Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Righthaven Defies Court In Domain Name Ruling

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the upping-the-ante dept.

The Courts 148

Hugh Pickens writes "Copyright troll Righthaven makes their money by coercing defendants of alleged copyright infringement into settling with them with threats of $150,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names. Now EFF reports that Chief Judge Hunt of the federal court in Nevada, which is overseeing more than 200 Righthaven copyright cases, has dismissed Righthaven's merit-less claim to seize its victim's domain names. Righthaven contended that the mere hosting of any infringing material meant that the entire domain name was forfeit but the judge rejected that claim, explaining that the 'Court finds that Righthaven's request for such relief fails as a matter of law and is dismissed.' But now Righthaven has filed a new copyright case in Nevada federal court that not only demands forfeiture of the domain name but has asked the Court to 'order the surrender to Righthaven of all hardware, software, electronic media and domains, including the Domain used to store, disseminate and display the unauthorized versions of any and all copyrighted works.' The new complaint also asserts that Righthaven holds the 'exclusive rights' to Stephens Media news articles, despite the Strategic Alliance Agreement showing that Stephens Media retains these rights."

cancel ×

148 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Proof Positive (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35928986)

The fact that "Righthaven" are even allowed into court any more, in any jurisdiction, is proof positive that the justice system is broken.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929034)

haha, total win....

Re:Proof Positive (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929036)

So you don't even believe in the justice system at all, even when this is an example of times when it actually *works*? wow. Should this just be judge, jury, executioner instead?

Even if Righthaven may be a copyright troll doesn't mean that shouldn't be determined by court. We do have a constitution you know.

Re:Proof Positive (2)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929116)

Serious question. If someone "cries wolf" too often, why shouldn't they eventually be disallowed from suing others?

Of course, maybe what Righthaven is doing doesn't count as "crying wolf", in which case, my question becomes a hypothetical.

Re:Proof Positive (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929184)

No, of course not. It's entirely possible for someone to cry wolf 500 times, and then later suffer a legitimate injustice.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929356)

Exactly... and this is also exactly why such a thing as sanctions exist. If an entity abuses a court then they should be sanctioned as punishment.

thompson? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929848)

Kind of like jack thompson, finally got disbarred and banned from bringing suit after all his videogame failures

Re:Proof Positive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929510)

That begs the question whether by that time any ill comings upon them could still be labeled "injust". Say... nuking them from orbit. Injust? I don't think so.

I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment... I just believe that cruel and unusual are relative to the crime. Jailing someone for double-parking would be cruel and highly unusual; holding a public execution of Righthaven lawyers... not so much.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929708)

I'm not familiar with this word, "injust".

Re:Proof Positive (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929576)

No, of course not. It's entirely possible for someone to cry wolf 500 times, and then later suffer a legitimate injustice.

It's entirely possible for them to think about that prior to crying wolf 500 times.

It's entirely possible for them to be held up as an example to others, a warning against those who might feel inclined to similarly cry wolf.

Particularly when their crying wolf is not a matter that's just between themselves and the judge, but involves the legal intimidation of innocents. All of these strong-arm tactics are over a relatively trivial matter like unauthorized copying, not gang violence or warfare or impending catastrophe.

So now they are following the latest trend and trying to go after domains and equipment. They're following in the footsteps of what the government is doing in the name of safety and anti-terrorism, methods they no doubt admire. That's the latest escalation, then? Copyright cases need a "loser pays" system, where the loser of a case has to pay all of the opposition's legal expenses (perhaps times 1.5). Remove the profit from being a copyright troll and embolden the recipients of these threats to insist that the cases go to court. That's the best long-term solution to this kind of company. It also addresses the apparent rarity of such reasonable judges as this one.

Re:Proof Positive (2)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929990)

Well in England, if you do that, you get listed as a vexatious litigant usually after the 5th or 6th time, which means you aren't allowed to sue anyone else.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/AboutUs/Pages/VexatiousLitigants.aspx [attorneygeneral.gov.uk]

Re:Proof Positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35930566)

Wouldn't work in the United States of Dumbfuckistan.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929208)

It takes a lot, but there have been cases where lawyers have found themselves disbarred after abusing the legal system too often. This, in my opinion, is just such a case. Making claims that cannot be proven, and worse, claims which can and have been disproven shows that this "legal professional" is reckless at the very least and most likely a lot worse.

Personally, I think organizations that exist for the purpose of pure intellectual property enforcement should be disallowed entirely. There is entirely too much trolling going on where patent, copyright and even trademark "defence" is concerned. Entirely too much and entirely inappropriate. There should be a law.

Re:Proof Positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929254)

Jack who?

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931394)

The problem there, is that you can disbar their lawyers all you want... but the fucktards at Righthaven will just hire another shyster lawyer.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929228)

Yes but it has to be very extreme cases. The Righthaven suits are just beginning. Also there is a difference between filing suits that have no chance of winning and filing suits that have no merit. Righthaven is dangerously close to the latter.

Re:Proof Positive (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929864)

I'm thinking they are really pushing their luck filing a new case with claims that the same court has already dismissed as being unenforceable under law. These guys have already pissed this judge off, if they don't watch out he's likely to go after their license. The judge has already admonished them that using the federal circuit as a business office is not the intent of the law, trying to refile the same claims he has rejected in a similar case is really just asking to have the hammer brought down on their heads.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

platypussrex (594064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931812)

Someone above made the comment that if lawyers are disbarred, the company just hires more lawyers, and while that's true, what the judge should (and may well) do is to impose monetary sanctions on RIghthaven itself. No amount of disbarred lawyers will make that go away.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929238)

Yes, a vexatious litigant can be disallowed from filing suits, but it's pretty rare that it actually happens.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929336)

I say let them continue to file. And at the same time donate to EFF & other organizations who are willing to fight them. The reason? Easy, ever time a copyright troll loses a case like this, is another nail in the coffin for broken copyright law.
If I was a copyright holder I'd start taking the fact that these guys are idiots seriously and try to find a way to stop them.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929686)

You're right. They're digging themselves a hole deep and wide enough that others are likely to fall into it as well. I'm guessing that they're about to get spanked pretty hard. If the judiciary is smart they'll stop them immediately before the hole gets wider. Giving them enough rope to hang themselves, while fun to watch, also can have a backlash produced by the tolerance of such a folly.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929722)

They opened a shitload of cases. Only lately are they getting proper scrutiny. It takes people a little while to open their eyes to this kind of abuse of the legal system.

