Righthaven Begs To Be Put Back Into Case That Judge Dismissed The Company From, Claiming It's Fixed All The Problems

from the mere-technicalities dept

Having lost bigtime in its lawsuit against the Democratic Underground, in a ruling where the judge questioned Righthaven's motives and legality, it appears Righthaven is fighting back. In that original ruling, Righthaven was totally dismissed from the case, because the judge recognized that the company never actually held the copyrights in question, and thus had no standing to sue. Righthaven has now filed with the court to be added back to the case, claiming that its "amended" agreement with Stephens Media has fixed all the problems and has now made it clear that Righthaven is, in fact, the copyright holder. Not only that, but Righthaven claims that the new agreement means that Righthaven is the only one with standing, in an attempt to get Stephens Media off the liability hook.

Of course, it seems that Righthaven may have a serious uphill battle here. The judge in the case had already seen the amended agreement and suggested that it was cosmetic, at best. Judge Hunt clearly saw this for what it was: a highly questionable attempt to pretend Righthaven had copyrights it never actually had, to give it only a very limited right to sue -- and, an attempt to shield (the much larger) Stephens Media from liability for having filed questionable lawsuits. I would not be surprised to see the judge reject this as just a superficial attempt to get around the clear intention of the Copyright Act to bundle the right to sue with the actual rights prescribed in the Act, and not to allow companies like Righthaven to merely buy lawsuits.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2011 @ 4:42pm

    Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice

    Isn't this behavior of Stephens Media and Righthaven a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? Such a conspiracy has been illegal for many decades. Why have not the both of them been charged?

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2011 @ 5:02pm

    Hopefully both the judge will react by finding both Righthaven and Stephens, in contempt of court at the very least.
    Perjury and criminal charges should follow.

    Well a fella can dream can't he?

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2011 @ 5:22pm

    Re: Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice

    Lawsuits get the heave-ho for questionable standing all of the time. Never heard of a statute regarding "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" in the US. In the UK and Canada, there is such as statute but it's limited to the following, which don't seem to apply either:


    1. Fabricating or disposing of evidence
    2. Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
    3. Intimidating or threatening a judge

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Jun 27th, 2011 @ 5:29pm

    Do they really think that they can change the agreement after the fact and that somehow makes it okay?

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Jun 27th, 2011 @ 5:38pm

    Let's hope the judge drops a rock on these jerks. Preferably the one they crawled out from under.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2011 @ 5:49pm

    Re:

    Apparently they do.
    But rather than change, they are clarifying and amending to respectfully satisfy the judge who has as far as they are concerned failed to understand the agreement as written originally and the changes are only to help his feeble mind come to the understanding that is clear to everyone else.

    OOOOH please let him throw the book at them.

    please please please

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    A Guy, Jun 27th, 2011 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice

    Surely, there is some sort of law against purposeful misrepresentation of facts to the court. Could perjury laws apply?

    Maybe not. Maybe this is just an ethics violation and therefore just a matter for the state bar.

    IANAL

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jun 28th, 2011 @ 2:02am

    Re: Re: Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice

    In the UK and Canada, there is such as statute but it's limited to the following, which don't seem to apply either:


    1. Fabricating or disposing of evidence
    2. Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
    3. Intimidating or threatening a judge


    Perjury is also included so Righthaven could (if this was in the UK) be charged if they have made false statements or deliberately concealed evidence - seems a bit of a stretch however as Righthaven have been mostly openly stupid..

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jun 28th, 2011 @ 4:13am

    Re: Re:

    Ah, screw that, let's throw the entire LVRJ archive at them! And the Denver Post archive! And the Archive archive server farm!

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 28th, 2011 @ 4:49am

    Just what does it take to get yourself disbarred these days?
    Keep trying WrongHaven, you're almost there.

    Remember when Jack Thompson was disbarred?
    http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Jun 28th, 2011 @ 11:42am

    Righthaven fellates pigs, violently!

    And that's only if they can't find a goat. Pigs are more numerous in this country, so that explains that.

     

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


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