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.

Filed Under: copyright, nevada, standing
Companies: righthaven

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    A Guy, 27 Jun 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.


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
Show Now: Takedown
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.