thearmedcitizen.com under attack ... please help

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

Please read the article below, and then call the Review Journal to let them know you are boycotting their business. Please also visit their site and call their advertisers to let them know you are boycotting them and why.

It's ridiculous to use copyright infringement against an academic/research site that properly cites its sources - especially publicly released news material.

BTW, if anyone isn't aware of what this site is, it's probably the best collection of actual articles showing proper use of firearms in justifiable self defense. Anyone that I've pointed to this site has had their eyes opened!


On July 21st, The Armed Citizen received an indirect and informal notice of a lawsuit against this website and its owners, David Burnett and Clayton Cramer.

The suit, reportedly filed in US District Court on July 20th, alleges that The Armed Citizen and its owners “willfully copied” and infringed on original source content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

According to news reports, Righthaven LLC has filed lawsuits against no less than 80 other political websites and individual blogs for “infringement.”

Righthaven has offered no prior contact, cease-and-desist warnings or any attempt at good-faith resolution whatsoever.

Other defendants include FreeRepublic.com, the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Democrat National Committee of Nevada.

The “offending” entries reprinted on The Armed Citizen consist of six stories originating from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. There are several mitigating factors to consider:

* The Armed Citizen has posted nearly 4,700 such stories from a plethora of sources.

* Some of the stories were short enough to qualify under the Fair Use Rule, even disregarding that the goal of this website is academic, informational and in the public interest, not commercial.

* The stories – which were also properly cited and attributed – are still publicly available on the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s website.

* Some of these stories were posted on the website as far back as six years ago.

To the best of our knowledge, statutory damages can only be awarded if the plaintiff owns copyright on the articles in question. Righthaven sought and received a copyright on at least one of the articles in question on July 6…several months after the alleged offense. Clearly, this group is interested in money, not resolution.

The Armed Citizen has been excerpting articles from newspaper, TV station, and radio station websites for a number of years without a single complaint or infringement notice. If any copyright holders decided that The Armed Citizen had exceeded fair use, they only needed to send us an email. (Indeed, on the YouTube channel for The Armed Citizen, multiple news outlets have acknowledged copyright, yet chosen to let the content stay active for mutual benefit.)

Instead, in an apparent eagerness to intimidate small websites, Righthaven has chosen to pursue legal action.

Until this matter can be resolved, and a thorough review of Armed Citizen content can be made, all updates and archives at The Armed Citizen are hereby suspended.

At this time, the future of The Armed Citizen is uncertain, and possibly in jeopardy, thanks to Righthaven LLC and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

We recognize that our readers will be shocked and disappointed. If you wish to help, please contact the Review-Journal and their advertisers to express your dismay at this unprecedented harshness. Your voice may be the only thing left that can save this website. (The Armed Citizen encourages such contact only on the condition that you say nothing that would reflect poorly on the website or its readership.)

Las Vegas Review-Journal
1111 W. Bonanza Road
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125

Las Vegas Review-Journal main phone number:
702-383-0211
Newspaper office number:
702-383-0264

Click here to read a copy of the lawsuit (as forwarded by a reporter…The Armed Citizen has received no official notice of pending litigation.)

Please consider donating using the link on your right to help offset the legal costs of this lawsuit.

To e-mail David and Clayton, write to Tips@thearmedcitizen.com

Further information:

Las Vegas newspaper sues websites over use of content
Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights
LV Review-Journal may be violating law with selective copyright suits
REVIEW-JOURNAL SUES ITS OWN SOURCE
Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

How horrible...


The RJ went through some changes a while ago...hired a $300.000.00-a-year part time 'consultant' who they intend to be the 2014 governor...fired most of their reporters and other staff...ugly brazen graft and greed and politics and paper-games.


I stopped reading the newspapers fifteen years ago anyway.


I guess these sorts of lawsuits are another example of casting a wide net, and seeing if they can get lucky on a few who did not know how to defend themselves.


I hope the Judge throws it out of Court as the baseless gambit it is.



Sorry times we live in...

Since all news papers are liberally biased anyway I never even read them anymore. I hope they go out of business like the rest and stay that way....forever. Maybe someday a paper will learn how to not loose their readers.

This is not a firearms specific issue, it is a larger issue having to do with newspaper revenues falling. The new trend seems to be the newspaper holders are attempting to sue for infringement against re-use of any of their material.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/23/1742254/Newspapers-New-Revenue-Plan-mdash-Copyright-Suits?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29

This is the same tactic the recording and movie industry has turned to (RIAA/MPAA): When sales fall go after the little guy with lawyers and steal money via the court system.

This is not meant to de-legitimize the thread but to spread awareness of the greater issue at hand.

They are picking and choosing their targets.

Any organization supporting the Second Amendment is a valid target for this new policy of theirs.

They are not attacking "friendlies," just the eeeevil folks.

No, it's not "specifically gun related" but it is an attack on supporters of the 2A.

I agree that acting in assistance of thearmedcitizen.com is worthwhile.

For anyone wondering what's behind this, here's an article that explains it:
Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/)

Also, in keeping with the implications of this new attack posture, please do not post the full text of Las Vegas Review Journal articles.

Just looking at the picture of the lawyer 'gibson' I feel the same instinctive urge a Mongoose has when looking down on a Cobra.

I wish our Society had a lot more Mongooses...


I think this is why I noticed endless little Movie Clips on 'Google Video' and 'You Tube' having disappeared, or, a 'dead' screen frame with the text "Video removed for violation" or whatever it is.


This is a weapon now of pretext for going after all sorts of private use and private sharing on the Web, and thus, a serious damage to what had been a harmless and free medium in these regards.


I thought Copyrite Laws allowed people to share excerpts or to reproduce articles when no selling or profit or recompense was involved? so long as the article carried no proviso of saying one was forbidden to reproduce it for any reason?



What a mess...


They are just driving 'wedges' into everything for greed and control and invasive dominance by petty pretext.

Only in America.

Seems like whenever we get a good thing going, somebody has to come along and step on it. :(

This is a weapon now of pretext for going after all sorts of private use and private sharing on the Web, and thus, a serious damage to what had been a harmless and free medium in these regards.

The producers of creative content expect to be paid for their work. Digital information, as we all know, is nothing but a [CTR+C] [CTR+V] away from spreading all over the Internet for free. The people who hold copyright have every reason to protest illegal redistribution of their property.

I like Armed Citizen and I think there is a serious lack of media outlets for stories showing how firearms are used to thwart criminals. I support each and every journalist who wants to get that information out there.

However, I also expect such persons to obtain permission to use any material they reprint from other sources. Doesn't matter one little whit if this is "selective enforcement" or not - if Armed Citizen went beyond Fair Use guidelines, they are culpable for the fault.

However, I also expect such persons to obtain permission to use any material they reprint from other sources.

The story I linked regards a suit by the same company against a reprint which used proper citation.

IANAL but I believe that if you properly cite references and give credit where credit is due then that is fair use. This is why we have an entire course at the college I attend on writing research papers!

So considering that they are suing even against those giving credit to the source I don't think the suing party or the lawyer give a crap about Fair Usage even though it is law.

The way out for the Armed Citizen is mostly likely to only put excerpts of the articles on their site and then link to the full articles on the newspaper sites they came from. It will be less convenient that way but also less likely to get them sued.

IANAL but I believe that if you properly cite references and give credit where credit is due then that is fair use. This is why we have an entire course at the college I attend on writing research papers!

So considering that they are suing even against those giving credit to the source I don't think the suing party or the lawyer give a crap about Fair Usage even though it is law.
There is a very concerted effort by the larger media conglomerates to do away with as much of Fair Use doctrine as possible, so they can charge as many people as possible as much as possible, even if you end up paying multiple times for the same content. There is a fair bit of that in the DMCA, but Big Media wants much, much more.

