Legal attack dog sicked on websites accused of violating R-J copyrights

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/04/unlikely-targets-emerging-war-media-content/

<snip>

Righthaven’s procedure has been to “troll” to 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 afterward sues the infringer.

Buying the copyright is an important step because it allows Righthaven to seek statutory damages. (Some of the defendants are arguing that Righthaven lacks standing to sue them because Righthaven didn’t own the copyrights at the time of the initial infringement.)

None of the contested Righthaven cases has advanced to the point where a trial has been scheduled. Judges as of Friday had not yet ruled on the motions for dismissal or the other legal arguments by defendants.

Randazza says it will be interesting to see if any of the federal judges award much more than a few hundred dollars in these mom-and-pop cases — given the defendants’ lack of intent to steal anything and the lack of any profit they earned by reposting R-J stories.

<snip>

Lots more about this 'startup' company and the various legal opinions on what it's doing in the full article.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Are they using it for censorship?

Is it targeted? That alone opens up fair use concepts.

[Renew Deal]

3. No, extortion.

Monsanto-esque

[xultar]

2. They are fucked. No one would read their shit if it wasn't posted.

[qb]

4. Who needs R-J? I've never heard of it.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Las Vegas Review-Journal. DU is being sued by Righthaven.