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), 26 Feb 2011 @ 8:53am

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

    You are thinking too linearly to get the point.

    No, you're still not getting it. Once the album is recorded, it takes no extra effort to allow people to pay what they want. The work has already been done. Since it takes no extra work, if they make just *one* sale from someone who thinks $9 is too high, but is willing to pay $1, that's $1 more than they would have made-- all for zero extra work. How is this not obvious? It's on torrent sites as we speak. I can get it for free if I so desire, or I can pay $9. There is no middle ground. With a pay-what-you-want scheme, there is flexibility for me, the consumer, to pay the price I see fit.

    T rust me, they didn't sell those for $2.25.

    Nor should they. The price of buying the disc, pressing it, packaging it and shipping it adds to the cost. Dare I mention how inefficient that process is when compared to the internet? I bet Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mules would cost quite a bit, too, and they're going to charge enough to make it profitable. Would you advise people to start selling Gold-plated 8-tracks shipped by mule? No, because it's an outdated technology with expensive materials and an inefficient distribution method.

    They figured out that the freeloaders didn't do much for them, and this time they are selling the record directly.

    It's obvious they over-value their music, if that is the case. If I ask you "How much will you give me for a cup of coffee?" and you say "$4" and I turn around and tell you it's $8 a cup, then I'm making a bad business decision.

    Mike tends to shy away from these stories because he cannot find a positive spin on them.

    This is a strange comment, when at least 5 times a day I read that all Mike does is spread FUD. Now, it's FUD with a positive spin on it?

    The only way he could run it would be to call Radiohead fools, but considering how much shiny plastic disc business they did on the last record, he would be hard pressed to explain why Radiohead isn't repeating the free give away.

    Yes, he'd be very hard pressed to explain that. Personally, I don't think he'd even try it. :P

    That is actually proving my point.

    Wait, what? Your point was that Mike didn't mention it, and when I pointed you, with link, that he did mention it, it proved *your* point? Wow.

    Would you prefer that I call them "sad loners" instead? Or how about freeloaders?

    You can call them potential customers, or underserved customers, or just call them "people". There have been studies that show that so-called freeloaders actually spend more on media than average. Guess freeloader is a bad term. As for "sad loner", my non-techie friends are starting to infringe on copyrights. Hell, my boss does it. These aren't computer geeks living in a basement with no friends, these are normal, everyday people who no longer see sharing culture as wrong. You make up names for these people as if they deserve your scorn, as if they are somehow different than other people. You're acting like a child, calling people names because you don't like something about them.

    I don't know what your lot is in all of this, but I really think you need to stop and look around at the world. People are going to share their culture whether you like it or not. You simply cannot stop them. In a vain attempt to prevent this, companies are only succeeding in losing the goodwill of their potential customers, and driving away the customers they do have.

    If you have a response, and I hope you do, be a pal and start a new thread at the bottom: This on will quickly become unreadable in threaded format. :)

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: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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