Even under the DMCA, it is legal Fair use for you to make a backup copy of a DVD you legally purchased, or rip your purchased DVD to your iPhone, but I believe it is a Federal felony to bypass the DVD's copy protection in order to do so (which is necessary to actually archive it). So it's both legal and illegal, as I understand it, due to conflicting statutes.

Straight from the horses...er....mouth
I think it has far more to do with making a buck than with a political agenda against the 2nd.
http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/Copyright_theft_Were_not_taking_it_anymore.html?ref=164

Copyright theft: We're not taking it anymore
Posted by Sherman Frederick
Friday, May. 28, 2010 at 02:40 PM
{snipped, as it's available on the link the poster left. Why antagonize?}

Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away. Nice analogy, BUT

If we want to be more accurate, Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at the Corvette, producing an identical copy, which he then jumps in and drives away.

Now who's missing their 'vette?



Theft is when you deprive someone of their goods (but it makes a good buzzword, doesn't it?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottahaveone
Quote:
Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material -- news that my company spends money to gather and constitutes the essence of what we are as a business -- some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.
Nice analogy, BUT

If we want to be more accurate, Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at the Corvette, producing an identical copy, which he then jumps in and drives away.

Now who's missing their 'vette?



Theft is when you deprive someone of their goods (but it makes a good buzzword, doesn't it?).
Nice analogy, BUT, still not right.
Let's say the guy with the original Corvette was in the business of restoring and SELLING old vettes. Now, your clonerizer just deprived him of his livelihood. That's not cool. Nor is it legal.

Nice analogy, BUT, still not right.
Let's say the guy with the original Corvette was in the business of restoring and SELLING old vettes. Now, your clonerizer just deprived him of his livelihood. That's not cool. Nor is it legal. No, I am right.

The owner hasn't been deprived of his 'vette. Ergo, no theft has occurred.

His ability to "restore and sell" hasn't been impaired (he still has his original 'vette).

So "theft" isn't the proper word.



To put this in the "ridiculous" category in which it belongs:

The actions taking place by these lawyers could also be aimed at every barber or beauty shop or doctor's office in America. After all, Barber Billy pays 50 cents for a license to read the newspaper. He is violating the law by providing it to his customers. Same thing with the magazines in the beauty shops and doctor's offices.

I believe that if you properly cite references and give credit where credit is due then that is fair use.

What you believe is not correct. You cannot abridge copyright by making up your own rules and deciding that you like them and that you personally approve of them and therefore they are sound practice. It doesn't work that way.

Fair Use doctrine allows for brief excerpting. Academic style for citations is similar. That's totally allowed and legal and the guidelines are clear enough to be followed safely.

Here - I do this sort of thing professionally because of my occupation, so here's an example from real life: I read an editorial in a scientific journal that I wanted to reprint for the readers of a different association, as the material was pertinent and would be of interest. I wanted to reprint the editorial in full.

So I contacted the editor who wrote the piece and explained my interest and asked if I could re-run the piece, with attribution. He sent me written permission and then I was golden.

But no, I could not run that piece without permission, thinking that by giving attribution I'd be OK. You give attribution on top of the permission. Usually, the owner of the material will provide you with the attribution line that they prefer, or vet your copy and approve it as part of the permissions process.

In other cases, you have to pay a fee for the right to reprint. The comment by cerberus above is a good one: Armed Citizen could post small snippets and link back to the original sources. That's honest and fair. I understand that some of these conventions don't always seem to make sense, but if you are a professional writer, the general protections in force are greatly appreciated.

Funny how some gun folks are so willing to say that theft is okay and a good thing when it pertains to their special interest of 2nd amendment rights, but often own guns for protection against theft of their belongings.

If the suit is successful, it will be a shame, a shame that The Armed Citizen didn't bother to secure proper permission before reposting in total articles that were not original to The Armed Citizen.

Nice analogy, BUT

If we want to be more accurate, Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at the Corvette, producing an identical copy, which he then jumps in and drives away.

Now who's missing their 'vette?

Okay, I make and sell Corvettes. Joe Stargate pops in and points his clonerizer at one of my models and produces identical copies that he now sells has his own property. He has stolen my intellectual property and is depriving me of sales.

There is a very good reason for copyright, trademark, and patent laws.

What this is all about is revenue. If you cut & paste a news article to a forum the news source does not receive any revenue from the people reading the article on that forum. If you briefly excerpt the article & link back to the source when the people who want to read that article go to the link to read it that generates advertising dollars for the source.
A local forum I participate in here that is owned by a lawyer has had the policy of not allowing entire articles to be cut & pasted in for a while because of the legal issues.

ArfinGreebly,

I'm not qualified to debate merits of the case, but I do wonder what you mean when you say that the newspaper is picking and choosing its targets and only going after supporters of the Second Amendment. Do the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Democrat National Committee of Nevada have records of supporting the 2nd?

For all of those "information wants to be free" people, maybe you should try making a living as the producer or distributor of professional intellectual property. Taking an article in its entirety and reposting it on your blog is intellectual property theft. It is blatant when it is done for profit (because you profit from web traffic to your site, which advertisers pay for) but even if it is not done for profit, it is still well outside the bounds fo fair use.

Some people rely on their writing as a source of income. The fact that you would want to repost what they wrote is testament enough that you put value on it. Why would you want to steal from and ultimately hurt the people who are producing intellectual works of value?

That which is free is not valued. I, for one, do not want the only sources of news to be semi-pro bloggers. I want well-researched, well-written and thought-provoking journalism to be around for my children. You don't get there by ripping off the people who write it, fund the research and travel necessary to write the good stuff, and dedicate their lives to producing good articles.

Internet version of ambulance chasers

I, for one, do not want the only sources of news to be semi-pro bloggers. I want well-researched, well-written and thought-provoking journalism to be around for my children. Not sure where you've been, but the "semi-pro bloggers" are doing a better job these days than some "professional journalists".

Sad but true.

Doesn't this action by this newspaper mean that several people who frequent any of the 22 different sites are ticked to say the least at these lawsuits? Way to get customers?t don't see it. It seems like short-term gain, long-term loss. I concur, hope the newspapers all go out of buisness. Thats what happens when there is a disconnect between buisness and consumers. Whatcan the average person on this forum do to help thearmedcitizen.com?

Looks like several bloggers are working on a blacklist checker to remove links and citations to those sources.

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/31/AutomatedBlacklistChecker.aspx

If those sites don't want to be cited and linked to, then they don't have to be; the newspaper staff can generate traffic to their site themselves and the blogosphere can just ignore them.

I would count credited re-posting of a news item to be free advertising for the newspaper. Maybe that's just me.

LVRJ published a news article on a website with cut'n'paste enabled. Then Righthaven sues if you exceed their unknown definition of fair use. Quite frankly other news outlets do not object if stuff is reprinted with credit to the orginal source. And that's news which, like history, is looked at different from creative fiction.

(I got a lackadaisic attitude to some of my creative fiction: in 1985 I wrote and the editor of Nexus published a short story with the common law copyright notice it could be reprinted as long as the author and source were cited. In 1992 The Cameleopard reprinted the story with credit (and that was in the day when you had to retype from hardcopy). To me it was no big deal as long as the author was credited.)

On the other hand, there is an author who has posted her early unpublished stories on her website, with a warning they are not to be copied and reposted without express permission. When she finds someone doing that, she sends a cease-and-just-stop-doing-that warning which is usually sufficient to protect her rights. She has not gone apestuff over quotes in review or commentary.

