If the entire scheme was admittedly entered into in order to
shake people down without any actual standing for suit so that they could outwrest money by way of settlement, I think more than civil sanctions may be in order.

I’m hoping the judge will at least raise the question to a DA regarding the possibility of civil charges for extortion.

oops…*Jason

Where are the sanctions and fines against the attorneys who knowingly filed false affidavits?

Fraud, no big deal. The penalties are small.

Infringement, big deal, with steep penalties.

The laws that protect the rich carry steeper penalties than the laws that protect the public.

Unfortunately very very true….. and it’s not likely to change at any point in the near future until the American people get angry as hell and say “I am not going to take this anymore!”

I really wish the judge had deemed RightHaven’s business illegal, on the same order as a “Protection Scheme”. When your only business is shaking down other businesses how is that legal? Usually you have to be a government to do that.

AJ? Oh, sorry, I mean, FUDbuster? Are you going through another mutation phase? Your mutations seems to triggered every time you are shown to be spectacularly wrong.

I wonder what you’ll turn into this time…

The key point the judge makes is that the exclusive rights are not separable from the right to sue over those exclusive rights. The judge is denying the legal viability of wholesale copyright-lawsuit-mining rights. I can’t fathom how this ruling could be considered wrong.

AC

Loyal to end even while your precious Righthaven goes down in flames. Your credibility is now zero.

Sure, the SAA states Righthaven took ownership and then licensed it back to Stephens. I don’t see how this can be denied going by the bare language of the contract.

That may be obvious to you and me, but the judge here didn’t seem to think it was so. I really think this judge was pissed and looking for a reason to deny Righthaven standing. The poor choice of wording, “retain,” gave this judge something to hang his hat on. It was some weak reasoning by the judge, and the fact that he didn’t even try and explain away the “and is hereby granted by Righthaven” part is telling.

But from a practical standpoint, that language is just fluff. It’s an attempt to let Righthaven sue without really taking ownership. In reality, the agreement operated to do nothing more than give Righthaven the right to sue. It’s disingenuous to pretend that those clauses in the SAA gave Righthaven anything else. The judge thankfully saw through it.

I disagree. I think the SAA was what it purported to be. Ownership transferred to Righthaven and Stephens was the exclusive licensee. Other agreements were made. Of course it was for the purpose of allowing Righthaven to sue, but it did so precisely by giving Righthaven ownership. I don’t think the judge saw through it, he just saw one sloppy word choice and decided to hinge his opinion on it. Of course, he had to take that word out of context to be able to do this. That’s not right.

I’m just stating what I believe to be the proper interpretation of that contract. I’m standing by the opinion I expressed in the past. This judge’s ruling doesn’t change my opinion. I think the judge got it wrong. I’m not working backwards like I think perhaps you are. I’m not starting with an opinion either way. I read the assignment and I read the SAA, and I believe that ownership transferred. I believe Righthaven has standing. I also believe that Righthaven lied to the court about Stephens Media not having a direct interest in the lawsuits, and that disgusts me. I hope they are sanctioned dearly.

I mean the only thing that could vaguely support your view is the existence of a handful of trial court precedents, but those were all entered under the shadow of the misrepresentation that you’ve already conceded.

There’s really nothing left.

I’m using my mother-in-law’s computer while waiting for new system to arrive in the mail. My netbook died when I dropped it onto concrete. Doh! The judge interprets things differently. To arrive at his conclusion, he had to pretend that certain things weren’t said. I don’t think the judge’s interpretation is correct. Reasonable minds may differ. The judge thinks I’m wrong and I think he’s wrong. I’m not running from anything. I stand by my interpretation.

I wonder if FUDbuster (or whatever he’s calling himself these days) will come back and apologize?

I do apologize for saying mean things to you, Karl. I shouldn’t let my emotions get the best of me like that. I’m trying to be better than that. I really do like you personally. I think your analysis is terrible most of the time, but that’s got nothing to do with what I think about you. I’m sorry I’ve been such an asshole.

I think you think that people are arguing with you about the meaning of the contract. I don’t think anyone here is arguing with the meaning of the contract. I don’t think the judge is arguing with the meaning of the contract. He’s invalidating it.

It’s all wireless these days, no strings attached.

I don’t know why you guys really care. I’m giving her the computer back soon, hopefully later today if the UPS man delivers. I’m not bothering to log into to all the accounts I visit while using her computer. Let’s focus on the real topic at hand–the judge’s ruling.

[T]he courts will not permit themselves to be blinded . . . by mere forms . . . but, regardless of fictions, will deal with the substance of the transaction . . . as the justice of the case may require. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Ass’n, 247 U.S. 490, 501 (1918).

The right to sue is transferable by itself, but it can’t be exercised unless the underlying 106 right is transferred with it. Stephens transferred ownership of all the 106 rights to Righthaven, plus the right to sue. Righthaven then, as owner of those rights, granted Stephens an exclusive license of the 106 rights. The judge overlooked this transfer of ownership, IMO, by focusing on a single word out of context. That’s partly Righthaven’s fault since the word “retain” was not technically the correct word. But still, in context, it’s clear to me that ownership transferred.

They could exploit those rights as a licensee, not as owner.

Here we go with the personal attacks. I’m stating an opinion and I’m explaining why I believe what I believe. If you believe differently, state what you believe and why. The fact is, I’ve worked for a federal judge in the past, researching issues and giving opinions. Sometimes the judge adopted my opinions and sometimes the judge didn’t. In fact, I’m applying now for a full-time position working for a judge because I love researching issues and I love the judiciary. Most of all, I love the law. Saying I lack critical thinking skills without explaining why you think that shows a lack of critical thinking skills on your part, not mine. The fact is, I’m at the top of my class (in the top 10%) because I work my ass off, reading and thinking about the law everyday. My professors think I have great critical thinking skills. The judge I worked for thinks I have great critical thinking skills. I’ll take their opinions over yours.

The substance of the SAA proved that the assignment was a sham executed for the sole purpose of illegally manufacturing standing. Game over.

“I think the intent of the parties was to transfer ownership to Righthaven and then have Righthaven grant to Stephens an exclusive license. That’s exactly what the contract said. I simply disagree with your interpretation, and I’ve stated why.”

Except, you’re wrong. Since the ONLY right retained by RH was the right to sue, and all other rights “licensed” back, AND that the court, caselaw, and the law itself says that you CANNOT (cant believe you dont understand this, being that you are some kind of law student or something) retain JUST a right to sue absent some of the other rights, this is de facto end-run around the law, is illegal, and has no standing. Its void. The fact that you cant see this tells a lot, and I really, truly hope you do not continue in law practice, as you will cause much harm to those you represent since you cant understand even the most basic of arguments and caselaw.

The only people who can’t see the obvious are a handful of copyright and patent trolls. People like Fudbuster and this other joker who calls himself a lawyer:

http://gametimeip.com/2011/06/15/nevada-court-says-stephens-media-getsthe-goldmine-righthaven-gets-the-shaft/

Did you actually read the article? The right to sue is NOT transferable as you just claimed….

Copyright law and legal precedent say one thing, and yet you still claim the other, so which one is right?

I believe that Mike is misreading/mistating Silvers. The right to sue is transferable. There is no question about that. Silvers only said that in order to exercise that right, the underlying 106 right that was infringed upon must also be transferred.

I believe you are misreading the ruling. The judge is actually quite explicit in that he understand the contract, and that it’s intent was to transfer solely the right to sue. The “obvious effect” was not at all that ownership changed hands, but the exact opposite.

I simply interpret it differently. The contract’s intent wasn’t to “transfer solely the right to sue.” The contract’s intent was to transfer ownership to Righthaven, who in turn, and while acting as owner, granted a license to Stephens.

No, he didn’t. The judge properly focused on the fact that Righthaven NEVER had those rights and NEVER could exercise those rights, which made the transfer a sham.

Again, I interpret it differently. Righthaven did have those rights. How else could they grant an exclusive license of those rights to Stephens? Only the owner of those rights could do that.

It certainly is an interesting ruling, and I really do hope they appeal to the Ninth Circuit. I’d like to see if an appellate panel agrees with the district court’s reading of Silvers.

One last thing, Mike, while I’m making apologies. I’d like to apologize for being an asshole to you in the past as well. I really am trying to not let the constant personal attacks get to me. I hope you’ll join me in setting a good example around here.

