Comments (36) | Add a comment
Federal judge rules Las Vegas firm can't sue over copyright infringement
Tools
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
A Las Vegas-based company does not have the right to file copyright infringement lawsuits over Review-Journal content, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
In a 16-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed a case filed in August by Righthaven against Democratic Underground.
"We're studying the ruling, which primarily affects Righthaven," said Mark Hinueber, the Review-Journal's vice president and general counsel. He declined to comment further.
In his order, Hunt also expressed his belief that Righthaven "has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the court."
The judge specifically cited Righthaven's failure to list Stephens Media, which owns the Review-Journal, as an interested party in the case.
"Not only did Righthaven fail to identify Stephens Media as an interested party in this suit, the Court believes that Righthaven failed to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in any of its approximately 200 cases filed in this District," Hunt wrote.
The Nevada judge gave Righthaven two weeks to explain in writing why it should not be sanctioned "for this flagrant misrepresentation to the Court."
Las Vegas attorney Steve Gibson, Righthaven's chief executive officer, said that "certainly there was no intent" to be dishonest with the court.
Gibson said he will review the decision with Righthaven's lawyers and evaluate appeal options.
"It's important to recognize that Righthaven respects the judiciary and respects judicial decisions," he said.
Gibson said the ruling left him pondering an interesting question: If Righthaven does not have "standing," or the right to file a lawsuit, then who does?
Righthaven and Stephens Media entered into an agreement in January 2010 that gave Righthaven the right to bring and profit from copyright infringement cases involving Stephens Media content.
But Hunt ruled that the agreement was insufficient to give Righthaven legal standing in such cases.
The judge also ruled that Righthaven previously failed to disclose a portion of the agreement that granted Stephens Media a 50 percent interest in any damages recovered, minus costs.
Hunt allowed Democratic Underground's counterclaim against Stephens Media to proceed.
Gibson said the judge issued his ruling without allowing the parties to present oral arguments.
"We certainly hope that we will be given that opportunity with respect to the other cases that have standing at issue," he said. "But that is with absolutely no disrespect to Judge Hunt and his decision."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Las Vegas attorney Chad Bowers are defending Democratic Underground. The following statement from senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl appeared Tuesday on the foundation's website:
"Today's decision shows that Righthaven's copyright litigation business model is fatally flawed, and we expect the decision to have wide effect on the over 270 other cases Righthaven has brought."
Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
This is the FIRST story from the RJ regarding Righthaven. Shame on you RJ. But what can we expect from a paper that endorsed Sharon Angle?
none --- the answers you seek are in this....
http://tinyurl.com/4xs2h83
I for one am thrilled to see Righthaven finally being taken out of the equation legally, and I hope it stands and all of their other related cases dismissed. The RJ has a right and a business fidiciary responsibility to ensure that copyright violations are minimized, and any repostings attributed, that I agree with. But, rather than having one or two people checking for agregious violations, they chose to outsource their rights. Righthaven took that cash cow and got out of control. To file suit against every blogger, big and small that they can find, every startup news website that is likely not making any profits from their efforts is insane. The Righthaven business plan is one that should not be allowed by the legal system.
As for standing, I would think the contract with the RJ could have allowed a part time minimum wage RJ employee to appear in court as a symbolc person with standing for the RJ and Righthaven as council rather than trying to assign standing to Righthaven. The issue of not being honest with the court and including Stephens Media is just sloppiness, and another reason Righthaven shouldn't be able to continue. They have proven to be greedy, incompetant, and dishonest.
As an open source advocate I do not like copyright protection anymore than anyone else. So, how is it record companies can sue ordinary people for file sharing then? For musicians create the music (ie. journal-review creates written content) and the record companies (ie. righthaven - owners of copyright) want to protect their intellectually property from unauthorized use. Is it all well and good if only the Journal-Review does the sueing? And, just how is Righthaven in the wrong, again?
I am amazed that the R-J's lawyers didn't figure out the flaw in this scheme when they entered the agreement with Righthaven. It seems completely obvious. If this issue was not sufficiently identified prior to inking the Righthaven agreement, then it sounds like someone might need to obtain better legal advice.
ReichHaven can go F themselves........Nazi pigs.
Good decision. Maybe these less than ethical lawyers will get sanctioned and get a real job.
Stephens Media and Righthaven, one in the same. They preach how important small business is to the economy and bash organized labor in almost every story. But the little man is bashed and punished by them with the dirty actions that they take. A huge black eye for Stephens Media, but also a black eye for the Chamber of Commerce. Actions speak louder than words.
Bravo for the Review-Journal for fighting Righthaven and obtaining the correct result from the federal court.
I like how the Rjay is filtering out these comments that are real negative about them. Way to go Rjay! This is why I do not buy your publication. heheheehhee!