Without fair use of quotations, there would be fewer book reviews; without book reviews, there would be fewer book sales.

If one cannot comment or cite on Las Vegas Review Journal articles without running the risk of a lawsuit over how far they can quote from them under fair use, then fewer people should be commenting on or citing from LVRJ or other publications run by Stephens Media LLC with Righthaven LLC monitoring those who copy from their website.

Did those who implemented the RightHaven policy think through the logical implications? Righthaven is being operated as a profit center for Steven Media LLC, which sounds like strictly legalistic lawyers moving in to the news publishing business and taking a harder stance than other news publishers.

And other news outlets do NOT take the hardline stance of Stephens Media/Righthaven. Armed Citizen is facing lawsuit over one article out of 4700.

I'm going to disagree with some of the sentiments expressed here, with the caveat that I nonetheless consider the leaches behind this effort to be among the lowest life forms.

The law is pretty clear on the point behind these lawsuits--the wholesale copying and pasting of entire articles without the author's approval is not "fair use." It's an illegal infringement of the author's rights. I've seen what I would consider copyright violations on THR pretty frequently, something that kind of surprised me when I joined. I'm a moderator on another website, and we've endeavored to kick the butts of our members who do this sort of thing, since it's clearly illegal. Maybe the moderators delete the stuff that appears here as soon as they can, but it sure appears that a lot of members are intent on placing THR in peril.

The solution is easy, but it requires that those posting not be lazy: Excerpts that comprise a small part of an article can be quoted, with comment, but the wholesale cutting and pasting of a substantial part of an article without the author's express permission is verboten. For those who are interested in the continued viability of THR, or any discussion board you value, you'd be well-advised to follow the law and inform the moderators when you see a violation.

Truthfully, it makes for better discussion anyway. Any dolt can copy and paste an entire article. It requires a little bit of intellectual effort to pick out the important bits and comment on them intelligently.

The articles are copied and pasted onto forums to allow for archival of the original story so that when website links break, get modified, etc, the discussion in the archive is still relevant. Obviously, drive by posts aren't fun, but I do see value in archiving the whole story. Otherwise, the forum archives become sort of useless.

The articles are copied and pasted onto forums to allow for archival of the original story so that when website links break, get modified, etc, the discussion in the archive is still relevant. Obviously, drive by posts aren't fun, but I do see value in archiving the whole story. Otherwise, the forum archives become sort of useless.

I understand your point, but the only legal way to do what you suggest is to get the author's approval. If you fail to do so, then you and the proprietor of the board/website can be sued. It doesn't do a lot of good to have a complete archive if the website gets closed down due to the costs associated with defending a lawsuit and paying damages.

...They are picking and choosing their targets.

Any organization supporting the Second Amendment is a valid target for this new policy of theirs.

They are not attacking "friendlies,"...And they are free to do so.

...I do see value in archiving the whole story. Otherwise, the forum archives become sort of useless. But nonetheless, it is the case that:

[1] the law of copyright is what it is; and

[2] if someone infringes your copyright, you're entitled to sue him; and

[3] lawyers work for their clients, are obliged to zealously advocate their clients' interests, that is how they make their livings, it's hard work and we like to get well paid for doing it; and

[4] if you don't want to get sued for infringing someone's copyright, don't; and

[5] if you think things ought to be different, write Congress.

[3] lawyers work for their clients, are obliged to zealously advocate their clients' interests, that is how they make their livings, it's hard work and we like to get well paid for doing it; and IN this case, it's lawyers working for themselves.

All in pursuit of Mammon, due to the twisted state of our copyright laws.

Nobody is being sued. They are being "legally extorted" as in "Pay us a settlement and we'll consider not suing you." (because part of paying the settlement is signing a letter admitting wrongdoing).

As has been put out here before, it's bullying, and I doubt they want ANY of these cases to actually go to court, as too many losses for them there would upset their "legal extortion" racket.

I know what you are saying about the high quality of some of the bloggers (mostly due to expert, rather than passing, knowledge in a given area) but semi-pro bloggers don't have the funds to send correspondants overseas, research a story for months at a time or arrange to interview major players in business, government and society at large. The benefit of a competitive but profitable professional media is far more important than the ability to lazily pirate the work of others. When real reporting fails to be profitable, people will stop doing it.

Sounds like the Righthaven outfit is trying to make some money. As others have said this is not a 2A issue. They probably would have sued the Armed Citizen even if they were talking about baking cookies.

Different news organizations have different stances on this.

Some only object to Uncredited copying (leaving out author byline, original title, publisher) otherwise known as blatant plagiarism, or object to a rival news org copying the story without permission or payment.

Problem becomes that "fair use" is often in the eyes of the copyright holder and the nature of the material. What one copyright holder might regard as "fair use" another might send a warning, but Righthaven sends a "pay or meet us in court" notice.

Since the rules have apparently been changed by one new group, Stevens Media LLC, and their enforcement arm, Righthaven, it might have a chilling effect on free speech as bloggers and others annoy other publishers (some of whom could care less as long as they are credited) with thousands queries about how much constitutes fair use of their material and can we have permission.

Dead links (404s) annoy the heck out of me when I try to follow a discussion.

One thing I would recommend is to always include a link to the source, and no matter how much or how little is copied, recommend that readers hit the link (because a lot of on-line publishers depend on hit counts to measure success) even if the publisher allows total copy.

Another thing is to avoid quoting from or linking to any Stevens Media LLC material at all, to avoid getting hammered by Righthaven like that little two person cat blog got nuked.

IN this case, it's lawyers working for themselves....Anyone who owns and runs his own business, including doctors and lawyers, works for himself. That's how he pays the bills and supports his family. And he earns the compensation his clients pay him by delivering the services (or goods) his clients want.

...due to the twisted state of our copyright laws....The copyright laws have been this way for quite a while. If you don't like them, write Congress. In the meantime, owners of copyrights are entitled to the protections afforded by the laws as they are.

...Nobody is being sued. They are being "legally extorted" as in "Pay us a settlement and we'll consider not suing you."...It's not extortion if one has a valid claim. If one has a valid claim, and a right to sue, it's not extortion to offer to settle.

...because part of paying the settlement is signing a letter admitting wrongdoing...I don't know where you get this notion. It's certainly not normally the case. I've written a great many settlement agreements, and reviewed and negotiated a great many more, and they have always included language to the affect that the party paying the settlement, "...expressly disclaims any and all liability and denies any wrongful conduct whatsoever...."

...As has been put out here before, it's bullying, and I doubt they want ANY of these cases to actually go to court, as too many losses for them there would upset their "legal extortion" racket. And what evidence do you have to support this contention? If one owns a good claim to a copyright, and someone infringes on that copyright, the owner has a good claim, every right to sue, and a likelihood of success in court.

...Problem becomes that "fair use" is often in the eyes of the copyright holder and the nature of the material. What one copyright holder might regard as "fair use" another might send a warning, but Righthaven sends a "pay or meet us in court" notice....[1] Yes, fair use is a somewhat nebulous concept. But it never includes reproduction of the entirety of the copyrighted material, even with attribution.

[2] Fair use is always limited to the quotation of a short excerpt, with attribution. There may be some disagreement about how short is short enough, and that may finally be a question for a judge or jury. But once you have reproduced the whole thing, you've left fair use behind.

[3] And if you own a copyright and someone infringes it, you as the owner of the copyright have discretion as to how aggressively you pursue the vindication of your legal rights.

So, when we post a Thread here on THR, in which a Newspaper Article is referenced, and, we paste some of the Article, or, all of the Article when short...