I wouldn’t frame it as them trying “to evade the confines of Silvers.” Instead, I would say they were working within the confines of Silvers.

I dunno. It’s a metaphysical question, not a legal one, I think.

In all fairness, he holds you to a higher standard than he does the others. He thinks you should apologize, but he does not ask the same of the regulars who act way worse than you with alarming regularity. It seems obvious that as long as people are agreeing with him, he does not care how they act. Why the double standard, Mike?

You don’t appear to fully comprehend the public policy behind the Silvers decision, nor the Copyright Act’s intent. The underlying premise on which the 9th Circuit panel relied was that there should not be an aftermarket in causes of action for copyright infringement. It follows that you cannot evade this premise by entering into a sham assignment agreement and manufacture standing for the sole purpose of allowing a third party to file suit as the purported copyright holder.

I think only one person is saying the judge is wrong, and several of “the same crowd who always say ‘case law'” are in agreement with this judge, and were in the last thread on this issue as well.

“I think the intent of the parties was to transfer ownership to Righthaven and then have Righthaven grant to Stephens an exclusive license.”

But then what was Righthave left with? Not any exclusive rights. And without exclusive rights, you can’t sue for violation of those rights.

I think he’s saying you can assign just the right to sue, but you can’t excercise that right without the underlying 106 right, which is certainly an odd way to look at it.

I’m actually interested in what case law or secondary sources supports the notion that you can sue for violation of an exclusive right that you do not have.

I think he’s saying you can assign just the right to sue, but you can’t excercise that right without the underlying 106 right, which is certainly an odd way to look at it.

Mike’s statement made it sound like the right to sue isn’t transferable under any condition. That’s simply not true. His exact words were: “All Stephens really transferred was a “right to sue,” and that’s not a transferable right under copyright law.” I believe that statement is not true.

I’m also saying that you can assign the right to sue without the other right. I read that somewhere, but I don’t remember where. I believe it was in Nimmer’s treatise, but I could be mistaken. Where that might come up would be if a copyright holder sues you for infringement. If you can show that that copyright holder transferred his right to sue you to another, you could avoid liability.

I think that’s a fair assessment of the situation, and I think you for bringing it up. I may be an asshole at times, but I’m not the only one. I don’t see anyone else being called out on it, much less apologizing for it.

I hear ya. It is weird thought. I’m not sure that the ability to exercise a right is a prerequisite for the ability to contractually give that right to another. Perhaps the agreement is that I’ll give you the right to sue now, and if some other condition occurs, I’ll then transfer you the underlying 106 right. I dunno. It’s fun to think about.

What matters is that they were assigned ownership of the 106 rights, ownership that they exercised by granting an exclusive license. And more importantly, ownership sufficient to give standing. That’s my read.

Nevada’s in the Ninth, and Colorado’s in the Tenth, if memory serves. It’ll be interesting to see if the judge in the Colorado district court reaches the same conclusion as the judge here did. I understand your argument about nominal ownership, but I think it misses the mark. The caselaw I’ve read makes clear that the grantor of an exclusive license is still the owner of the right licensed. I wish I had more time so I could pull up those cites again.

I’d offer to buy you a beer, but I don’t think we live anywhere near each other. I’ll take your criticism to heart as well. Thanks. But as far as me being wrong on this point, I simply disagree for the reasons I’ve stated. Let’s see what the court in Colorado comes up with, and let’s see what the Ninth Circuit thinks assuming Righthaven appeals. I think they must appeal this, as a matter of fact, or else they’ve got lots of problems with all their other cases in the district, including those that have settled. I believe that typically settlements are res judicata, but if that settlement was made due to a fundamental error, it’s not. I’d have to research Nevada law on the point, but I remember learning that in my contracts class under my state’s law. Righthaven must be shitting their pants. Considering that it appears they lied to the court about Stephens having an interest in the lawsuits, I have no sympathy for them at this point.

I believe that you are misinterpreting Copyright law in general here, in part because of the mistaken use of “intellectual property,” such that you think copyright is property separate from the rights associated with it. It is not.

