Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

[nmap]

Something we might want to consider from a policy perspective.

Posting an entire article might be problematic - both for ps.com and for each of us as individuals.

It will be noticed I restricted myself to a brief excerpt and a link.


LINK

Excerpt: teve Gibson has a plan to save the media world’s financial crisis — and it’s not the iPad.

Borrowing a page from patent trolls, the CEO of fledgling Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission. And he says he’s making money.

[Axe]

It goes to show how people on a sinking ship will grab at anything that they think will float.

We will tell our grandchildren about paper-based newspapers the way our grandparents told us about sitting around the radio.

My kids, aged 12/15 already view newspapers as an anachronism.

[The Reaper]

Looks like Righthaven lost, at least in this case.

TR

Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use

• By David Kravets
• June 20, 2011 |
• 4:54 pm |
• Categories: The Courts, intellectual property

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...r-use-defense/

A federal judge ruled Monday that publishing an entire article without the rights holder’s authorization was a fair use of the work, in yet another blow to newspaper copyright troll Righthaven.

It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Monday’s ruling dismissed a lawsuit brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based copyright litigation factory jointly owned with newspaper publisher Stephens Media. The venture’s litigation tactics and ethics are being questioned by several judges and attorneys, a factor that also weighed in on U.S. District Judge Philip Pro’s decision Monday.

Righthaven has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers and commenters for copyright infringement. More than 100 have settled out of court.

(cont. at link)

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Looks like Righthaven lost, at least in this case.

Righthaven has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers and commenters for copyright infringement. More than 100 have settled out of court.

That's the money quote right there..."settled out of court." Easy money. What he's done though is provide a business model for every other lawyer looking to make a fast dollar with little risk.

[craigepo]

The Court's judgment contained a pretty good discussion of the defense of "fair-use", as it applies to the posting of articles online on discussion websites.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

That's the money quote right there..."settled out of court." Easy money. What he's done though is provide a business model for every other lawyer looking to make a fast dollar with little risk.

"Righthaven must own the copyright to sue on its behalf, Hunt ruled in a decision echoed by Judge Pro on Monday.

What’s more, in each of the 200-plus cases Righthaven brought on behalf of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles, Righthaven never disclosed, as required, that Stephens Media had a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome, Hunt wrote.

Many bloggers who settled are mulling their legal options."

They may yet recover their settlements.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...nearly-120000/

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...nearly-120000/

This sounds like Righthaven's days of bullying litigation may be on the decline, as well as their pocketbook. The bottom feeders need a good squashing.

[Baht Dog]

TR, nmap, anybody...have a bottom line analysis on this? I had thought that a few paragraphs with a "CLIP" and then the link to an article is generally considered "fair use". So which is it? The whole article is "fair use" or a few paragraphs. Or is the jury still out on this one.

Reminds me a bit of the ADA lawsuit industry particularly in California. What was meant to be laws helpful to disabled people, soon became an "ATM" machine for unscrupulous lawyers and others who would sue a small business for the smallest infractions such as an approach ramp not at just the right angle, a counter top a bit too high etc. The "scammers" would go in, case the joint and set the whole thing up. The businesses typically settle out of court for a few thousand that the California law stipulated and would typically make an agreement that they would rectify the "issue".

Another example of "Good Idea Fairy" gone amuck. I'm not against sensible laws to help the disabled - many of our brethren are. But the greedy vindictive Libs screw it up for everyone. Out of both sides of their mouths.

[Roguish Lawyer]

The safest approach is to use a link and not to quote the entire article. It's generally OK to quote portions of an article for discussion purposes, and it often is OK to post the whole article. But we would prefer that people not post full articles since it could lead to frivolous lawsuits we would prefer not to have to waste our (actually my) time defending.

P.S. Usually when you want legal advice it is smart to ask a lawyer.