Would that be a violation then of the Copyright, and, no longer be under the 'Fair Use' provision?


If I were a Newspaper, and, others were reproducing articles with attribution, I would be totally fine with it...God Bless 'em...that means my Paper is getting a far wider Readership than it would have.


I am not understanding the objection I guess.

There are two sides to this argument, as I see it:

1) If you link an article and it becomes important years later, the original may no longer be there. Therefore, it's helpful to quote it.

2) If they write it, they own it. If we direct 1,000 viewers to the original site to read the article, they get to collect some advertising revenue, and there's a chance a viewer or two will decide to subscribe.

In the end the law may be the driver here. Sounds like a staff discussion brewing.

...Would that be a violation then of the Copyright, and, no longer be under the 'Fair Use' provision?...A short quote, with attribution and with or without a link, could be "fair use." The problem is that there can be disagreement about how short is short enough, so the question could wind up being one for a judge or jury.

The factors to be considered in deciding whether too much has been quoted to be afforded protection of the fair use doctrine are:

"1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work." (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

I realize this doesn't really clarify anything. So the best course would be to quote as little as possible -- just enough to identify a core issue or to "whet" one's appetite.

At any rate, quoting the whole thing, even with attribution, takes you out of the protection of the fair use doctrine.

...If I were a Newspaper, and, others were reproducing articles with attribution, I would be totally fine with it...That's fine for you, but the copyright laws give the copyright owner far deeper and broader protection. So if that's not fine with some other copyright owner, he's free to sue and will probably win.

Back when folks got a good education, an article's first paragraph was a synopsis of the whole.

I was taught this was fine to quote, with attribution.

O'course, nowadays, you can't count on the first paragraph being comprehensible sometimes.


. . Again, this isn't about copyright per se, but "legal extortion (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6656465&postcount=30)" enabled by our rat's nest of laws.

...Again, this isn't about copyright per se, but "legal extortion" enabled by our rat's nest of laws. And how do you figure that? A copyright holder's copyright is infringed, and he pursues his available legal remedies in a lawful fashion. How is that "legal extortion"? What is this "rat's nest of laws"? Exactly why is it a "rat's nest"?

These corporations are not suing anyone.

They are threatening to sue, unless the target pays a "settlement", which includes a sworn statement of their wrongdoing (whether they actually did anything criminal or not). This lawyer group does not promise to "never sue" upon settlement (hence the sworn statement).

You can bet your bananas that some of the folks approached by this are not violating any laws.

I call that "extortion".

These corporations are not suing anyone.

They are threatening to sue, unless the target pays a "settlement"...What evidence do you have? In any case, it doesn't matter.

There are several ways civil claims are customarily pursued:

[1] The lawyer for the aggrieved party (plaintiff) sends a letter to the other party (defendant) stating his claim for damages and offering to negotiate a settlement prior to filing the lawsuit. Sometime, but not always, a copy of the planned lawsuit will be included with this letter. The letter will usually recommend that the defendant engage legal counsel and have legal counsel contact the plaintiff's counsel within X days. In the law business this letter is called a "demand letter."

[2] In some cases, when the demand letter is sent the complaint in the suit will already have been filed with the court but not formally served.

[3] The lawyer for the aggrieved party files the complaint and has it properly served on the defendant, thus beginning formal litigation. The defendant has a certain amount of time to file in court an answer (or other responsive pleading, such as a motion to dismiss) to the lawsuit. The plaintiff may sometime, but not always, give the defendant an extension of time in which to formally answer (or sometimes "answer or otherwise respond") as long as good faith settlement discussions are ongoing. Once the complaint is answered by the defendant, various pretrial activities (discovery, motions seeking ruling from the court on matters of law. etc.) will begin. But during such activities, settlement negotiations will usually be taking place as well.

All of those approaches are common and acceptable modes of conduct in the world of civil litigation. Which one a particular plaintiff chooses will be up to him and his lawyer.

...a "settlement", which includes a sworn statement of their wrongdoing (whether they actually did anything criminal or not). This lawyer group does not promise to "never sue" upon settlement...And exactly what evidence do you have to support that contention? Such a settlement agreement would be very uncommon, so if you claim this is so, it's your burden to prove it.

...You can bet your bananas that some of the folks approached by this are not violating any laws....I guess that's what any litigation will be about. If a defendant prevails and can later demonstrate that the plaintiff's suit had no basis, the former defendant has a good claim for malicious prosecution. And since the newspaper folks have assets, that would be a good claim to pursue if the facts will support it.

But of course you state no good basis upon which to conclude that the targets here did not infringe these copyrights, so your belief is simply wishful thinking.

...I call that "extortion". Yes you do call it extortion. That doesn't mean that it is. It only means that you're misusing the word.

2) If they write it, they own it. If we direct 1,000 viewers to the original site to read the article, they get to collect some advertising revenue, and there's a chance a viewer or two will decide to subscribe.

You know, that is really the crux of the damage to the copyright holder. When TAC started reproducing articles in their totality away from the copyright holder's site, they took away those directed views. The copyright's site gets bypassed. So their advertising does not get seen, their site does not get seen, their "counter" does not advance (which they use for landing advertising), and they lose the possibility of getting new subscribers. The action of bypassing the copyright holder's site in this manner is damaging to the copyright holder and does result in lost revenue.

Again, there are thousands of news clippings on armed self defense on TAC without complaint from the originators except one, Las Vegas Review-Journal and Righthaven of the Stephens Media LLC.

The American Rifleman has published news article clippings sent in by readers in its monthly "the armed citizen" for decades; the latest one includes clippings from Chicago Tribune, Daily-News Miner Fairbanks AK, Associated Press, Chillicothe Gazette OH, St. Louis-Dispatch MO, Sun Herald Gulfport MS, The Anniston Star AL. Charles Fort basicaly rewrote news clippings of odd events into his Book of the Damned. Cited newspaper clippings have been re-used under laxer standards than creative writing for generations.

There is an author who has her early, unpublished stories on her website, with a warning not post them on your website without permission. When she has found the stories posted without permission, she sends a warning, a notice, that if they are not taken down the next contact will be her lawyer. (The usually excuse is the re-poster did not read the fine print.) The legal threat is not the first notice.

Now let's look at the fine print above a Las Vegas Review-Journal article.

SAVE THIS - EMAIL THIS - PRINT THIS - MOST POPULAR - RSS FEEDS - POST A COMMENT
Aug. 04, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Sheriff says department can't 'circle the wagons'

Shooting incidents require police to explain why action was taken, Gillespie says

http://www.lvrj.com/news/sheriff-says-department-can-t--circle-the-wagons--99923939.html

I won't quote beyond the title because I feel like the guy in the bank in ''Raising Arizona'':
Bank robber: "Everybody freeze. Everybody get down on the ground."
Old geezer: "Which is it young feller? Effen I freeze, I cant rightly get down, and iffen I get down, Ima gonna be in motion, you see."

SAVE THIS EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS
later we might sue your behinder off, but copy our copyrighted material anyway.

I am beginning to suspect Abbie Hoffman's 1971 book entitled "Steal This Book!" may have been a set-up.

Again, there are thousands of news clippings on armed self defense on TAC without complaint from the originators except one, Las Vegas Review-Journal and Righthaven of the Stevens Media LLC....So what? The fact that others may not aggressively pursue their legal rights doesn't change the law. And the fact that someone else may have chosen one way to attempt to vindicate his legal rights doesn't mean the someone else might choose another way.

You may disapprove of the way the LVRJ and Righihaven are doing things, but how they conduct their lawful business is not your decision. They don't need your permission to pursue their legal rights in any lawful way they choose.