I don’t think that. I think incorporeal property means simply rights. The copyright rights are the rights. Intellectual property is just rights. Property for that matter is just rights. But I also think that ownership of copyright rights can be dismembered such that the owner of a right can grant an exclusive license of that right to another while retaining ownership of that right. I quoted the Second Circuit in the other thread we were talking about this stuff in saying just that.

In this case, as pretty much everyone notes, Righthaven in no way was the owner of those rights. It never had any of the section 106 rights at all. It never had any ability to make use of them in anyway. And without that, you don’t have the copyright, and you don’t have the right to sue.

And I disagree. How else could Righthaven grant an exclusive license of those rights unless they owned them in the first instance?

Forgive my skepticism, but, link?

Yeah, I got this case and the CO case confused.

Wait, you still have classes in June? Shouldn’t you be done with finals yet?

At any rate, this is where I see the chain breaking:

“At that moment, Righthaven had standing to sue for past infringements.”

I’m skeptical that a simultaneous acceptance of 106 rights and conferring away of 106 rights is sufficient.

“Righthaven, as owner, has the right to sue for the past infringements.”

I think that once it exclusively licenses away its 106 rights, without retaining any 106 rights for itself, it loses the right to sue for violations of the 106 rights. Being an “owner” doesn’t confer standing to sue for violation of 106 rights if you don’t actually have those rights.

I think I was going back and forth with you in the other thread as well, making essentially the same arguments.

“Further, any judge suggesting sanctions like this in a ruling pretty much leaves themselves open for appeal. It shows perhaps that the judge has a personal opinion beyond the legal.”

Wait, what? I have never seen an appeal (much less a successful appeal) based on the claim that the judge said the appellants side maybe deserved sanctions (especially where there appears to be a legitimate basis for such statements).

I don’t think I’ve ever said this before to you, but I think that comment is spot on.

Yeah, who the hell are we to argue with your stunning array of anonymous credentials?

He thinks Rigthahven has issued licenses to those defendants who settled! Where he gets that from is befuddling. And he gets the concept wrong too. The theory behind the assignee’s ability to sue for past infringements is so it can recover the impaired value of the asset (the exclusive rights) it purchased from the assignor. Here, Righthaven has no legitimate exclusive right to protect, except the bare right to sue. The past infringement has not harmed the value of Righaven’s right to sue. To the contrary, it has enhanced the asset’s value.

Their legal representation has not been stellar thus far (either with regard to the contract or the litigation).

On the contrary, I think their greed got the worst of them and probably should be considered as mens rea for extortion.

Sigh. If you want to disagree with me, go ahead. But people are going to have to do better than simply claim I have no critical thinking skills. I know I do, and my GPA proves it. I’m proud of my achievements. Sorry if that’s not good enough for you.

I’ve been thinking the same thing.

I said that if the judge had said something along those lines, I would have given it more weight, i.e., I would think it was better than the ruling we got. As far as making a definitive statement about your argument, I can’t. I told you I only know a very little about that. I’d have to do research on the point to have an educated opinion.

Tell me this Payback Time. Why do you take this all so personally? I’ve been totally honest about where I’m coming from. When will you reciprocate? What is your connection to this? It’s seems like you have a vested interest.

In my state, ownership transfers upon the perfection of a sale with a reversionary right. It’s just a sale subject to a resolutory condition, meaning it terminates upon the happening of a condition. I don’t know how it works elsewhere. There is a published copyright case where the agreement had a reversionary right. I remember the court didn’t think much of it. All that matters is whether the right has been exercised. I don’t remember the case name of the top of my head.

They received ALL of the fundamental rights; which gave them the right to sue for infringment; yet immediately transfered those rights back to Stephens.
It is expresslly these rights that would give them the rights to sue, but they do not have control of said rights ( since we all agree they “assigned” them to Stephens).
The issue in its simplest.
< If they have the rights to re-produce, for gain, the copyrighted materials; then they have a right to sue for possible lost revenues due to copyright infringment.>
But from my understanding of the case; which is very limited; they only controlled the rights I stated until they granted them exclusively to Stephens, in the same contract.
Only Stephens has a right to sue to protect the rights they were granted.
I am not saying we should throw out copyright lawsuits, only that if Stephens needed help litigating their rights, they should have hired lawyers.
Lawyers would be more knowledgable about the law then Righthaven or the contributers to this discussion seem to be.

