Copyright troll Righthaven achieves spectacular "fair use" loss

Copyright troll Righthaven achieves spectacular "fair use" loss

arstechnica.com

Whoops—in its bid to sue hundreds of bloggers, commentors, and website operators from posting even a few sentences from newspaper stories, the copyright zealots at Righthaven have just scored an own goal. Last Friday, a federal judge ruled in one of the company's many lawsuits, saying that even the complete republication of copyrighted newspaper content can be "fair use."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Lets hope that the vile practice of preying on a potential community of millions of bloggers will finally come to a screeching halt.

If this ruling stands (even after the inevitable appeals to follow) it may establish a very persuasive precedent which actually, and ironically, was the result of the over-reaching of the "Copyright Troll" firm known as Righthaven.

We here have known for years now, that in order to analyze news and current events as a community, we have to be able to convey contents of the work in the field to each other.

In the past, Righthaven attorneys have both (mostly) successfully, and (to a lesser degree) unsuccessfully argued that copyright law, in it's current form, prohibits that use.

Righthaven has achieved national notoriety for its business model, which involves scouring the Web—including tiny blogs and nonprofits—for Las Vegas Review Journal and other newspaper stories. When it finds a match, Righthaven licenses the copyright from the cooperating newspaper and sues the article poster without warning for statutory damages of up to $150,000. In addition, it routinely demands that the poster's domain name be transferred to Righthaven.

Academics, scholars, and engaged citizens around the country have countered that "fair use" is a doctrine that frees the world to speak to one another about published news and material without fear of accusations and legal entanglements.

Thankfully, a few members of the judiciary have considered Righthaven to be incorrect.

As Green noted in a follow-up piece, the result here is almost comical: Righthaven goes to war in the name of tough copyright enforcement and winds up with a ruling that complete republication by some nonprofits falls under the scope of fair use. "Some 250 Righthaven lawsuits later, Righthaven's startling achievement is that newspapers now have less—not more—protection from copyright infringers," Green concluded.

Now the question is, how many of those wrongly targeted and
timidly submissive bloggers who simply 'gave up' and bought off the legal ordeal with their money (and even their domain names) will return to the table? Perhaps a class-action suit is forthcoming..... only the future will tell, I suppose.




arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Of all the people that ``drown accidentally in their bathtub`` ... why aren't those SOBs a few of them?

Seriously, suing blogs and average people for spreading news on internet is sick. I hope they get sued back into oblivion and that they end up on the street.

reply to post by Maxmars


A very promising development and good news for sites like ATS!

Hopefully additional rulings will follow in support of this view.

This loss couldn't happen to a more deserving group. Some things are just good to hear first thing in the morning. Finding out that Righthaven got their back ends handed to them in court is one of those good things.

It isn't that I don't see the value in copyright. As someone who puts a good deal of time and thought into the writing that I do for my blog and who has had my writing stolen and used by someone else who claimed it as theirs, I really can appreciate why copyright is necessary. I just think that what Righthaven does is a perversion of what the law was meant to be.

Hopefully they will also lose on their appeal. I had no doubt that they would appeal, and the article confirmed that they told the judge that they would be. I just hope that the appeal will reconfirm the ruling of the judge in this particular trial.

The ability to comment or criticize or use for scholarly purposes snippets of work created by another, especially when the author/creator is linked to or given attribution to send others to see the entire piece - traffic that they might have otherwise not gotten, is something that must be preserved. Fair use is something that helps information flow and without it we will see that flow get slower and slower.

As I said: couldn't happen to a more deserving group.

Take care,
Cindi

I'm getting ready to start a blog (again) and some of the info I get comes from the local weekly and ads I see around the local communities.If I stop using the local weekly and just use the ads then they have no support to file against me and by doing so would be fraud and yes I will file against them. things posted on the net are covered by copyright laws and if posted with permission from the publisher not supposed to be liable for the tactic.
It seems to me that Righthaven is a thief and wants to imperil the freedom of speech. and other constitutional rights.Also my blog is in pursuit of happiness as it gives me something to do.
Going on and on so I'll stop here

As fast as information spreads these days, isn't it ridiculous to think you won't make more money from your material being copied, pasted, duped and shared as many times as possible?

The average person will undoubtedly buy the for the sake of having the original source if it's a "good enough" source of said information or entertainment to begin with. Indeed, pride still exists, and it still, as it always has, compels the consummate quality seeker to pay for what they want to be proud of.

