Las Vegas Review-Journal Endorses The Same Candidate It's Suing For 'Stealing' From Them?
from the cognitive-dissonance... dept
At the end of yet another good report by the Las Vegas Sun on a defendant in a Righthaven case fighting back (thanks to visual77 for sending this in), there’s an interesting pointer to a blog post from Steve Friess, a Vegas-based writer (who has previously come out in support of Righthaven’s lawsuits) noting that it appears that the Las Vegas Review-Journal really doesn’t take copyright issues as seriously as it pretends in its sermons on the subject. After all, it keeps claiming that copyright infringement is no different than “stealing,” and yet, Freiss notes, the LVRJ has now endorsed Sharron Angle for Senate, the same candidate that it (via Righthaven) has sued for copyright infringement:
Congrats, R-J, for proving just how seriously you take copyright theft. Copyrighting is so important that, as your top lawyer Mark Hinueber told a Society of Professional Journalists gathering, it is nearly fundamental to the very foundation of the American way of life. But, on the other hand, someone who steals from you? She ought to be a United States senator! Cognitive dissonance much?
Of course, everyone knows the reality here. The LVRJ and Righthaven are not about protecting the sanctity of copyright, or “stopping theft.” It’s a pure business model effort, an attempt to shakedown people for money, for sharing their content in a way that does absolutely no harm to the original work or the business of the paper. But, still, it’s good to see even Righthaven supporters calling out the hypocrisy of the LVRJ claiming that it’s akin to stealing on the one hand, while endorsing one of the people they sued for a position in the Senate at the same time. You don’t endorse the person who stole from you for Senate. And that’s the point. Angle didn’t “steal” anything — and everyone at Righthaven and the LVRJ know it.
Separately, as for the original Sun article highlighting another defense effort against Righthaven, two quick points. This is the first defense I’ve seen that calls out the judge’s ruling in the Tenenbaum case, in which the judge called the statutory rates “constitutionally excessive,” and a violation of due process. This defendant is claiming that the demands brought forth by Righthaven violate due process rights based on this. I have to say that’s quite a stretch of a legal argument (and an awful lot of people fully expect that ruling in the Tenenbaum case to be overturned), but still interesting. The second point is that while a lot of the defenses against Righthaven suits seem to toss up new arguments, it appears they’re starting to all focus in on a few key arguments. It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to these.