...The American Rifleman has published news article clippings sent in by readers in its monthly "the armed citizen" for decades;..Nope, the NRA, in The American Rifleman (and other of its magazines) paraphrases the article and cites the source. It may or may not include a short quote or two from the article, but it never reproduces the entire article.

...Charles Fort basicaly rewrote news clippings of odd events into his...Rewriting or paraphrasing is not the same thing as duplicating.

Postings on how Righthaven operates have been questioned.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/ Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits, by David Kravets, Wired magazine, July 22, 2010.

Basicly, Righthaven does not send a takedown notice. The equivalent of 'others may allow this, but we don't; please take down our material or we will sue'. No. It appears that they send an offer to settle out-of-court for an amount about what one would pay for an attorney retainer fee, with a threat to otherwise sue to the limit of the law.

The Righthaven business model has been compared to patent trolling described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll but it is somewhat different.

Postings on how Righthaven operates have been questioned....Basicly, Righthaven does not send a takedown notice. ... It appears that they send an offer to settle out-of-court for an amount about what one would pay for an attorney retainer fee, with a threat to otherwise sue to the limit of the law...Again, you may disapprove, but what they are doing is still legal and doesn't change the law for anyone else. If their copyrights have been infringed, how they deal with the issue, as long as it's legal, is up to them and not you.

Basicly, Righthaven does not send a takedown notice. The equivalent of 'others may allow this, but we don't; please take down our material or we will sue'. No. It appears that they send an offer to settle out-of-court for an amount about what one would pay for an attorney retainer fee, with a threat to otherwise sue to the limit of the law.

Right. So they give an option of what is essentially paying damages or gambling in court. What's the problem?

Simply asking something be taken down is sort of like asking somebody to stop beating you. The beating may stop, but damage has occurred. TAC could have been asked to take down the articles, but that does not compensate the copyright holder for the losses already incurred, does it?

The Righthaven business model has been compared to patent trolling described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll but it is somewhat different.

Somewhat different? I would think so since patent trolls often operate with no intent of production. In the case of the news articles, production has been run. So these are very different, though both are correct in taking action to recover theft of intellectual property.

And since the newspaper folks have assets, You keep missing the point.

This isn't the newspapers doing this.

This is a group of lawyers doing it on their own, in sole pursuit of the almighty dollar.

TAC could have been asked to take down the articles, but that does not compensate the copyright holder for the losses already incurred, does it? How many folks outside of Las Vegas have ever heard of the LVRJ before this foulness reared it's head? I'd think that LVRJ readers get their fix from the LVRJ.com, not "The Armed Citizen" or "Joe's Blog" or anywhere else.

Do you honestly think that Joe Citizen of Bangor, Maine (and theoretical member of "TheArmedCitizen.com) is gonna surf the LVRJ site for his news? Do you think that even if he visits the LVRJ he's gonna hire some plumbing company that works in LV and advertises on LVRJ to come to his house for service? Do you honestly think that non-NV-based readers of TheArmedCitizen would click on any ad at the LVRJ? How can you lose something that never happens?



This is slimy lawyers maintaining their reputation.

I'm done here.

I do not need lawyers' permission to disapprove of using a nuclear option when a polite warning or reminder would be sufficient for most people, and most lawyers included.

What Righthaven is doing is over-kill and it is building ill-will for its clients which could result in greater losses than the value of a backlist of stale news articles.

Righthaven may indeed be nothing more than a greedy lawyer's efforts to make money, but the legal concept behind the lawsuits is crystal clear . . . and it's nothing new. It's always been illegal to copy another person's published works in their entirety and re-publish them elsewhere without the author's permission. The only thing that's changed is that modern technology makes it a lot easier for someone to do it: click, copy, open a new thread, and paste . . . Voila! You've now broken the law, essentially "stealing" another's intellectual property.

The fact that it's easy, or that a lot of people do it, or that you can somehow rationalize it as beneficial to future readers has nothing to do with it. It's a violation of copyright law and you place this website in peril when you do it. To my way of thinking, that answers the question of whether or not you should do it. As fiddletown noted, the only answer, apart from the obvious notion of doing things legally, is to get the law changed (and that's not likely to happen).

How many folks outside of Las Vegas have ever heard of the LVRJ before this foulness reared it's head? I'd think that LVRJ readers get their fix from the LVRJ.com, not "The Armed Citizen" or "Joe's Blog" or anywhere else.

Do you honestly think that Joe Citizen of Bangor, Maine (and theoretical member of "TheArmedCitizen.com) is gonna surf the LVRJ site for his news? Do you think that even if he visits the LVRJ he's gonna hire some plumbing company that works in LV and advertises on LVRJ to come to his house for service? Do you honestly think that non-NV-based readers of TheArmedCitizen would click on any ad at the LVRJ? How can you lose something that never happens?

Oh I see, because you don't perceive the loss as being significant enough to the victim that the victim should surrender the claim to copyrights. Funny how we are so willing to give up other people's rights but not our own.

Of course none of the people who visit LVRJ's website would ever look at the advertisements for things other than plumbing like say, oh I don't know, hotels, gambling, resorts, entertainment packages.

What Righthaven is doing is over-kill and it is building ill-will for its clients which could result in greater losses than the value of a backlist of stale news articles.

What sort of ill-will is being built. Do you have ill-will toward other companies that have sued to protect their copyrights? Just curious. I have not heard of anyone ever complaining about how negatively they feel about some company that went to court for their copyrights, but maybe I am missing something here. I know I don't harbor ill will toward the artists and recording companies that sued Napster.

Do you have ill-will toward other companies that have sued to protect their copyrights?The group that is behind this did not produce any copyrighted material.

They purchased/leased/whatever the copyright from the newspapers, for the sole purpose of this "legal extortion".

And to be honest with you, before this foulness blew in, I'd never heard of the LVRJ, and even if I had, why would I go there to look at hotels, gambling, resorts, etc? It's a local rag - I'd be more likely to find job offers from those businesses than any "vacation packages".

Time to wake up to reality here.

...This isn't the newspapers doing this.

This is a group of lawyers doing it on their own, in sole pursuit of the almighty dollar...No, you don't seem to understand how things work.

[1] A lawyer can't do anything on his own. He must have a client with a legally cognizable interest.

[2] The lawyer by himself has no claim. The lawyer by himself has suffered no injury and has no standing to seek redress on his personal behalf.

[3] The lawyer must have a client who has suffered an injury. It is the client who seeks redress, and the lawyer represents the client. Any recovery belongs to the client, and the client pays the lawyer the fee that the client has agreed to pay, and the lawyer has agreed to accept, for services rendered.

[4] Here the client is the person/entity who owns the copyright that was allegedly infringed. The injury to that person/entity was the infringement of that copyright. The law provides that copyright owner whose copyright was infringed with a remedy in the form of, among other things, a right to money damages from the person who infringed the copyright.

[5] The lawyer pursues that claim for money damages, as authorized by law, on behalf of the copyright owner who has that claim. The lawyer does not, and can not, do it on his own behalf, because he does not own the copyright and thus has no claim of his own for damages.

[6] And yes, the lawyer makes money doing this. That is is business, and he gets paid for the work he does. Don't you (or didn't you, if now retired) get paid for the work you do (or did)?

The group that is behind this did not produce any copyrighted material.

They purchased/leased/whatever the copyright from the newspapers,...Again, so what? That group is still the owner of the copyright. The newspaper didn't produce the copyrighted material. It "bought" the copyright from the author.