In other words, in today's climate of information explosion, coupled with unbridled consumerism, it becomes apparent after even a minuscule reflection, that "copyright" is the new "censorship" (which would justify an entirely separate thread).

Star and Flag OP

In talking with attorneys that I know personally, it seemed evident to them that the 'business model' adopted by the Righthaven senior partners was brazenly predatory and not really based on anything other than the window of opportunity. As legislation has been further and further molded by industry insiders, it was a relatively 'probable' development. In other words, no one was too surprised.

This was one of those 'Since we can do it, we will." deals. I suspect they made a pretty penny over the last few years on this campaign of so-called 'copyright protection' which seems to be underpinned by the internationally significant push for 'intellectual property rights' justice.

Fortunately, their greed may have gotten the better of them. The idea to protect someone's work has merit; but in my opinion, should not serve as an excuse to slash and burn every person with a rebuttal to, or opinion on, published work; the essence of 'fair use.'

It's as though, once the principle of "information as property" was married with corporate immortality, it was clear that those who 'own' information (a ludicrous concept - in my opinion) would expect profit in perpetuity for any exchange of that information.

Now that an opinion has been tendered allowing an entire article to be subject to fair use, Righthaven will have to develop a new strategy, or abandon this crusade. Perhaps they envision a Supreme Court case.... bring on the writ certiorari! We can already imagine who will be submitting the 'amicus' briefs supporting them can't we?

Probably those institutions manned by the RIAA, and MPAA, at the very least.... because this will echo in their realm as well.... Youtube, Google, and other such services that enable 'use' of copy-written video and audio should be paying attention as well.....

Copyright in the sense of media and entertainment was seriously flawed when it was first devised. Its a self destructing law where it can either be enforced or be completely removed.

reply to post by Maxmars


Just to make sure I understand what these people at Righthaven are doing (excuse me I am doped up on Allergy medicine, dang pollen count).......so these RightHaven People are not suing bloggers and other people for misuse of THEIR copyrighted material, but they are suing random people for alleged misuse of copy righted material that does not belong to RightHaven? Am I correct in saying this? If so, I do not understand why it is legal for them to sue on the behalf of someone else. Pre-Thanks for helping clarify for me.

For me the controversy here with regard to "Righthaven" is in that they are guilty of the crime called "Signal Jamming". According to the Protocols of the Geneva Convention signal jamming is a terrorist offense even when the communications "traffic" is that of an enemy combatant. Under no circumstance ever is it lawful to signal jam. Obviously the rich and the powerful ignor the Geneva Convention. Thus here we have a rich and powerful organization "Righthaven" pushing their luck to see how much money they can screw out of the system before it closes them down. "Righthaven" should be terminated because they are clearly not in the good interests of the general public well being. In my opinion "Righthaven" are a terrorist organization. It might end up with "Righthaven" serving time in prison in that they are committing a crime against humanity. I am a firm believer in the idea that all communications should be completely unhindered and ideally therefore all communications should be free of charge, since obviously charging a fee is a form of signal jamming too. So that in an ideal world [in heaven] the telephone the internet the radio the television the post and the rail and road all are completely free to use. Sadly we are not yet living in such a heaven on earth. Imagine a world where in artists were so fully funded by the state [federal reserve bank] via social security and grants that all the music and movies artists produce would be free of charge and completely without any copyright restrictions whatsoever ever. Obviously such communistic idealism is not compatible with the nightmare of hell in which we are living at this time in history. Unfortunately money has become our false god. It sings its tune and we all dance to it. "Righthaven" are basically in it for the money. They are not the idealists that some foolish might misguidedly think them to be.

vampirefreaks.com...

itunes.apple.com...

As a Guidance from Heaven in the year 2000 AD whilst celebrating the New Millennium I recieved an audio clairvoyant revelation which is now called PRAECEPTAE CAELENIUM [tm]. I did not read it in a book. You will not find it in any book. It was revealed to me spiritually by audio clairvoyance during the celebrations of the New Millennium in 2000. Summed up it basically means no sex no drugs and no violence.

(1) From eternity to eternity, infinity to infinity, there be the one absolute. The One God there be no other God. Her names are many but she be the one true God. The one judge there be no other judge. (2) La deus nostra, notre dame, our lady, The holy spirit, the cause the maker Cosmica. (3) Angelic powers of truth and beauty and righteousness be sure to be loving her above with all your mind and with all your heart and with all your strength. (4) So as to be pleasing to her above therefore do not be serving the masculine. (5) Do not be and do not allow masculinity into positions of government. (6) Honour and respect the virgin pureness of the christae. (7) Honour and respect the Immaculate Conception [parthenogenesis] reproductive process of the christae. (8) Do not fornicate or adulterate or sodomize. (9) Do not bully or torture or murder. (10) Do not lie. (11) Do not steal. (12) Do not be covetous. (13) Do not be jealous.

