Attorneys say new evidence shows fraud by Righthaven

[Newsjock]

Source: Las Vegas Sun

Defense attorneys in at least two Righthaven LLC copyright infringement lawsuits filed motions to dismiss over the weekend, citing new evidence they say shows Righthaven has perpetrated a fraud on the federal court in Nevada.

The evidence cited is the newly-unsealed Strategic Alliance agreement http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/apr/15/judge-unseals-review-journalrighthaven-contract/">covering copyright assignments from Stephens Media LLC, owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, to Righthaven.

... "Righthaven is neither the owner nor exclusive holder of any rights in the copyrighted work underlying this lawsuit. As such, Righthaven has suffered no injury or other cognizable harm required for it to have standing’’ to sue, said one of the filings by attorneys Marc J. Randazza and J. Malcolm DeVoy IV.

... "Righthaven has willfully deceived this court. Righthaven fought mightily to keep this evidence from the public and from all defendants in its legion of cases brought in this district. An examination of the document and its implications for Righthaven’s business model make the reason plain – it reveals the unlawful nature of Righthaven’s actions before this court and renders all of its lawsuits null and void,’’ the filing said.

Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/apr/17/attorneys-say-new-evidence-shows-fraud-righthaven/

[hlthe2b]

1. Oh, please...please please..

One can only hope....:applause:

[Old and In the Way]

2. Everyone of those cases may now be ripe for a legitimate countersuit.

Wouldn't that be ironic if they were totally destroyed by the same process that they sought to profit on?

[DissedByBush]

14. They won't be destroyed

They have no assets.

They were created as a front to sue, countersuits face empty pockets.

That's why the newspaper itself didn't do it.

[valerief]

19. So that means another front will need to be created to do the suing. Righthaven Deux, perhaps. nt

[hlthe2b]

3. Time to give a big nod to the Electronic Frontier Foundation

that is defending DU. They are emerging as every bit as important to electronic rights as ACLU is to general civil rights. 'Wish I had lots of $$ to give them both. ;)


Here's a link to a nice informative article on EFF and its defense of DU, as well as a bit of "prophetic" reporting...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/20/defendants-fight-back-against-righthaven-copyright/

[canetoad]

12. Good link, thanks.

I'm salivating over this para:

The story at issue involving Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle allegedly was posted not by the Democratic Underground webmaster but by a third-party message-board user; just four paragraphs of the 34-paragraph Review-Journal story were posted, the Review-Journal was fully credited in the post and there was a link from the post to the Review-Journal website.

[DeSwiss]

4. "Hoist by their own petard."

- K&R

[defendandprotect]

5. kr

[chollybocker]

6. Nail these leeches, DU.

;)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. It never made sense to me how Righthaven could sue for damages ...

... that happened BEFORE Righthaven acquired the asset. Righthaven acquired the asset AFTER the "harm" was done so why should they be able to claim damages? Whatever consideration Righthaven offered in the contract was done with full knowledge the asset was damaged goods.

If I buy a used car at a substantial discount due to a crushed fender can I then turn around and sue the other driver who caused the original damage? Damage done prior to me taking title to the vehicle?

This reminds me of the old story my father told me about a Chicago City Bus carrying three passengers involved in a fender bender. The driver forgot to lock the door after the accident. Eighteen people were carried off the bus on stretchers and wearing neck collars.

[Tunkamerica]

10. that was a problem but this is actually even worse for righthaven

they only acquired the right to sue from the paper. None of the other rights were transferred so they had absolutely no damages in any of the cases. Even if they'd gotten the right to sue initially it wouldn't have mattered since they didn't own the copyright. Or that's what it seems should be the ruling. You can never tell what judges will do sometimes.

[rayofreason]

8. Go DU!!!

What a great service the DU is doing in knocking down these leeches!

[Turborama]

9. K&R & Thanks for keeping us updated. n/t

[JohnnyRingo]

11. Good! ...Righthaven is nothing but a legal predator.

They actually give ambulance chasers a bad name.

