Righthaven Dismisses Lawsuit After Judge Slams Its Business Model

from the smart-judge dept

It's looking like more and more judges are recognizing that the new found love of copyright trolls, to use the US judicial system as a shotgun to force people to pay settlement fees, is not a proper use of the courts. The company has been losing some important rulings, and has had to drop other lawsuits. Over in Colorado, where Righthaven has been filing a bunch of lawsuits for the Denver Post, Judge John Kane has made it clear that he's not impressed by Righthaven's business model and sees no reason to use the court to help it:
"[W]hether or not this case settles is not my primary concern. Although Plaintiff's business model relies in large part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort, the purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of controversies and disputes. Plaintiff’s wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability."
This was in rejecting Righthaven's request for an extension for filing its latest motion in a case, which is a really standard thing that judges almost always grant. But here, the judge said no. That alone is a pretty big slam against Righthaven.

Righthaven then quickly dismissed the lawsuit, which had been filed against "a mentally and physically disabled" 20-year old. Amusingly, in the dismissal notice, Righthaven lashes out at the defendant for using the lawsuit to attack it and its business model, and says that's why it has decided to drop the lawsuit. Uh, yeah, right.

That sort of petulant tone probably isn't going to help Righthaven or its client, the Denver Post, considering that the judge here, Judge Kane, is the judge for all of Righthaven's Colorado cases. Either way it's nice to see more and more courts pushing back on these kinds of lawsuits. I'm curious to hear the responses of those in our comments who thought these lawsuits were all perfectly legit when they were being filed.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Squirrel Brains (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 7:39am

    I am continually amazed at Righthaven's attempts to portray themselves as the victim. This notice of voluntary dismissal could be paraphrased like this:

    "We wanted to extort a few dollars from the defendant and the defendant played along. It is unfair that the defendant then turned around and tried to use the court to pursue justice in this case, catching us with our pants down. Everyone else reading this, don't think we will be so thin-skinned or incompetent in the next case."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 7:39am

    Great statement

    "In short, Defendant and his counsel wish to prolong these proceedings so that they can continue to use this case as a means for unjustly attacking Righthaven and its copyright enforcement efforts."

    So basically, they are complaining that the defendant is using the legal system as leverage to bully them into doing something they would normally not agree to do.


    ...something about a pot and a kettle...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 7:41am

    Performance rights agencies must be kicking themselves

    They've taken on charities, animal shelters, the Girl Scouts and hundreds of small businesses, but it never occurred to them to shakedown a "mentally and physically disabled person."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 7:42am

    >>"the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability."

    That quote should be part of every defense motion filed in these types of cases. It is nice to see it put so concisely. We have seen people post here in TD that is is perfectly fine to send pre-settlement letters as soon as the John Doe cases are filed, but that leads to exactly the type of abuse this judge has highlighted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    coldbrew, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:24am

    Fucking Lawyers

    Kill them all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    FUDbuster (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:32am

    I'm curious to hear the responses of those in our comments who thought these lawsuits were all perfectly legit when they were being filed.

    How was this lawsuit against Hill not legitimate?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:36am

      Re:

      His health was detiorating because of the lawsuit. All for copying a few lines of text, I believe on a website. Fair use should have defended him, not have Righthaven try to hang him out to dry for copying.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        FUDbuster (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:45am

        Re: Re:

        The circumstances of his health are most unfortunate, and it's a good thing that Righthaven backed down. Still, I don't see how the complaint wasn't legitimate to begin with. It was just vanilla infringement.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          coldbrew, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I want to rip your heart out and eat it in front of you. You are a dishonest piece of shit, and you should die a horrible death. I hope someone treats you as poorly as you claim to want to treat others, you fuck head.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Nicedoggy, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Are you a judge in the case?

          I didn't hear your judgment in there, did anybody?

          For all we know what he did was vanilla fair use.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            FUDbuster (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You're right. I should have said vanilla copying, not infringement. It might not have been infringement. You're absolutely right. But it certainly was copying, which is what makes the lawsuit legitimate.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Not a lawyer, however I read through most of Hill's motion yesterday, and it revealed the dates of Hill's alleged infringement (according to Righthaven) don't match up to when Righthaven obtained the copyright - Hill's site was disabled due to excessive bandwidth usage by the webhost day/s before Righthaven obtained the rights, so, in a nutshell, the suit wasn't legit from the outset.

