admit you're wrong.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

60.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Either answer me or admit you're wrong.

    
    
    Why? I don't know you and I don't owe you anything, unless you think I borrowed $5 from you at some point and never paid you back. Put on your big girl panties and realize that I'm not here for your amusement, enjoyment, nor am I here specifically to answer any of your questions no matter how much you froth at the mouth and demand things.
    
    I'll tell you what. Admit that you've been trolled, you fell for it, and that you're dumber than whatever excreta has leaked into your underpants since you were concentrating harder on posting than keeping your bodily functions in order or go cry in a corner. Those are your choices. Pull your panties out of your butt and learn that some people just enjoy pissing in your Cheerios. Try to be less of an inbred moron.
    
    There should be a duty of competence among posters, and it shouldn't be up to trolls to tell you when to just give it up because you're being purposefully led to look like a mouth frothing moron. Looks like you need some guidance as well.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

61.  

    

    dwg, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    That's what I figured. Except that when you started in with your "guidance" spiel, you gave away that you were actually trying to weigh in on the topic. And so, no, you're not trolling: you're failing. Good try tho: I always love the "Just kidding!" defense to complete know-nothingness. Keep it up.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

62.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2011 @ 4:11pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    There was no weigh in. There was nothing of substance. I love being a troll. The original post was a callback to the following article:
    
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/02490614837/righthaven-ceo-judges-are-really-j ust-giving-guidance-to-righthaven-competitors.shtml
    
    If you're too stupid to see that at this point, you're beyond help. It's a good thing I don't give a crap about these rulings one way or another. If there were something I truly wanted, I'd kindly ask you to be on the other side of the debate.....
    
    P.S. I go up for a raise soon. Can you please go convince my boss why I don't deserve one?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

63.  

    

    dwg, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 4:15pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guidance

    Don't worry about a thing, huckleberry. You'll do just fine without me.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

64.  

    

    Johnny Shade (profile), Oct 31st, 2011 @ 7:33pm

    
    

    Re: Guidance

    I REALLY hope that you are being sarcastic. If you are not, please see about geeting a Darwin Award ASAP

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

65.  

    

    Johnny Shade (profile), Oct 31st, 2011 @ 7:39pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Guidance

    My apologies. I did go back and read http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/02490614837/righthaven-ceo-judges-are-really-j ust-giving-guidance-to-righthaven-competitors.shtml
    
    OMG, I would have paid money to have been there

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment