Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?

from the oh-yes,-and-porn dept

Amusing note in a recent Las Vegas Sun report about the latest goings on with copyright troll Righthaven: there are some indications that the company forgot to renew its business license, and that could create some problems for some of its lawsuits:
Has Righthaven been so busy filing and settling lawsuits that it forgot to renew its state business license?

Its status with the Nevada Secretary of State as of Monday was listed as "default" after the license expired Jan. 31. Net Sortie Systems LLC, Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson's company that co-owns Righthaven, is also listed as in default.


Righthaven's "default" status will likely interest defendants in nine Righthaven lawsuits filed in Denver federal court this month over a Denver Post "TSA pat-down photo."

That's because Righthaven asserts in these lawsuits: "Righthaven is, and has been at all times relevant to this lawsuit, in good standing with the Nevada Secretary of State."
Separate from that, the report also notes that Righthaven just registered the copyright on some porn DVDs, so it may be expanding beyond copyright trolling for the newspaper business (not that lucrative), and follow the footsteps of a bunch of opportunist lawyers who have started doing mass file sharing pre-settlement shakedown letter campaigns for porn producers (without too much success so far).

Filed Under: business license
Companies: righthaven

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You had a fast change of heart this week. Did you get a koolaid injection or something?

    I think you have me confused with someone else. As a side note: you can click on the word "profile" next to my name and see all my past comments.

    My point only is that Radiohead stopped feeding the freetard seagulls, realizing that they were wasting their time trying to cultivate an audience in a group of people who has no intention of being consumers for this sort of product.

    I have tried several times to respond to this statement, but it's proving to be tough, because it is *so* wrong that any way I choose to respond to it requires explaining to you the very basics of the internet, which is no small task. However, in the interest of a friendly discussion, I'm going to give it a shot: Radiohead does not have to do *any* extra work to "feeding the freetard seagulls". All they have to do is make music. In fact, the usual gnashing of teeth and sending the lawyers after file sharers expends *more* energy than just ignoring them. You are suggesting that they had to go out of their way to offer their last album as "pay what you want"-- but they did not. As a side note, I feel that pay what you want is the way to go. If I wanted their album, but not at $9, my last remaining option would be piracy, which means they get nothing. If I could pay what I wanted, they could get what I was willing to pay and if that ends up being $1, that's $1 more than with a structured price scheme. At any rate, I get unlimited music with Rdio for $10, so one album for $9 is stupid. You'll see.

    I expressed an opinion, too bad you don't agree. Get over it.

    Your opinion was not humorous at all. So, starting your opinion with "the funny thing is.." seems odd. Unless you were pretending that you knew the future *and* you didn't know the difference between "funny" and "ironic". I'm over it, now. :)

    I would think that a note in passing (and perhaps some commentary on how this plays for Wikileaks) might be in order. The silence is sort of deafening.

    How many times have you read Mike say "I wasn't even going to mention this, but it keeps getting submitted.."? Did *you* submit the story? I know I didn't, because nothing new came out *except* that he was going to get extradited. That's something I knew from my news feed. There's not much to elaborate on it-- since no new data has been discovered, so an entire post on a opinion blog about a story that has already been covered because of one new fact doesn't seem like good time management. I'm sure you covered it six ways to Sunday on your blog. Go ahead and link it so I can be properly informed?

    It is sort of like how the facts of the Radiohead deal were ignored (such as the concept that the shiny plastic disc versions "outsold" the online stuff in their first week alone).

    Yes, Techdirt never mentioned at all that Radiohead's Physical Album [was] Selling Well. You've got me there. :)

    I find entertainment, I find a mental challenge, and I find incredible humor in the study of what Mike says and does. We joke about kool-aid here a lot, but really, techdirt is about forming a cult of sorts, of assembling people.

    Well, if calling people names in lieu of having a sound argument gives you a mental challenge... well, you said it, not me.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.