Ccomp5950 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (168) comment rss

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 02:30pm

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

    You still haven't substantiated your claims.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 02:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exhibit 1 is blank, and Righthaven has yet to produce a document like Exhibit 1 that is actually filled out. No copyright assignment has taken place or it has and they can provide no documents save the strategic agreement (See Docket 79 page 12) The date they should have had it in by was January 18th of this year. But that doesn't matter as again I say righthaven holds no 106 rights.

    Now lets step through the agreement shall we?

    3. Exclusive Engagement.
    3.1. Stephens Media shall assign (at the times stated) to Righthaven, pursuant to the
    procedures set forth in Section 7    : (a) any copyrights owned by Stephens Media that Stephens
    Media desires to be the subject of Searching (the "Searching Decision"), with each such
    respective assignment to occur within a reasonable time after Stephens Media makes each
    respective Searching Decision,     (b)


    Now if we stopped there and ignored Section 7 you would have your case, and I'd tip my had to you, the Bold portions agree with you. However in italics above modifies the entire thing so lets stop there and go straight to Section 7...

    7. Assignment of Copyright Content; Stephens Media License.

    7.1 Subject to the other terms and provisions of this Agreement and throughout the
    Term, Stephens Media shall effect the assignments to Righthaven of copyrights as required by
    this Agreement (including, without limitation, within the time periods required by this
    Agreement) by executing a particularized assignment with respect to each copyright and each consistent with (and in form and substance the same as) the scope of assigmnent as set forth in
    the fonn of copyright assigmnent as embodied in Exhibit 1 (each a "Copyright Assigmnent").
    Stephens Media shall provide Notice to Righthaven of each copyright (each a "Notified
    Copyright") that is required to be the subject of a Copyright Assigmnent (a "Copyright
    Assigmnent Notice") by no later than five (5) Business Days prior to the last day upon which
    each respective Copyright Assigmnent is required to be executed by Stephens Media as provided
    in Section 3.1. Righthaven shall then provide to Stephens Media a conforming Copyright
    Assigmnent for Stephens Media to execute with respect to each Notified Copyright within
    three (3) Business Days after receipt of the Copyright Assigmnent Notice.


    Okay, nothing really there, just a bunch of administrative dealings that say how it is done. That the entire copyright is assigned to Righthaven, so far, it appears you are correct.


    7.2 Despite any such Copyright Assigmnent, Stephens Media shall retain (and is
    hereby granted by Righthaven) an exclusive license to Exploit the Stephens Media Assigned
    Copyrights for any lawful purpose whatsoever and Righthaven shall have no right or license to
    Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from the Exploitation of the Stephens Media


    Woah woah woah, big monkey wrench. If it "retains" rights, it's not a copyright assignment. Now if it was simply licensed those rights, fine. However it goes further, RightHaven is to not have any of those rights (which the crux of my argument and yours rest upon, which 106 rights does righthaven actually have? In my view, they hold none. In your view it appears they retain them all despite what the contract says in clear language saying the other.)

    So again, which rights do you see here that RightHaven has? 7.2 says that RightHaven shall have no rights "...other than the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery."

    Quite plainly the case is thus.
    1.) If Righthaven does not produce a rights assignement they hold no rights (not even the right to sue).
    2.) If Righthaven does produce a rights assignement it's up to the courts to find if Righthaven has any 106 rights and if not will probably look to Silvers v. Sony Pictures
    Entm?t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2005). My stance is that they do not hold 106 in accordance with the clear language above.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re:

    here I shall even make it easy for you.

    Please show which right under 17 U.S.C. ? 106, Righthaven currently holds.

    (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
    (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
    (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
    (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
    (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
    (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


    Your reference for this is the contract

    If you cannot than Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 402 F.3d 881 (2005) applies.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 11:06am

    Re:

    For now I shall summarize our debate.

    You've made the claim they hold full exclusive rights to the copyright and thus have full rights to sue.

    I've linked the strategic agreement and cited they they simply the right to recovery (right to sue).