The bottom line is that Righthaven's business model may be smarmy. But it is legal, and the folks it is going after did allegedly infringe copyrights. If they did infringe copyrights, they shouldn't have done it; and they are legally liable. (If they claim they didn't, they will have to defend themselves.)

At the same time, it's really not all that hard to avoid infringing a copyright. True, it may be unclear how little is little enough to come withing fair use, but it's crystal clear that reproducing an entire article is an infringement.

Fiddletown, a law firm obtained the use/ownership/whatever to the copyrights for this material for the express purposes of pursuing this 'legal extortion".

The newspaper got paid for their copyrights by the law firm.

The lawyers are now out to get paid.

I have been posting here because I feel that just because it's legal doesn't make it right, and these slimy lawyers are proving this.

Wired is now running a profile of Righthaven, where the company's CEO (who was or is the general counsel for LVJR) is pretty upfront that this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with stopping infringement. It's entirely a way to squeeze money out of people. Techdirt article (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/03152710320.shtml)
This is, clearly, a blatant abuse of copyright law, and not at all what the law intended to do. Techdirt article (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/03152710320.shtml)

The above is what has me all irate. Copyright is great. Viva la copyright.

Slimy lawyers suck.

The fact that the CEO of Righthaven is a lawyer doesn't make Righthaven a law firm. Nor does it mean that in pursuing its remedies it is practicing law.

The woods are full of businesses whose CEO, or other senior officers, are lawyers. Many lawyers decide to stop practicing law and instead become executives (or do other things).

Again, Righthaven's business model may be smarmy, but its targets also shouldn't have infringed those copyrights.

In effect, TAC and other Internet vehicles took a business risk when they got sloppy about the copyright laws. They exposed themselves to the risk that someone would come along who was aggressive enough to exploit the copyright laws against them. Well it looks like TAC and others gambled and lost.

You are forgetting past cases which found that forum owners (or operators of other web venues with user-contributed content) weren't liable for the content their users presented.

Viacom recently lost a case against Youtube over this very matter.

As to "smarmy" and "shouldn't have infringed", let me paste some other stuff:

Righthaven’s procedure has been to “troll” or find an infringement of an R-J copyright to a specific story. It then buys the copyright for that story from the R-J’s owner, Stephens Media LLC, and then sues the infringer — all the while continuing to troll for additional violations. LVS article (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/04/some-targets-righthaven-lawsuits-fighting-back/)

“Plaintiff Righthaven LLC knows that the costs of defending this action will far outweigh the value of this case, and is seeking to extract a settlement under the threat of protracted litigation and expense,” their filing said. “Neither the federal courts nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were established for this purpose.” LVS article (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/04/some-targets-righthaven-lawsuits-fighting-back/)

They're not owners of the copyright at the time they find an "infringement"? Smells fishy to me.

You are forgetting past cases which found that forum owners (or operators of other web venues with user-contributed content) weren't liable for the content their users presented.

Viacom recently lost a case against Youtube over this very matter...If you contend that there are cases in which forums or blogs successfully resisted these sorts of infringement claims, you will need to post citation and detailed information. We don't have to accept your assertions, and you need to support your claims or we are free to dismiss them out of hand. There's no reason we should do your research for you.

...As to "smarmy" and "shouldn't have infringed", let me paste some other stuff...So others don't like Righthaven's tactics either. It's still up to Righthaven how it wants to pursue its claims. If it's acting legally, it doesn't need your permission or the permission of anyone else (unless, perhaps, a judge finds it is doing something legally improper).

There's no reason we should do your research for you. As if we still have to have spare time and access to large law libraries to do this.

Viacom vs Youtube (http://www.google.com/search?q=viacom+versus+youtube)

Owners not liable for user content (http://www.google.com/search?q=owners+not+liable+for+user+content)

The Viacom case doesn't give operators of websites a free ride on copyright infringement. All it essentially provides is that the party claiming copyright infringement must identify with particularity the infringing material. That is not an issue here.

Your other link doesn't work.

Your other link doesn't work

Which is why people (used to) post links and quoted excerpts.

Theoretical Question

If authors or publishers who regard free credited reprints of news items a form of free advertising for their source suffer a perceived loss as a result of the chilling effect of Righthaven' s profit strategy, would they have grounds for disapproving of Righthaven's conduct?

My understanding of the business model is that Righthaven approaches publishers and tries to get them to sign a contract where Righthaven gets money from infringers and they split the proceeds some way. There may be some vetting of potential clients, something like "we found 12,000 infringements in our search, and since 70% of infringers pay an average of $2,955 within 60 days we think that we can collect $24.8 million within the next few months. Of course, we have our costs to consider, but our very generous payout of 30% will net you nearly $7.5 million in a reasonably short timeframe. In these harsh economic times when traditional business models are being undermined....." (This is all made up and pulled out of the air, but it's easy for me to put together a pitch, and I think something similar is happening behind the scenes.)

You get the idea. It's appealing to lots of publishers, I'd bet. And I don't think anyone will get a letter from the company in question until the copyright holders have signed on.

Las Vegas Review-Journal's rival, the Las Vegas Sun, is having fun with this.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/04/some-targets-righthaven-lawsuits-fighting-back/

John Paton, CEO of the Journal Register Co. newspaper chain and Editor & Publisher magazine’s publisher of the year in 2009, was among those surprised to learn of Righthaven’s lawsuit campaign. "Such a bad idea for newspapers. I’m speechless," Paton said . . . .

Critics say R-J reporters are now in a conflict of interest situation because their paper in many cases is suing their sources including the state Democratic Party, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, real estate brokerages and agents and Anthony Curtis, a gaming industry observer and publisher.

If you find watching a train wreck in progress both scarifying and fascinating, do click the link.

I am not a lawyer. Fair use to me is giving someone credit for their work. If someone quotes what we say here on another forum without our permission is that grounds for litigation? I think not. When somone writes a story for a newspaper it is meant to be made public. The newspaper gets its pay from advertising(within the paper) and selling the newspaper to people interested. One article etc doesn't constitute infringement to my way of thinking especially if credit is given. I travel. Trying to get to links is a PITA, because I get an OOPS the line is broken. Maybe the blog being sued should countersue for the advertising that the newspaper recieved persuant to their reproduction of the article?
ll

...Fair use to me is giving someone credit for their work. ... One article etc doesn't constitute infringement to my way of thinking especially if credit is given....To your way of thinking, perhaps. Nonetheless, it is legally infringement, even with attribution.

And what constitutes fair use is also pretty well settled, and it's more than just giving credit. The fair use doctrine allows quoting only a small part of the written material, together with attribution. How small is "small" may be vague, but it's clear that reproducing all, or substantially all, of copyrighted material is infringement, even if credit is given.

The law may not seem sensible or fair, but it is what it is -- at least unless and until Congress changes it. And while Righthaven may be smarmy, that in itself is not a defense to an infringement claim.

A newspaper publisher who won a national award commented that the actions of Righthaven and Los Vegas Review-Journal surprised him. As soon as a news item is stale and the competition cannot scoop your breaking news, a credited reprint in a blog is like free advertising.

Also, since I have been checking Las Vegas area stories (like the Erick Scott shooting), I notice Las Vegas Review-Journal website shows up less and less in search engines when I search by subject. I am told that is because search engines tend to reflect the (usage of the searchers) linkage of websites. Which implies since the Righthaven lawsuits started, (searchers are less likely to look for) websites are less likely to link to Las Vegas Review-Journal.

That could also reflect the fact that less people are linking to the LVRJ, and as a result their page rank has gone down.

It's easier to say "delete it" than it is to make a measurement over what level of fair use RightHaven will allow (apparently 4 of 34 paragraphs exceeds fair use in their mind, resulting in a $75,000 lawsuit).