If the transfer was effectuated pursuant to arms length negotiation between the parties, Righthaven had paid the market value for the copyright rights, and the value of those exclusive rights had become impaired by the alleged act of infringement, then Righthaven could show injury to establish Article III standing.

Here, though, Righthaven cannot show how it has been injured. What is the injury? The rights were purchased only after discovery of an infringement and for the sole purpose of filing suit. There was no other value in the transfer. Infringement actually enhanced the asset’s value to Righthaven. Without infringement there would have been no transfer.

Righthaven doesn’t have to be injured though, right? They are standing in the shoes of their assignor, Stephens. Whenever someone transfers their right to sue to another with the underlying right, that transferee has standing even though the infringement took place before they had an interest. What’s the expression? Nunc pro tunc?

“but that magic moment was all it takes.”

Not sure about that. I think that, even if the magic language had been better drafted, a court might, consistent with Silvers, decline to give effect to “sham” transfers that are simply intended to assign a right to sue.

“That is assuming the infringement had occurred while the transferor was the holder of an exclusive right”

Bingo!

The simple answer to Mike’s question is that issue has nothing to do with Righthaven’s standing in this case. It’s a tangential issue. One that I regret bringing up because it’s taking the focus off the real issues.

What I would really like to know from Mike is why I’m held to an incredibly high standard while others who act way worse than me are held to no standard. The obvious answer is that Mike doesn’t care what people do or how they act as long as they agree with Mike. But someone like me who disagrees with him is put under a microscope. The fact is, many regular posters here act like complete assholes to me, and Mike never says a word. The double standard is obvious. And sad.

I have asked people on both sides of the issue who I believe say things that are improper to apologize.

When? Where? Please provide links. Please prove this.

I’ve been called names in this thread. Why haven’t you said anything about it?

What about all the other threads where poster after poster abuses me? Why don’t you say anything to them?

Why the double standard, Mike? Do I really threaten you so?

Seriously, let’s talk about this.

I’m sick of being treated like shit. It’s fucking ridiculous that you don’t do anything about it.

Please explain yourself.

Can you admit to a HUGE DOUBLE STANDARD?

But as long as only one party has the right to sue for the infringement, the defendant isn’t prejudiced. I don’t see how this goes against the policy of allowing choses in action to be transferred. Besides, Righthaven owns the right and is suing for the impairment of that right. That Righthaven subsequently licensed that right is irrelevant.

But the 1976 act merely codified existing caselaw, so I wouldn’t discount it so quickly. Nor do I see how that changes the public policy between allowing the transferability of the right to sue.

And this is where I disagree for the simple reason that more than the bare right to sue was transferred. Where does it say that such a transferee can’t in turn grant an exclusive license?

I really hope that you aren’t including RD in the list of people being mean to you, because I don’t think anyone actually listens to him.

Regardless, the issue is that you appear to be purposefully relying upon an earlier, and since revised, ruling, and when that is pointed out, you attempt a topic change. This does not look good for your arguments.

(Also, yeesh. Hope you don’t play any competitive online games, because anything here would hardly warrant being called a warmup for some of those, ahem, ‘discussions’…)

It’s an issue where one school thinks one way and another school thinks another way, and it’s irrelevant to the issue of Righthaven’s standing. I know that there is a school of people that disagree. I’m sorry I brought it up. I’m changing the topic because it’s off-topic. I side with Nimmer in that debate. It doesn’t mean I’m wrong, and it doesn’t mean I’m right.

Look, I’m on lots of boards, and nowhere do I get constantly abused like I do here. Mike could set the tone and set a good example, but he doesn’t. I run my own message board with many active users. Never does anyone treat people like they do here. Why? Because I set an example and I won’t stand for it. I don’t think I’ve moderated a post there in years. I haven’t needed to. It makes no sense to me the way I’m treated here. I’ve been put down and called everything under the sun. Sometimes I react badly. I’m only human. But at least I apologize for my bad behavior.

I’m just repeating myself, and it’s growing old, but the assignment and the SAA transfer ownership to Righthaven. I know you disagree.

Because you have to possess the underlying exclusive right in order to show that you have been harmed as a result of the infringement. You are having a really tough time grasping the intent of the statute.

But the 1976 act merely codified existing caselaw

Oh, that is very much not true at all. It was a new addition to copyright, and overturned previous case law.

I got the notion right from Silvers.

First, the Majority’s attempt to distinguish Prather as predicated on the 1909 Act is unpersuasive, given that courts have recognized that ?[i]n enacting ? 501(b)’s standing provision, Congress ?merely codified the case law that had developed [under the 1909 Act] with respect to the beneficial owner’s standing to sue.? ? Moran v. London Records, Ltd., 827 F.2d 180, 183 (7th Cir.1987) (internal citation omitted). See also Gardner, 279 F.3d at 778 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that a sublicensee of a copyright lacked standing to sue under the 1976 Act on the ground that the pre-1976 law so prohibited). Accord, H.R. 94-1476 at 47, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5660 (?[t]he present copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code, is basically the same as the act of 1909.?).

Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881, 908 (9th Cir. 2005).

In enacting ? 501(b)’s standing provision, Congress ?merely codified the case law that had developed [under the 1909 Copyright Act] with respect to the beneficial owner’s standing to sue.? Cortner v. Israel, 732 F.2d 267, 271 (2d Cir.1984); see 3 M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, ? 12.02, at 12-27 (1986) (? 501(b) ?follows the law established by the courts under the 1909 Act?).

Moran v. London Records, Ltd., 827 F.2d 180, 183 (7th Cir. 1987).

Dude, I like these boards because I like the topics being discussed. My views are in the minority amongst the regulars. As soon as I say one thing that the herd doesn’t agree with, I’m called all sorts of names and insulted in all sorts of ways. It’s ridiculous and sad. I should be able to express my opinion without 20 people calling me an idiot and a troll. It’s fucking ridiculous. That Mike fosters this environment says a lot about him.

Try this out, Jay. Create a new account and post a few things the herd disagrees with, but do it nicely and state the reasoning behind your beliefs. Try that and see how much abuse you take because of it. It’s not about earning respect, it’s about a group of people who regularly post here who can’t stand it when someone expresses a different point of view. It’s about Mike’s inability to set a good example and to foster an environment where issues can be debated in peace. It’s really sad that he WANTS this place to be that way. Techdirt talks about important issues, issues that have good points on either side of the debate. But God forbid someone disagree with Mike’s point of view. I’ve seen this before. I’ve noticed that the more “alternative” one’s point of view is, the less open that person is to any contrary thinking. I love to have my beliefs challenged, and I love it when people challenge me with good arguments. A lot of that has happened in this very thread. But the Techdirt trolls are ruining this place, and they’re making it into an echo chamber where only those who are preaching to the choir are respected. It’s really sad that Mike’s OK with this. I guess he likes his herd of followers who don’t think too critically.

Got any authority other than this case?

For the tenth time:

Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir.1982).

You seriously need to reconsider going into law because you can’t comprehend the concept of authority. When 90% of people who know the law disagree with you, including distinguished judges and law professors, it is time to concede. Being irrationally stubborn is not a good quality for an advocate to have. I have already explained to you that when a transaction is a sham or effectuated for the sole purpose of evading the confines of a statute, the court can deny prudential standing. What Righthaven and SM have attempted to do is to trade in causes of action using a sham assignment. If there was nothing wrong with the SAA it would have been disclosed to defendants or incorporated into the assignments. But it wasn’t. Which means even Rigthaven knew it was a problem.

You seriously need to reconsider going into law because you can’t comprehend the concept of authority. . . .

And this is where I know we’ve gone way past the point of diminishing returns. Thanks for the insult.

I’ve already explained why I disagree. Guess what? People can disagree with you. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong or you’re right. We simply disagree. You can’t point to any case that proves you’re right, and neither can I.

You clearly NEED for Righthaven to lose. I couldn’t care either way. That tells me you’re too biased here.

Have a great weekend.

There may be one or two people who jump to the early “troll” or “shill” claims, but they’re vastly outnumbered by the people who do try to respond intelligently.

Seriously, focusing in on one or two bad seeds and making it like it’s everyone is just wrong.

“One or two”? LOL! Yeah, right, Mike.

I couldn’t even read the rest of your post. Sorry.

Do you know of any case law that suggests differently?

Not off the top of my head. Can you point me to any caselaw that proves your point?

No one, until the underlying exclusive right is coupled with the right to sue and both rights are held by the same party.

Feel better?

I know you don’t see/won’t acknowledge it/don’t care, Mike. The fact is, you set the tone around here and you are the leader. You foster this environment.

Do you really want me to start pointing you to stuff that you’ve said about me specifically?

I’ll start bookmarking all the times people call you out for being completely wrong where you don’t admit it or you just run away and don’t come back. That way, when you pull it this again, I’ll pull out that. Sound good?

I know it’s important for you to take me down a notch whenever you can. I’m flattered.

“[O]ne who owns no exclusive right in a copyright may not sue for infringement.”

I know this is a waste of time so it will be my last attempt at helping you understand the law.

OK, but they did own it once it was assigned to them. The subsequent exclusive license is only relevant if you can show that once an owner grants a license he can no longer bring an action for past infringements. Can you show that?

Don’t forget to answer me in this thread from today: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/03443314715/is-using-photo-without-credit-separate-violation-dmca.shtml#c63

I would LOVE to hear your complete explanation of how the Third Circuit’s reading of the plain meaning of the DMCA is “tortured.”

Finding places where you’ve avoided being called out is WAY too easy.

Here’s another recent favorite: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/17240014091/unsealed-righthaven-agreement-has-other-judges-questioning-legitimacy-righthavens-lawsuits.shtml#c1307

You can’t explain why or how it’s “tortured.” Got it. On the list.

It’s hilarious. You’ve got all this time to attack me in this thread, but you can’t take a minute to explain how the Third Circuit’s reading is “tortured.” Sure, Mike. It’s because you don’t have the time. LOL!

What point do you want me to respond to? Tell me exactly what you want me to respond to and I’ll do it. Scout’s honor.

We can talk about the hundreds of things I’ve said to you that you haven’t responded to some other time. I can tell you’re not up for it now.

I guess you won’t have time to answer this post either: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/04014414727/why-is-justice-department-pretending-us-copyright-laws-apply-uk.shtml#c72

If I thought I had this Righthaven thing wrong, I’d gladly say so. So far, no one’s convinced me that I’m wrong. Sure, the judge ruled differently than I see it. So what? Lots of judges make rulings that other people think are wrong.

I say I’m wrong all the time when I’m convinced I’m wrong. Mike, sadly, does not. I’ve seen him disappear from a debate where he’s been proved to be wrong more times than I can count.

I don’t do that. I stick around and make my arguments and demonstrate what I think and why I think it. Mike runs away like a little boy.

And Mike called me a child several times in this very thread. Yet, you say nothing of that. Typical.

This may help, but I doubt it:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/understanding-difference-between-transfer-and-license

I have admitted I’m wrong many times. If someone’s made a thread winning post proving that Righthaven didn’t have standing, please point me to it. So far I’ve heard arguments that I don’t find to be persuasive coming from people who desperately want Righthaven not to have standing. I’ve stated what I believe and why I believe. Can you address my arguments head on, or are you only good for saying “you’re wrong” without saying why? I’m guessing it’s the latter. That’s not very convincing.

I understand the difference. Stephens assigned the copyright to Righthaven, including the right to sue. Righthaven then granted Stephens a license. It’s quite simple to me. Not sure why you think it’s not. I’ve yet to see you cite any authority that suggests the assignee of a copyright including the right to sue doesn’t have standing, notwithstanding a subsequent licensing. I’ve read every case on Westlaw that includes the terms “copyright, license, standing.” I didn’t see anything that supports a contrary view.

Good for you and your critical thinking ability. Lol..

I forgot to mention that it was from the dissent. The fact that it’s from the dissent seems irrelevant. Do you think it’s relevant? If so, why? That quote was simply stating a fact, and it gave citations to back it up. I also included text from one of the sources being cited. In this particular case, why is the fact that it’s from the dissent relevant? You haven’t explained that, nor do I think you can. Should I have noted that it was from the dissent? Sure. Usually I’m careful to do that. I forgot to do that here. Big deal. You have yet to explain why it matters in the case. You think I should not be respected over this minor oversight? Give me a break. Why don’t you explain why it matters, otherwise why should I respect you?