    You claimed otherwise, without supporting your argument.

    I asked you to support your argument, you failed to do so by simply stating "you have to read the entire thing". Sorry that's not a citation.

    You later claimed while holding the stance that they hold full exclusive rights that your detractors had not listed caselaw.

    Fair enough, I listed case law maintaining the prevailing argument that they do not hold exclusive rights.

    You ignored the fact you have failed to support your argument that they hold exclusive rights, and concluded that the case law does not apply.

    Upon your return if you wish to continue this discussion please support your argument that they hold exclusive rights. Otherwise I consider it a forfeit on your part.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And then later it's restricted in 7.3. I'm going to ask you again, list the rights they are granted and where it is shown.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 10:55am

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

    Okay, let's play a game.

    What rights do they have? Please enumerate which ones you believe that contract grants them. Bonus points if you cite paragraphs and sections.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 10:52am

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

    No, they are not. It spells it out right there. And as I said later on in this conversation in Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, and Sybersound, they have no claim.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Notice how those who are saying that the answer is clear can't point you to any caselaw that this situation clearly falls into. I think the reason is because there simply is no such caselaw.


    Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 402 F.3d 881 (2005), says that you need to assign a specific right under 17 U.S.C. ? 106 ? and not the bare right to sue ? for a copyright assignment to be valid.

    More specifically it says:
    May an assignee who holds an accrued claim for copyright infringement, but who has no legal or beneficial interest in the copyright itself, institute an action for infringement? After analyzing the 1976 Copyright Act and its history, as well as the scant, although persuasive, precedent that is available in analogous situations, we answer that question "no." Accordingly, we reverse the ruling of the district court, which allowed this action by the assignee to proceed.


    Then you always have the Sybersound ruling.

    "You have to have the exclusive right to the copyright to be able to sue"

    I believe that is enough caselaw to be satisfactory, if not I can look some more but I'll stop here.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If a law office purchases the rights to sue for a percentage of the "recovery", isn't this THE definition of Champerty and maintenance?

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/righthaven-strategic-agreement.pdf

    Is the agreement RightHaven has with their clients. I'd like to direct you to Section 7.2.

    ?Righhaven shall have no right or license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from the Exploitation of the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights other than the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery.?


    Again you have an entity that only holds the "right to sue". And under current copyright law they can only request damages against THEIR rights (the right to sue). Even if they were granted an exclusive right to the copyright they would only be able to claim damages against infringement that occurs after they are granted their exclusive right. Since their business model is to be assigned "rights" after infringement occurs and a with a layman reading of the link I listed above: It appears they will be out any sort of damages thusfar, and their actual rights is a legal paradox (I retain the right to sue, therefore I can only claim damages against other people that sue for you).

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 07:59am

    Re: Re:

    To make it clear, copyright allows for the settling of the damages against the rights they hold.

    Righthaven holds the "rights" to litigate. Therefore the only way someone could infringe upon Righthaven's rights, is if they litigated in their place.

    It's a legal paradox at worst and a sham at best.

  • On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 02 May, 2011 @ 07:57am

    Re:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html

    In remedies I only see "Copyright Holder may", this isn't something you can just sign a Power of Attorney to I don't believe (I'm a computer repair shop owner in Marshall Texas, not a copyright lawyer).

  • On the post: Lawsuits Filed Against Twitter, Facebook & MySpace For Confirming That A User No Longer Wanted Text Messages

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2011 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Lawsuits

    how does one loose a feature. I mean if they held their grip on it harder would it still be there? Perhaps if someone tightened the screw a bit more?

    The word you are looking for is "lose"

  • On the post: Is It Rude To Link To Someone Without First Asking Permission?

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re:

    The whole purpose of Fair use is to not require permission or even notify you in any manner. In your first comment on the other article you said you recognized his fair use rights.

    So what is the problem again?

  • On the post: Is It Rude To Link To Someone Without First Asking Permission?

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There is a prior premise you probably missed (it's validity was assumed in the post and the point itself was only listed briefly so I can understand why you missed it).

