Be careful posting from these websites - DU suer Righthaven has a new media client

[RamboLiberal]

Righthaven since March has retroactively sued at least 103 website owners around North America after determining copyrights to Las Vegas Review-Journal stories were infringed on, and then obtaining the copyrights to those stories from the Review-Journal's owner Stephens Media LLC.

-----

Separately, Righthaven has picked up a new client: WEHCO Media, a privately-owned company in Little Rock, Ark., that has 15 daily newspapers, 13 weekly newspapers and 13 cable television companies in Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee.

Its biggest papers include the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock and the Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee.

Paul Smith, president of WEHCO Newspapers Inc., said in a Democrat-Gazette story Thursday: "It's a pretty serious matter when someone takes your copy, information you've spent a lot of money to produce."


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/26/judge-questions-righthaven-over-r-j-copyright-suit/

On edit - check these websites:

http://m.wehco.com/Content/HTM/about.htm

http://www.stephensmedia.com/newspapers/

LBN post that prompted me to post this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4519450

[EFerrari]

1. It's good to have a reminder up for people who aren't aware of fair use rules.

:kick:

[Hawkeye-X]

2. OK folks. What is the alternate newspaper there then?

Righthaven can go to hell. The judge recently ruled that they're leery of these extortion suits. And he can shut the business down faster than anything else.

And the bloggers are fighting back.

Hawkeye-X

[LynneSin]

11. People just need to follow the DU rules and the mods need to enforce this

I mean we saw when this happened to the Free Republic and I think they are being sued again. OF course they are sued by the giants like the LA Times and the Washington Post. We're sued by some minor newpaper group that happens to be owned by right-wing hacks.

[RamboLiberal]

12. Nope - rules were followed and DU was still sued by Righthaven

DU is being sued for posting 4 paragraphs from Las Vegas Review-Journal out of 34 paragraphs and link back to Las Vegas Review-Journal was posted.

Court records show the Review-Journal posted a 34-paragraph story on its website May 13 about Republican Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle titled "Tea Party power fuels Angle."

The records show that on the same day, Democratic Underground website user ..... posted the first four paragraphs of that story, crediting it to the Review-Journal, and included a link to the rest of the story on the Review-Journal website.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/11/righthaven-sues-democratic-underground-website-ove/

I removed the user name.

For example, one of its recent lawsuits is against the political forum Democratic Underground, where a user (not the site owner), quoted a mere 4 paragraphs of a 34 paragraph story -- and included a link to the full story. No matter, Righthaven sued. As it does in all of these lawsuits, it's demanding $75,000. The number is carefully chosen, because it's less than what going to court will likely cost. The idea is to just get people to pay up, even if the legal claims are bogus. Beyond the $75,000, it's laughably demanding that the domain name of the site be turned over as well.

Righthaven tries to avoid the obvious DMCA safe harbor issue with the following:

"The defendants' failure to institute any proactive policies intended to address the posting by others of copyright-infringing content on the website constituted and constitutes the defendants' willful blindness to copyright infringements occurring on the website ..."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100812/01454910601.shtml

[DirkGently]

18. Yep. This is bad faith lawyering to the extreme

They're not limiting themselves to suing people that arguably go beyond fair use. They're making bad faith claims in an abusive, sweeping fashion, as a business proposition. They'll eventually get nailed with sanctions and shut down, but who knows how many small bloggers and commentators they will extort and run out of business in the meantime. This is a repugnant, willfully vile tactic, and I hope the backlash against the publishers participating in it is severe.

[RamboLiberal]

13. BTW - RW thinks Righthaven is an Obama plant

They actually have linked back the CEO to working with Michelle at law firm in infringment law.

[RandomThoughts]

3. Because they never owned it in the first place.

They just can't accept that.

[mike r]

4. WEHCO Media's websites are on this list:

http://m.wehco.com/Content/HTM/about.htm

[RamboLiberal]

5. Thanks - and this is original group that owns Las Vegas Review-Journal

and other podunk papers. http://www.stephensmedia.com/newspapers/

[AndyA]

6. People just need to follow DU's rules.

Only a couple of paragraphs from the article, clearly marked as an excerpt, then a link back to the article. There shouldn't be a problem with that.

Corporate America is wonderful, isn't it? Always looking for a new way to screw the people. :puke:

[RamboLiberal]

7. Wrong on this one - Righthaven is suing for any paragraphs posted

DU is being sued for posting 4 paragraphs from Las Vegas Review-Journal out of 34 paragraphs and link back to Las Vegas Review-Journal was posted.

Court records show the Review-Journal posted a 34-paragraph story on its website May 13 about Republican Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle titled "Tea Party power fuels Angle."

The records show that on the same day, Democratic Underground website user ..... posted the first four paragraphs of that story, crediting it to the Review-Journal, and included a link to the rest of the story on the Review-Journal website.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/11/righthaven-sues-democratic-underground-website-ove/

I removed the user name.

For example, one of its recent lawsuits is against the political forum Democratic Underground, where a user (not the site owner), quoted a mere 4 paragraphs of a 34 paragraph story -- and included a link to the full story. No matter, Righthaven sued. As it does in all of these lawsuits, it's demanding $75,000. The number is carefully chosen, because it's less than what going to court will likely cost. The idea is to just get people to pay up, even if the legal claims are bogus. Beyond the $75,000, it's laughably demanding that the domain name of the site be turned over as well.

Righthaven tries to avoid the obvious DMCA safe harbor issue with the following:

"The defendants' failure to institute any proactive policies intended to address the posting by others of copyright-infringing content on the website constituted and constitutes the defendants' willful blindness to copyright infringements occurring on the website ..."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100812/01454910601.shtml

[AndyA]

16. I would think that would get tossed.

Once a court finds out that this company is doing what they're doing so they can sue to make a profit, that is surely a legal gray area, and would not be appreciated by the court.

At any rate, I suppose at some point DU and other sites could just say, no copy and pasting from other sites, and no outside links. Then other sites will be mad because of the traffic they've lost, ad revenue will decline, etc. Greed is a wonderful thing.

[RamboLiberal]

17. I think you'd be safe just posting the link

And being very careful describing in your own words what is jist of story.

IMHO the suit will depend on the internet savvy of a judge - and I have no faith in a judge having a real understanding.

[DirkGently]

20. That's exactly the type of post they sued DU over.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. These traditional print publishers

Need to get into the habit of putting a disclaimer/copyright on every single piece of material. The web publishing groups (two) that I belong to that are for 'original written content' - we plaster it all over our pages/posts. I.E. you can't copy and paste in entirety but please reach out if you would like to. I've never turned anyone down that wanted to grabe say 80%of an article from my site - but as non-traditional and an upstart? I'm of the opinion the more links to my site the better.

And that's what I don't get - why wouldn't they want to drive as much traffic to their sites as possible? They are cutting off their nose to spite their face with this nonsense.

[LiberalAndProud]

9. How oes it work?

Seriously, if I click on a link that takes me to their site, do I need to click on an ad to generate revenue for them?

I would, because what would we talk about here if they weren't doing their thing?

[LiberalAndProud]

10. ^I''m not editing for a stupid stubborn d key, either.

[gateley]

14. No, not a political agenda, just money. It's always about the money.

/snip

Because Review-Journal editorials are generally critical of Reid and Democrats, some critics have charged Righthaven may have a political agenda and among its lawsuit targets is the Democratic Party of Nevada. But Righthaven has also sued several conservative websites and bloggers. /snip

:puke:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/11/righthaven-sues-democratic-underground-website-ove/

Edit to add link - hope that's enough. :scared:

[RamboLiberal]

15. Actually Google Righthaven Obama

RW'ers are convinced this is an Obama plot & have tied CEO back to Obama.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/115/505/RightHaven_the_Blog_and_Forum_lawsuit_firm_and_the_ties_to_Obama....SHOCKING.html

Guess we & Democratic Party in Nevada are collateral damage for Obama. :evilgrin: Or maybe we have criticized Obama too much and Rahm wants to shut us down. :sarcasm:

[EC]

19. Don't these papers realize they gain hits to their papers

site when segments with links are posted elsewhere? It probably ups their readerships...

[DirkGently]

21. Precisely. They're shooting themselves in the rear.