Righthaven's latest "achievement":
The Iso writes "Las Vegas based company Righthaven found two articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle reprinted on her web site without permission, so it did what it always does: bought the rights to the articles from the Review-Journal and sued the alleged infringer, seeking unspecified damages."

Read more (with commentary) Senate Candidate Sued By Copyright Troll - /. (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/09/06/0241203/Senate-Candidate-Sued-By-Copyright-Troll)

If someone quotes what we say here on another forum without our permission is that grounds for litigation? I think not.

Well of course it isn't grounds for infringement as what we say here isn't copyrighted.

According to Wired, Realty One Group (Michael Nelson) won a summary dismissal in the suit filed by Righthaven. The judge agreed that quoting 8 of 30 sentences of a story was "fair use" under copyright guidelines. (David Kravets, "Righthaven Says It Will Stop Suing Over News Excerpts", Wired, Threat Level, 18 Nov 2010. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/righthaven/ ) Also according to Wired after losing to Nelson, Righthaven asked the judge in their case against Democratic Underground to dismiss Righthaven's claim against DU.

judges ruling: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39767798/Righthaven-v-Realty-One-Order
There were four tests used by the court:
A. Purpose and character of the use (commercial versus educational)
B. The nature of the work (factual news was copied but not the reporter's commentary)
C. Amount of copyrighted work used (eight out of thirty sentences)
D. Effect on the potential market for copyrighted work ("little to no effect on the market for the copyrighted news article")

Even though the commercial nature of Nelson's blog counted against fair use, the other three points were in favor of a finding of fair use.

Larry Hicks, US District Court Judge
After reviewing Nelson’s use of the copyrighted material, the court finds that Nelson’s use falls within the Fair Use doctrine. Accordingly, Nelson did not infringe Righthaven’s copyright as a matter of law and the court shall grant Nelson’s motion.
The judge noted that "Nelson directed readers of his blog to the full text of the Work" by providing a link to the full article after quoting eight sentences of news, and not quoting creative commentary by the reporter.

Righthaven and Stephens Media "Strategic Alliance Agreement"

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/why-righthaven-s-copyright-assignment-sham-and-why Electronic Frontier Foundation: April 18th, 2011 "Why Righthaven’s Copyright Assignment Is A Sham – And Why It Matters" by Kurt Opsahl

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/79-1.pdf
DECLARATION OF LAURENCE F. PULGRAM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING RECENTLY PRODUCED EVIDENCE RELATING TO PENDING MOTIONS
in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No. 10-01356-RLH (GWF)
RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v. DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN, an individual, Defendants, and
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of Columbia limited-liability company, Counterclaimant,
v. RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, and STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company, Counterdefendants.

Since all news papers are liberally biased anyway I never even read them anymore. I hope they go out of business like the rest and stay that way....forever. Maybe someday a paper will learn how to not loose their readers.

Nothing like a good, sweeping statement. Wrong, but definitely sweeping. There are liberal newspapers and conservative newspapers. In the good old days, larger cities would have at least one of each.

If you hope newspapers go out of business, how are you going to get your state and local news? The 30 minutes of news, sports and weather you get a couple of times a day that's mostly devoted to violent crime and fatal accidents? Even what you see on the national broadcasts is selected primarily for its lurid interest because the network is driven to gain the maximum audience so it can command the maximum advertising rates.

Actually, it sounds to me like you're not looking for news; you're looking for a bias that agrees with yours. News is just that: news. It's neither liberal nor conservative and doesn't care one way or the other.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/fair-use-defense/

David Kravets, "Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use", Wired, 20 Jun 2011,

A federal judge ruled Monday that publishing an entire article without the rights holder’s authorization was a fair use of the work, in yet another blow to newspaper copyright troll Righthaven. ....

The decision by U.S. District Judge Philip Pro was in regard to a user of a website who had re-posted an entire editorial about public employee pensions in a discussion. Details in link posted above. The defendant's lawyer was Marc Randazza, who asked for the court to order the loser, Righthaven, to pay the defendant's legal costs.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/copyright-troll-righthaven-now-starts-paying-those-it-sued.ars

Nate Anderson, "Copyright troll Righthaven now starts paying those it sued", Ars Technica, 6 July 2011.

Righthaven sued one Michael Leon in Sept 2010; a 20 Apr 2011 hearing dismissed the case and decided Righthaven had to pay the defendant's legal costs of $3,815.00. In another case, Randazza Legal Group also won a finding of "fair use" against Righthaven and is asking the court to award them $34,000.00 from Righthaven for legal costs. Read more in linked story.

------------------------

Judges have gone from deciding 8 of 30 sentences is fair use by a website to deciding a user of a website posting an entire editorial is fair use. Things don't look good for Righthaven.

(Do note that in "fair use" the original source must be given credit for authoring the material. This is not like academic Ian Ayres peppering his book "Supercrunchers" with long quoted passages without quote marks or in-line citations of source. "Fair use" is outlined in the tests used by the court in my post above of 5 Jun 2011, 11:57pm)

It also appears from the agreement between Righthaven and Stevens that Stevens actually retained rights to use of the works (reprints etc), so all Righthaven was given was a fictitious right to sue, not a real right to the works involved. In other words, Righthaven lacked legal grounds to sue.

So Carl, would this then appear to mean that many of the gun forums will be able to go back to allowing the posting of articles if properly cited as to author/source? A lot of the articles online now, if you copy and paste a section, come with an automatic citation anyway, which is rather cool.

If it is deemed fair use in the courts, then I would have to say that my concerns that it isn't fair use would therefore be null.

Righthaven, as some have mentioned, is a fairly well-known copyright troll. Meaning, they exist solely for the purpose of suing others over copyright materials on behalf of other parties. They do this all the time, suing people all over hoping that they'll win a few cases that they can cash in on, while their clients get the people posting their material silenced. These people all need to be put back in their place.

It sounds like the site being sued is set up for informational/educational purposes, which would seem like an obvious case of fair use. But Righthaven probably hopes to win anyway with a settlement, as court costs and lawyers aren't exactly cheap. Let's hope they don't settle...

Intellectual "property" is definitely on the short list of the most dumb ideas anyone has ever come up with. Maybe the first people that proposed it were joking and someone took it seriously.
"We'll be able to randomly declare ownership and sole use of completely intangible ideas, dreams, thoughts, methods. Then we'll be able to punish people for thinking of things that we declared that we thought of first"
"Yeah that'll be a great idea, what could go wrong?"

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/righthaven-legal-action/

David Kravets, "Bloggers Mull Legal Action Against Righthaven", Wired, June 15, 2011.

Clayton Cramer, operator of Armedcitizen.net, is seriously considering a next step, since a federal judge ruled that Righthaven had no legal standing to bring suit.


http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/07/righthaven-faces-119000-legal-fee-demand/

Steve Green, "Righthaven faces $119,000 legal fee demand", Vegas Inc., 7 July 2011.

Attorneys for former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase prevailed in court against Righthaven; federal Judge Roger Hunt dismissed Righthaven’s suit for lack of standing. DiBiase's layers now demand that Righthaven pay $119,457 legal fees and costs.

Intellectual "property" is definitely on the short list of the most dumb ideasThose of us who are engineers, artists, architects, musicians, poets need that protection.

Otherwise corporate buttheads rip us off badly.

Righthaven is abusing the concept out of greed, and must be stopped.

But that doesn't mean us honest folks don't need those protections.