    If a Permission Society leads people to be less creative (since they are having to ask permission all the time) than it does not lead to promoting the progress as progress is hindered.

  • On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2011 @ 01:46pm

    Re: Re: So how heavily armed was the suspect?

    ah, I stand corrected, not redundant.

  • On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home Because Guy Had An Open Wireless Router

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    So how heavily armed was the suspect?

    SWAT team (that's redundant =/ ) are used for situations where the suspect is known to be armed and dangerous.

    In this situation, could you even ask if he was suspected to be armed and dangerous?

    Probably what really happened. ICE finds a cache of child porn on a P2P share with an endpoint of this mans location. They start putting together a warrant and they think "Man this is going to make the news, I need to tell my buddy in SWAT". Guy in SWAT sets up a raid instead of a calm visit by 2 men in grey suits because he has a daughter and despite innocent until proven guilty wants to kick this guys nuts in. SWAT team goes in after being pumped up by their commander about how filthy a child diddler the man they are going to bust is. SWAT team treats him as reported "roughing" up the suspect a bit (read: Legalized Police Brutality).

    Cautionary lesson to learn in all this: If the original warrant doesn't state you are using SWAT and the situation doesn't change to situation where SWAT is needed (Snipers, Guerrilla style warfare, Riot, Hostage Situation) don't bring in SWAT.

    Also IP address does not identify individuals, it identifies a device, in this case one that broadcasts out to a location the size of a football field.

  • On the post: Samsung Fires Back After Apple Launches Patent Nuclear War; Sues Over Five Patents In Three Countries

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2011 @ 12:59am

    Re: Korea, Japan and Germany?

    I'm a resident of Marshall Texas so this is something I'm always interested in (To borrow from Sarah Palin, I can see the court house from here (in my office)).

    East Texas is probably going to fall off the radar for a year or two since the judges here keep getting their hands slapped for turning down change of venue requests.

    Defendants have been pushing writs of mandamus which basically means the higher court tells the lower court to "Do your job, stupid". Or in this case to take the Change of Venue requests seriously. In Re Nintendo, In Re Hoffman-Le Roche, In Re Genetech, In Re Zimmer Holdings, and in November In Re Microsoft.

    This all pretty much started with In Re Volkswagon which was an interesting case. A vehicle accident occurred in Dallas Texas, the vehicle was purchased in Dallas, all relevant witnesses and documents were in Dallas, but the plaintiff filed suit here in Marshall, and the court refused the motion of transfer to Dallas.

    More reading...

    You know you screwed up when a higher court says "that the district court gave undue weight to plaintiff?s choice of venue, ignored our precedents, misapplied the law, and misapprehended the relevant facts,? and ?the district court reached a patently erroneous result and clearly abused its discretion in denying the transfer.?

  • On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2011 @ 01:49pm

    Re: Re: How do you properly cite money?

    Proper citation would be.

    Porn is bad1.


    1.) See Cashiers Check Deposit #3857 in the amount of 50,000 towards "Effort to re-elect Jim Bob. Funds available 4/12/11

  • On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric

    Ccomp5950 ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2011 @ 01:38pm

    Re: How do you properly cite money?

    It depends honestly.

    Cash? The moment it's slid slylying into your pocket.

    Check? 7 days after the check has cleared, the bank should have by then had enough time to make sure it hasn't bounced.

    Cashiers Check? Day after deposit as funds are not made available until next day in most cases.

    Bank Transfer? 2 days after transfered funds are available for withdrawel if within the same country. 2 weeks otherwise.

    Paypal? 60 days after transfered, we wouldn't want disputes now would we?

    Personal Debit Card? Next day if used with PIN, 6 months if through the credit network.

    Business Debit Card? Next day in all cases as funds in most cases can not be disputed except through court.

    Credit Card? 6 months after transaction.

    Source: Congressional Guide for the Acceptance of Lobbying [Pg. 32]. Formally the Congressional Guide for Acceptance of obvious bribes [Pg. 1].

Next >>