Newspaper chain fights for copyright troll's survival

[n2doc]

by David Kravets, wired.com

Stephens Media, the Las Vegas-based media chain, is fighting to keep its latest business model alive: copyright-trolling.

After standing on the sidelines while professional content-troll Righthaven fights in court, the newspaper company that seeded the venture joined the fray late Tuesday, telling a federal judge who questioned the business model’s latest iteration that the litigation factory is not a “sham.”

Stephens Media invested $500,000 a year ago in an upstart called Righthaven and authorized the venture to sue bloggers and websites for infringement of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles. But Stephens Media, which owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal and a host of other outlets, is running into a judicial brick wall, and it has nothing to do with the copyright allegations lodged in more than 200 suits in Nevada and dozens elsewhere.

Stephens Media told Chief US District Judge Roger Hunt of Nevada that it revised the business arrangement, and ceded its content to Righthaven to cure any standing issues.

But the problem with the latest, revised model is that Stephens Media wants to have its cake and it eat too.

more

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/newspaper-chain-fights-for-copyright-trolls-survival.ars

[Donnachaidh]

1. it may not be a scam -- but it sure was a BAD investment on their part.

In this case -- too freaking bad dude.

[struggle4progress]

2. I think the normal route would have been for Stephens Media to agree with an attorney

that said attorney would assume "litigation risks and costs" in exchange for "50 percent cut from any settlements or verdicts"

The actual setup suggests two things to me:

(1) Stephens Media isn't suing directly because somebody warned them they could incur big liabilities from countersuits and suggested they set up a shell company as a shield;

(2) The litigation strategy was regarded as so unlikely to succeed, that Stephens Media couldn't find an attorney willing to assume "litigation risks and costs"