What will be interesting is to see what happens with the folks who settled before the finding that Righthaven had no standing to sue in the first place. Will they get their money back, and lawyers fees? ( hopefully with punitive damages. )

Engineers, architects, musicians, etc. all have some tangible item they can present to anyone. Most engineers produce some kind of engineered plan, system, or design, as do architects. Musicians have the music they produce (although the sound of it being played could be suspect, I guess...). But their albums, artwork, and concerts should be safe. And any written items or plans produced by engineers/architects should also be protected. But I agree that the idea of "intellectual property" is a joke, as it doesn't necessarily require any written or manufactured item to copyright. However, the laws should NOT be abused, as Righthaven is doing. Someone needs to smack them around a bit, preferably a judge.

I don't want to get too far off topic with this, but the "tangible item they can present to anyone" is called the 'instrument of service' under the principles of intellectual property rights. It is not required to commit to instrument of service to have protection under the law. Those of us in those professions really need abstract protection. I know you guys are doing your best on that subject, but it's really not the purpose of this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to display the dangers of those who abuse due process to get money. That's what those buttheads are doing.

Most copyright holders who don't consider a reprint "fair use" send a takedown request.

Righthaven sent a threat: virtually saying: we will sue you for $75,000 and take your domain name, granny with a nonprofit bird blog, or if you pay a couple thou, we'll go away.

Righthaven was supposedly buying the copyright from Las Vegas Review-Journal, then suing as the new copyright holder. However, the "secret" agreement that was revealed in court showed that Stephens Media retained the rights to the news items, and all Righthaven had was a fictitious "right" to sue, and split the money with Stephens Media who retained the copyright. After the exposure, Righthaven and Stephens Media re-negotiated their agreement and claim that the corrected agreement fixes the problems raised by the judge. Following some of the postings at Wired.com and ArsTechnica.com, that new agreement also appears problematical.

Who knows, maybe we'll get a SCOTUS ruling on "fair use". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use So far though, some of the commentators on the cases Righthaven has lost, have stated that Righthaven by overreaching has actually undermined newspapers' protection against reprinting news or political opinion by commentators.

Corporate greed... what turds.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/righthaven-on-life-support/
David Kravets, "Copyright Troll Righthaven Goes on Life Support", Wired, 7 Sep 2011,

o No new lawsuits filed in two months.
o Staff lay-offs at Righthaven.
o Losing cases on (a) fair use grounds and/or (b) lack of standing to sue.
o In one case lost by Righthaven, ordered to pay defendant's attorney fees and court costs of $34,045.50.
o Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson still makes public statements oblivious to "fair use" as opposed to "infringement". Guess he still believes there are "millions" of "infringements" he could collect on.

I hope Righthaven bites the dust and we see Steve Gibson standing on a corner with a sign, "Homeless. Will work for food."

Truthfully, if intellectual property is so valuable (Copyrights, patents, trademarks) why are they not being taxed as property owned by the corporation anyway? Tax them at the value the lawyers claim they are worth, and that would settle the deficit!

If you look down at the bottom of The Armed Citizen home page, you will see a copyright notice and the phrase "All rights reserved." Apparently they think their original work is worthy of protection.

Copyrights and patents allow creators to enjoy the fruits of their labors. They do the work and they are entitled to be paid for it, just as anyone who performs any other job should be compensated.

Trademarks identify particular goods or services. Federal law requires the holder of a trademark to "vigorously defend" it from unauthorized use. Failure to defend the mark, at the owner's expense, can lead to losing it. I don't know how many millions of dollars Kimberly-Clark has spent defending the trademark "Kleenex" to keep it from becoming a generic term for facial tissue, thus losing the exclusive use of the word. It's the same with Xerox.

As far as taxation goes, copyright and patent holders pay taxes on the income they receive from people buying the works or products they created. Trademark holders pay tax on the profits they make from selling the trademarked goods or services. Some owners of popular trademarks also pay taxes on the licensing income they receive.

Righthaven is a predator and I am delighted to see they got smacked down, as they richly deserved to be. But Righthaven's transgressions are no excuse to dismiss the rights of other people in the works they create.

Intellectual "property" is definitely on the short list of the most dumb ideas anyone has ever come up with. Maybe the first people that proposed it were joking and someone took it seriously.
"We'll be able to randomly declare ownership and sole use of completely intangible ideas, dreams, thoughts, methods. Then we'll be able to punish people for thinking of things that we declared that we thought of first"
"Yeah that'll be a great idea, what could go wrong?"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution allows the government: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Yup, the guys who wrote the Constitution were a bunch of real clowns; more fun than a barrel of monkeys. You never knew what they were going to do next.

Denver paper drops Righthaven:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/medianews-righthaven-dumb-idea/

David Kravets, "Newspaper Chain Drops Righthaven - ‘It Was a Dumb Idea’", Wired, 8 Sep 2011.


Fallout from the $34K judgement against Righthaven:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/righthaven-assets-targeted/

David Kravets, "Copyright Troll’s Assets Targeted for Seizure", Wired, 19 Sep 2011.

Truthfully, if intellectual property is so valuable (Copyrights, patents, trademarks) why are they not being taxed as property owned by the corporation anyway? Tax them at the value the lawyers claim they are worth, and that would settle the deficit!
Who says it isn't taxed? Let's say I have an idea for a better mousetrap. I patent the idea but I don't have the resources to bring my idea to the marketplace, so I shop it around to some companies that do. Acme, Inc. decides that my "better mousetrap" is worth producing. Acme, Inc. pays me a royalty to use my idea, and I pay income taxes on the patent royalty.

In this case the marketplace set the patent value.

why is the latest news on the website from febuary? I didnt read entire thread and only check out website for a moment, so maybe there is a reason.

If you look down at the bottom of The Armed Citizen home page, you will see a copyright notice and the phrase "All rights reserved." Apparently they think their original work is worthy of protection.

How ironic.

Not only is it ridiculous to file copyright charges against an academic site, it holds no legal grounds. Fair use is intended almost specifically for academic purposes, or at least they come first, and are easiest to defend.

Someone's just out for some quick, easy cash. Similar to the Hurt Locker lawsuits, or the porn lawyers who are putting their own content on torrent sites, and suing the IP of every person who downloads it. Scumbags looking for easy money.

:evil:
Auction of Righthaven website domain name under way (http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/dec/26/auction-righthaven-website-domain-name-under-way/)
The online auction of the righthaven.com website domain name got under way Monday, with bidders having until Jan. 6 to submit offers.

A judge has authorized a receiver to auction the intellectual property of Las Vegas-based Righthaven LLC, the newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit filer...

...Wayne Hoehn, and his attorneys defeated Righthaven when a judge threw out Righthaven’s lawsuit against him over Hoehn’s unauthorized post on a sports betting website message board of a Las Vegas Review-Journal column by columnist and former Publisher Sherman Frederick.

...

“Righthaven went after hundreds of defendants in copyright cases. Often, the defendants were innocent and engaged in fair use. In all cases where a court has been asked, they found that Righthaven had no right to bring the suit in the first place. In all of their cases, Righthaven asked the court to award them not only money, but the defendant’s domain name,” Randazza noted in a blog post. “After losing a case to my client, Wayne Hoehn, Righthaven is at least $63,000 in debt to him. They refuse to pay. Now their domain name is up for auction to the highest bidder.”

HAHA! Taking out the trash...

Justice would be served well if http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/ won the legal rights to the righthaven website domain name.

As a UK resident where copyright abuse seems rampant, I must say that I was very impressed to see the spirited defence of the copyright & patent system in this thread.

I suppose in the US you live & die by the efforts of your hands & brains whilst in Europe the State will give even the laziest weasel a free house, free medicine and free money ... for ever.

This leads to the attitude "Music and films are free on the Web."