This "information" was revealled only to me. Am I thus able to claim it to be my copyright property ? Surely it is information that needs to be propagated as widely as possible with minimal obstructions. Thus copy and paste it so that it gets to be carried far and wide. Always free of chargely. It is the Word of God. The message is more important than the messenger.

AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
Copyright in the sense of media and entertainment was seriously flawed when it was first devised. Its a self destructing law where it can either be enforced or be completely removed.

In this case, the suits were absurd. However copyright law is absolutely needed. Imagine if somebody were tomorrow to start a site call AboveTopSecrets dot Com and make it identical to this site? Imagine an artist working on a graphic for hundreds of hours only to find it on the cover of a novel in another country (that actually happened to me). Imagine spending a year writing a book and then finding the full text posted on the Internet, destroying your sales.

Even though in this case what is happening is very wrong and wrong minded, copyright protection is very important. No doubt it is maddening to thieves who want to steal peoples work without paying, being fined or going to jail. Stealing peoples work is no different than stealing anything else. The people who do it need to be punished.

I'm not sure how exactly they go about enforcing copyrights in a fair manner with so many crooked Lawyers running around. It is a tough subject.

So... basically... we can go on a copy/pasting frenzy now (With the source of course) from any news outlet anywhere in the USA without fear of violating copyright laws?

Time to get our copy/paste on!



S&F

They can not have it both ways.
they wont the right to print any thing about any person.
so WE can do the same.
they steel are stuff.
so we can use there stuff.

Originally posted by leelo
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Just to make sure I understand what these people at Righthaven are doing (excuse me I am doped up on Allergy medicine, dang pollen count).......so these RightHaven People are not suing bloggers and other people for misuse of THEIR copyrighted material, but they are suing random people for alleged misuse of copy righted material that does not belong to RightHaven? Am I correct in saying this? If so, I do not understand why it is legal for them to sue on the behalf of someone else. Pre-Thanks for helping clarify for me.

I do not mean to be off-putting. But it would be imprudent of me to say more at the moment. I have recently been reminded that our community's hosts are facing a legal point of contention with the firm in question; and I do not wish to complicate matters for them by making a spurious remark, or expressing an opinion that can be considered prejudicial. While I am not an associate of the business, my informal relationship as a moderator compels me to be circumspect since anything I say could be considered a characterization which I may later regret having said. In fact, don't be too surprised if I stop posting to this thread altogether.

There is plenty of reference material on the web about what they do and how they do it. I would gladly point the way; but it's best if you pursue the details yourself. Of course, other members are free to exchange ideas on the topic here.... that's what we do.

This can be read to mean that I posted a huge thread with details and then got reminded and removed the material. Was I angry? Nope.

Originally posted by ugie1028
So... basically... we can go on a copy/pasting frenzy now (With the source of course) from any news outlet anywhere in the USA without fear of violating copyright laws?

Time to get our copy/paste on!

S&F

Not at all.

Anyway why would you?

Let's face it. It's better for all of us if we don't resort to mass copy and paste frenzies. I like it when I am given a tidbit with a link to follow. It lets me evaluate the source and introduces me to new sites and ideas. We are here to discuss the issues, relate facts, and most importantly - speak our minds.

If I want to see the whole article I go to it's host.

Doesn't that make more sense?

Anytime a blow is landed upon companies like this, you will always hear a cheer coming from me. Free information for all

Originally posted by buddha
They can not have it both ways.
they wont the right to print any thing about any person.
so WE can do the same.
they steel are stuff.
so we can use there stuff.

It is true that it cannot be had both ways.

A reasonable compromise must be reached.

But theft isn't real in the matter is it? If I read your words and told my wife about them, and she liked them so much that she told a friend; did she steal your thoughts? You still have them. It's not like they are gone. If you sell me your words in a book and I give it away, does that make the recipient a thief for because he didn't pay you? Of course not.

Information in not 'physical,' so laws about property must adapt to the reality.... they are slow in doing so.

Heres a site with some of the lawsuit stories:

Righthaven victims

These guys are lower than ambulance chasers.
I'll bet they were high fiving themselves when they came up with the idea for their business model.
Now if I only knew some good lawyer jokes.