              That's how I understood it, anyway.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                FUDbuster (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:55am

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

                That's certainly a great sounding defense. Very plausible.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  coldbrew, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 10:27am

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

                  so, average joe is now known as fudbuster? good to know.

                  If I ever visit DC again, I will make sure to find you, and see if you can says these things to someones' face. I think you are a coward, and there's no way you could say this shit to my face.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              MrWilson, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 10:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Which is what's wrong with copyright law.

              Fair use should be a defense before a lawsuit, not after. Having a lawsuit filed against you is already a punishment before possibly being found liable for anything. Lawyers are expensive and there is no right to an attorney for a civil suit. It's exactly why these cases are extortion. Lack of money should not be the cause for a lack of justice. If the system is so complicated that a poor man who cannot hire a lawyer cannot also defend himself easily, the system is corrupted and broken.

              But beyond all this, these lawsuits are not ethical, regardless of how legal they may be perceived to be.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nastybutler77, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 11:29am

      Re:

      How was this lawsuit against Hill not legitimate?

      As the defendant's attorney stated, the fact that no cease and desist or any other attempt to get the allegedly infringing material removed from the defendant's site prior to the lawsuit being filed shows that the plaintif wasn't concerned with anything other than using these lawsuits to shake down people for money. That's why all these lawsuits are not ligitimate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    FUDbuster (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:43am

    Worth a read is Hill's brief. It's quite well done: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52561361/Brian-Hill%E2%80%99s-Brief-In-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss

    It is strange that on the one hand, Hill was claiming to be in serious settlement talks with Righthaven, but on the other hand, Hill opposed their motion for more time to respond to his motion. Usually parties that are in settlement talks do not oppose such motions. It's a gesture of good faith.

    Regardless, despite Righthaven's silly warnings to other defendants at the end of their notice, this case does show that they'll back down if the stakes get too high.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Squirrel Brains (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:59am

      Re:

      I think good faith flew out the window in these cases a long time ago.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:31am

      Re:

      Regardless, despite Righthaven's silly warnings to other defendants at the end of their notice, this case does show that they'll back down if the stakes get too high.

      Because their entire business model will collapse when the precedents are handed down, and Righthaven wishes to prolong the time they can extort money from people.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        FUDbuster (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:36am

        Re: Re:

        Maybe. I think the bad press and the cost to litigate were what made them throw in the towel. Hill had the hungry press and a hungry pro bono attorney on his side. I don't blame Righthaven for walking away.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Apr 12th, 2011 @ 11:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't blame Righthaven for walking away.

          So you're saying that its okay for Righthaven to file completely baseless lawsuits to extort money from innocent people, and then give up only when it looks bad in the press?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 8:47am

    That's just too good. Righthaven waits till it finds something on the net it can pursuit and only then does it go off to buy the copyright that allows it to go after a victim.

    That Righthaven chooses to drop the case says a lot when that's it's method of gaining money. It's finally stepped over the line and had it's fingers slapped.

    Guess it will have to move to some other area to continue this method of bilking people out of money since it's crapped in it's local food bowl.

    Sarcasm on: Ain't life a bitch! sarcasm off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 12:06pm

    That's some quality trolling FUDBuster!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Roland, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 1:47pm

    sloppy reporting

    I've said it before on this site: plaintiffs DO NOT dismiss lawsuits. Only a judge can do that. Apparently the plaintiff REQUESTED dismisal and the judge agreed. Under what terms? A simple dismisal means the plaintiff can re-file the suit later. Dismissal 'with prejudice' means he can't. So which is it? C'mon, get it right!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    darryl, Apr 12th, 2011 @ 9:42pm

    Drop but not dismiss

    yes Rolnd I was going to say the same thing, only the Judge and Dismiss a case, not the plaintif or the defendant.

    So the headline is designed to be inflamatory and untrue.

    Just was we have come to expact from Mike, its not 'sloppy' reporting, it's not reporting at all.

    Just ignorant tripe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ron, Apr 13th, 2011 @ 5:48am

      Re: Drop but not dismiss

      Mike must really hit the nail on the head if you douche bags keep coming here and try to discredit him all the time. Get a life, go read some idiot lawyers blog! Keep up the good work Mike!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This