Copyright troll Righthaven achieves spectacular "fair use" loss

[DainBramaged]

(if this is a dupe, please delete)


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."

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.

The company's most controversial cases have involved posters who only used a small percentage of the original article, or instances where Righthaven sued the very sources who had provided the basic information for an article, then posted the result to their own website. But Righthaven has also gone after many sites that posted the complete text of a newspaper article, something far less likely to be seen as fair use.

That was the case with the Oregon-based Center for Intercultural Organizing (CIO), which Righthaven sued in August 2010 after the group posted a Review-Journal newspaper article on the deportation of illegal immigrants on its own website. The case must have seemed like a good fit for Righthaven; it had found someone taking the entire article! Defense lawyers contented themselves with arguing that the case should be heard in Nevada, and it didn't even bother to contest the issue on fair use grounds.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/copyright-troll-righthaven-achieves-spectacular-fair-use-loss.ars

[csziggy]

1. !

[DeSwiss]

2. I really, really like the article's picture too!

RightHavenTroll

Oh, and this part too:

Steve Green, a reporter at the competing Las Vegas Sun newspaper, attended the hearing. Judge Mahan told both sides that the purpose of copyright law was to encourage creativity and to disseminate public access to information, so long as that did not unfairly hinder the market for the original story. In this case, Mahan said that the tiny Oregon nonprofit had essentially zero overlap between the readers of its website and the readers of the Review-Journal. In addition, the effect on the "market" for the work is unclear, since Righthaven is solely using the copyright to prosecute a lawsuit, not to defend its news operations (it has none).

The reposted article also fit within CIO's nonprofit educational mission, and the judge said that it was largely informational in nature, rather than creative.

The judge also blasted Righthaven for not notifying groups like CIO before filing a federal lawsuit; most would no doubt remove or limit the offending material if notified by the copyright holder.

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.

- K&R

[DainBramaged]

3. Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers

One year ago, U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could feel confident they controlled the news content they created.

It was understood that competing and special-interest websites couldn't appropriate that content and post it without authorization.

When such infringements occurred, they were dealt with swiftly and effectively with a simple phone call or email.

Infringing websites typically had re-posted material out of ignorance they were violating the Copyright Act and agreed to remove the material or replace it with a link to the source newspaper or broadcaster.

Then along came Righthaven LLC of Las Vegas, the self-appointed protector of the newspaper industry from such news sharers.

Some 250 Righthaven lawsuits later, Righthaven's startling achievement is that newspapers now have less -- not more -- protection from copyright infringers.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/

[kestrel91316]

4. With friends like Righthaven, newspapers don't need enemies.

:woohoo: :rofl: :popcorn: :applause: :spray:

[Codeine]

5. Sweet.

May their future hold many more such ignominious defeats.

[999998th word]

6. RH=scum

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DainBramaged]

7. Kick to kick copywrong trolls in the ass

[kudzu22]

8. It's about time

Laws were meant to protect the innocent, not to be used as a profit engine for lawyers (though I sometimes wonder about that). I remember after the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, some lawyer was going around suing every mom-n-pop business who didn't have a wheelchair ramp, or whose door was a half-inch too narrow. He'd settle for $10,000 and then move on to the next business to shake down. Disgusting.

[themadstork]

9. The judge has obviously done his homework re the history of copyright law. Great call, and it's nice

to see that some of our judges are still genuine scholars of the law, rather than corporate shills.


I keep kicking around a book I'm trying to write about our bizarre IP culture, but I've never really found a satisfactory way in to the topic that explains why anyone should read me, a non-specialist, on the subject. But stories like this inspire me to keep trying.

[backscatter712]

10. KEEP CURBSTOMPING 'EM, DU!!! n/t