You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Lurid Crime Tales-
Judge unseals Review-Journal/Righthaven contract
2011-04-16
Courtsey of the Puppy-Blender™. Me likee.
A federal judge in Las Vegas on Friday unsealed the agreement for prosecuting copyright infringement lawsuits between Righthaven LLC and Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media.

"By rejecting Righthaven's and Stephens Media's efforts to keep the document secret, Chief Judge Hunt has allowed the various victims of Righthaven's campaign of intimidation to know the truth. The document in question, a Strategic Alliance Agreement, gave Righthaven the right to sue on Stephens' Media's copyrights, but no other rights in the copyrights, which we believe will defeat Righthaven's standing to sue any of those it has targeted," said Pulgram, an attorney associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the San Francisco law firm Fenwick & West LLP.
More at the link. :-D
Posted by:Barbara Skolaut

#8  Along those lines, sounds like its class action time against RHVN and Stevens Media, possibly even a bit of RICO.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-04-16 23:54  

#7  Actually anyone that got served with papers from RHVN shoudl examine them for claims regardin ownership etc of the LV rag's articles. Apparently if they did claim (as seen in boilerplate) more-or-less "Full" copyrights to these articles, they filed false documents with the court. THis can be used to nullify any settlement as it was reached under false pretenses, and turn the suit over to local law enforcement as fraud via perjury in the civilk court filing (i.e. they lied about full ownership fo the copyrights, therfore they knowingly put a lie as part of the court filing, qed perjury).

If I were to have been sued and forced to settle, I would certainly be grabbing this document from the court of DU's suit and talking to a lawyer about the possibility of getting some serious cash back including damages. Hint. Hint.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-04-16 23:53  

#6  These are strange, strange times. Much as roughly a month ago I said (just once) "Yeah Muslim Brotherhood!" for fighting Qaddafi, "Yeah Democratic Underground!" for fighting these scumbags.
Posted by: Secret Master   2011-04-16 18:13  

#5  "does RVHN have standing in court? Do they 'own' the copyright, or did they just lease a chunk of it?"

According to the article, Dr. Steve, they may not have standing. "Defense attorneys fighting Righthaven say that in order to sue, Righthaven must have complete ownership of the copyrights."

Oops. IANAL, of course, but this could be fun.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2011-04-16 14:53  

#4  Either way, Righthaven are the scum and bottom feeders of the legal world. The sooner they are broken and put out of business the better.
Posted by: DarthVader   2011-04-16 14:39  

#3  Yep, we were once allied with Stalin.

I'm no legal beagle, but it does make an interesting point: if the LVRJ transferred to RVHN ONLY the part of the copyright that permits them to sue (and not as the lawyer for LVRJ but as a partner), then does RVHN have standing in court? Do they 'own' the copyright, or did they just lease a chunk of it?
Posted by: Steve White   2011-04-16 13:55  

#2  Let the countersuits begin. Woo hoo
Posted by: whitecollar redneck   2011-04-16 13:52  

#1  Hunt's ruling came Friday in a Righthaven lawsuit against the Democratic Underground over the partial posting of a Review-Journal story -- and a Democratic Underground counterclaim against Righthaven and Stephens Media.

The Democratic Underground is the pretty much the sole reason why there's been some hi-profile legal firepower involved (a good portion pro bono) from places like Electronic Frontier Foundation.

But hey - wartime makes for strange allies.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-04-16 13:23  

00:00