While you and I would be slammed for introducing frivolous lawsuits, Righthave have make it their livlihood. I don't know why this tactic of buying news stories from small town papers, then suing any one who excerpts it, hasn't been slapped for clogging the courts.

As I recall, they had their greasy hands around the throat of DU for a while because we posted excerpts, excerpts of articles they bought.

[LiberalFighter]

13. They need to push for disbarment of Righthaven attorneys.

Or somehow make it difficult for them to do business.

[JHB]

15. Not just disbarment...

Doesn't this constitute fraud? Put them behind bars.

[valerief]

20. They'll probably run for the Senate as Republicans. nt

[JPZenger]

16. Its very clear this paper doesn't want anyone to see their content

It is very clear that the Las Vegas Review-Journal doesn't want anyone to read their content. Therefore, I hope no one ever goes to their website, links to their articles, mentions any of their articles or buys their paper.

They can keep their content all to themselves, in their offices.

[Kingofalldems]

17. K and R

[crim son]

18. I have read that most cases were settled.

Did they actually ever win in court? And how so?

[cognoscere]

24. Win in court? Ha ha...good one. The legalized extortion which our

justice system has become,(both civil and criminal)don't need no stinking court. All anyone has to do is tell someone, "If you don't pay me a smaller sum of money, I'll sue your ass and you'll pay the same or more to your attorneys and still run the risk of paying me anyway." It works the same way in criminal cases, where the DA piles on all kinds of charges, real and otherwise, to scare the defendant, and then offers a plea bargain "deal" on one or two of them. SCO tried the same shit by claiming they owned the code for UNIX and threatening everyone with lawsuits if they didn't settle. Heil Amerika.

[crim son]

26. That's what I thought. Incredible. n/t

[notesdev]

21. Awesome

Seeing Righthaven get reamed would definitely restore some of my lost faith in humanity. Go DU!!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. TechDirt article: Righthaven Tells Judge Handling All Its Colorado Cases That He's Wrong

from the that'll-go-over-well dept

And here we go with the third in our series of posts on Righthaven's potential self-destruction. Already today we've covered how a judge in Nevada slammed the company for its legal tactics and ordered an incredibly damaging filing unsealed, which shows what appears to be proof that Stephens Media didn't really assign the copyrights to its content to Righthaven, potentially taking all of the lawsuits Righthaven has filed over Stephens Media content, and blowing them out of the water. Of course, Righthaven has one other client -- MediaNews, the publisher of the Denver Post. Many of Righthaven's recent cases have been filed over Denver Post content (with a single photograph being key to a bunch of them). While the previous two stories cover the relationship between Righthaven and Stephens Media, it's not entirely clear what the relationship is between the Denver Post and Righthaven (though, you have to imagine someone's now going to seek to find out...).

However, just last week, we noted that all of Righthaven's cases concerning Denver Post content were being handled by a single judge, Judge John Kane, and he was not at all impressed with Righthaven's business model. That ruling came in a particular case, involving a young man named Brian Hill, "a mentally and physically disabled," 20-year old. As we noted, after the judge slammed Righthaven, the company filed an extremely petulant dismissal notice on the case. Apparently, the judge only accepted part of the dismissal notice, leading Righthaven to file an amended dismissal notice which continues with Righthaven's standard petulant tone, but this time has some of it directed at the judge (thanks to Eric Goldman for highlighting this).

more..
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110416/01323713925/righthaven-tells-judge-handling-all-its-colorado-cases-that-hes-wrong.shtml

[marions ghost]

23. thanks for posting

:thumbsup:

[xchrom]

25. Recommend

[Lithos]

27. Ars article

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/righthaven-reeling-secret-doc-could-doom-a-copyright-troll.ars

[myrna minx]

28. K&R n/t

[WillyT]

29. K & R !!!

:kick:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Delete

Not a dupe. Different forum. Sorry.

[No Elephants]

31. EXCELLENT!