Irony? Righthaven Accuses One Of The 239 Sites It has Sued Of 'Litigation Overkill'
from the you-did-what-now? dept
It's true. With apparently no self-awareness whatsoever, Righthaven -- the highly questionable company that has sued 239 websites/companies for reposting some content from the Las Vegas Review Journal or the Denver Post -- is now claiming that one of the sites it's sued, Democratic Underground, is engaged in "litigation overkill." That's because of the EFF and Democractic Underground submitting new "key evidence," that apparently proves the copyright assignment from the newspapers in question is a "sham" and not a legitimate assignment. We've seen that charge in the past, and it hasn't stuck, so it's interesting to hear there's "new evidence" on that question. Unfortunately, for now, that evidence is hidden. Still, Righthaven isn't happy about this and is claiming the whole thing is litigation overkill. I guess it would know what litigation overkill is...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: assignment, copyright
Companies: democratic underground, eff, righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why, don't you know?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think they have one out yet for ironic sputters.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Poetic...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
lawyers who don't know that words have meanings
Righthaven's lawyers seem to have a penchant for this kind of sloppy language: “Righthaven intends to fully expose the readily apparent flaws presented in defendants’ arguments that would completely eviscerate countless years of licensing and related transactions throughout the country." Fully expose flaws that are already apparent? Eviscerate past transactions? Whah?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lawyers who don't know that words have meanings
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I have only one question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Timeline
1st, story posted at Las Vegas Review-Journal.
2 days later, story posted at Ely Times.
2 days later, we reproduced Ely Times story.
1 month later, Righthaven queries private registration for owner of domain. We find one story we neglected to excerpt and correct that oversight (which turns out to be the story in question).
1 week later, Righthaven submits copyright of story (under LVRJ title).
1 week later, Righthaven sues us.
Being a volunteer, spare-time nonprofit, we reluctantly settled. 6 months later, the stories at LVRJ and Ely Times still have no notice of Righthaven's copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo Hoo Righthaven
Just these 7 counter suits alone will wipe out the estimated 350,000 that Righthaven has squeezed out of victims. Unless Righthaven's backers are willing to lose a lot of money over this I would suspect Righthaven's rein of terror will soon come to an abrupt halt.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply