Judge unseals Review-Journal/Righthaven contract (DU Case)

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Las Vegas Sun

A federal judge in Las Vegas on Friday unsealed the agreement for prosecuting copyright infringement lawsuits between Righthaven LLC and Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC.

As expected, the Jan. 18, 2010, Strategic Alliance Agreement shows the previously-confidential deal calls for Stephens Media to receive a cut of Righthaven's lawsuit proceeds, minus costs. That cut is 50 percent.

Over the objections of Righthaven and Stephens Media, Chief U.S. District Judge for Nevada Roger Hunt issued an order allowing the public to see the agreement allowing for copyrights from Stephens Media to be assigned to Righthaven for lawsuit purposes.

Laurence Pulgram, an attorney representing Righthaven defendant the Democratic Underground in the case, said this agreement shows Righthaven only obtains limited rights -- and this discovery may undermine all of Righthaven's lawsuits over Review-Journal material.



Read more: http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/apr/15/judge-unseals-review-journalrighthaven-contract/

[Downwinder]

1. Is this basis for a Bar referral?

[Jim Lane]

4. I don't see one.

The two companies made a deal. The newspaper provides the rights to the contents, Righthaven undertakes the expense and risk of suing the alleged infringers, and they split any proceeds. Whether there's actually any infringement is to be decided by the courts, not by the lawyer who's asked to draft the contract.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see the slightest basis for a Bar referral.

[christx30]

6. Righthaven

has no rights to anything except for the right to sue. Meaning that they incurred no actual "damages" when the copyrighted stuff was used. They say that something was stolen from them. But they didn't actually own it. They actually have no assets. Kind of like when a bank forecloses on a house that they do not own. The only word I can think of is fraud. I think the victims of Righthaven's business model have the right to seek reversal of all damages. And I think a case can be made for criminal prosecution.

[iemitsu]

2. yay for du.

providing not only discussion about what justice means but a model for attaining justice for themselves and others.

[Lasher]

3. Chickenshits at Stephens Media wanted to keep their dirty deal secret.

Greedy assholes.

[fasttense]

5. This blogger puts it clearly:

kbingh posted on the article

"Despite any such Copyright Assignment, Stephens Media
shall retain (and is hereby granted by Righthaven) an exclusive
license to Exploit the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights for any
lawful purpose whatsoever and Righthaven shall have no right or
license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from
the Exploitation of the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights
other than the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery.."

However in their court filings:

7. Righthaven is the owner of the copyright in and to the Work.

30. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to reproduce the Work, pursuant to 17

31. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the
Work, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106(2).

32. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to distribute copies of the Work, pursuant to
17 U.S.C. 106(3).

33. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to publicly display the Work, pursuant to 17."