If they keep it up, it's entirely possible that their lawyers could be sanctioned, but that's also for a judge to decide.

Re:Proof Positive (2)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929988)

They have been heard. Many times.
The problem is that they have not been found by the courts as of yet to be a complete waste of the air they breathe.
They should have been disbarred long ago. The reason people hate lawyers is because it is lawyers that have allowed these people to continue to practice law.
There is NO reason for Righthaven to still exist. None.

Re:Proof Positive (2)

zildgulf (1116981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930328)

We do NOT have a Constitutional right to sue everyone and anyone with frivolous lawsuits indefinitely. "Righthaven" has gone full nuts and filed a lawsuit that doesn't have a snowballs' chance in H*LL given the previous ruling, which, by my definition, is frivolous. When this lawsuit is shutdown and another even more grandiose lawsuit, not appeal, is filed by "Righthaven" comes to this court he should be slapped with a lifetime ban on filling ALL lawsuits in this court.

And yes, when the courts allow such frivolous lawsuits and SLAPP lawsuits to be filed (which are just as annoying), without challenge, these are indications that that specific court system is completely broken.

Re:Proof Positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35930736)

So you don't even believe in the justice system at all, even when this is an example of times when it actually *works*? wow. Should this just be judge, jury, executioner instead?

Interestingly, the judicial process is supposed to work all the time. So how much failure in the process are you willing to tolerate?The fact that you've gone from "broken judicial system" to "anarchy" in one sentence is indicative of your inability to defend a tolerance for a broken system. How about this - how broken a system would you be willing to tolerate, before declaring it unfit for democracy?

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929110)

> The fact that "Righthaven" are even allowed into court any more, in any jurisdiction, is proof positive that the justice system is broken.

Wrong.

Although their lawyers may be sanctioned for something like this, depending on whether they have any meritorious legal arguments.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929832)

The entire point of functional, working justice system is that ANYONE, regardless of how deep in the wrong you think they are is allowed to bring their grievances to it.

Another merit of a functional justice system is that it also denies petitions of such parties AFTER considering them. Not before.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

zildgulf (1116981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930664)

Before or after the defendant must hire a lawyer and take off of work, to defend himself/herself dozen or hundreds of times over from a vexatious litigant? Usually it is after. This does NOT count when the vexatious litigant files dozens of ridiculously frivolous lawsuits and the court system ALLOWS him/her to withdraw the lawsuits before going forward.

If we followed your rules I would be allowed to sue everyone on Earth a dozen times each for a million of dollars for no good reason, clearly a mountain of frivolous lawsuits. Do you realize that the court system grinds to a halt while this mountain of lawsuits has to be processed by everyone in the system just to be denied? That would takes years to do that. Then I could do this strategically and repeatedly to impede any and every legitimate lawsuit. Now imagine a hundred people doing this to a civil court system in a major city. The entire civil court system would crash and blue screen just like Windows when it has rampant processes chewing up every bit of CPU time.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930706)

Your quarrel is with the US implementation of the system (which is massively flawed). Not with the principle, which is a cornerstone of Western justice system.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930996)

Except that you'd need trillions of dollars to pay the court fees to sue everyone on earth a dozen times each, plus when the lawsuits are shown to be without merit you should be required to pay legal fees and damages from the time required of the defendants.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931432)

In other words, you'd have to be:

- The MafiAA
- Microsoft
- Sony
- Righthaven

Need I go on?

Re:Proof Positive (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930800)

Another merit of a functional justice system is that it also denies petitions of such parties AFTER considering them. Not before.

Exactly.

Judge: I've seen you here before, Righthaven. How is this case different than the last I judged?
Righthaven: It's not, Your Honor. Just hoping you'd have forgotten.
Judge: Thank you for corroborating my thoughts on the matter. Case dismissed. See you next time.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930956)

A better definition would include penalties for losing, especially when the case is so obviously without merit because it cites nonexistent laws, cites a state law in a federal case, and includes points which have already been rejected by the very same judge.

I wouldn't mind them filing bogus case after bogus case, as long as they had to pay when they lost.

But to allow ANYONE to file without penalty for being a jackass is not a sign of a functional justice system.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931992)

The requirement of effort to bring the case forward is obvious. However when you start limiting WHO can bring the grievance to attention, where do you draw the line?

History is full of examples where such limits were quickly subverted to serve various interests. Which is why it's much better to have a system with minimal penalties, and where anyone can bring a case forward, and suffer the inefficiency, rather then limit it and risk sinking into tyrannical justice system that only serves certain interests in a matter of a few decades.

Re:Proof Positive (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931092)

You needed proof for that?

The idea of the justice system is to deliver fair and equal treatment based on the book of the laws.

The implementation of the justice system is to give the people the illusions of justice so they are less likely to kill the parasites that feed off the rest of society like vampires. Of course there is plenty of inofficial workarounds included for them, just in case they ever get in trouble with the law.

It's a fascinating construct, really. I can't stop being amazed at how much you can fuck people over before they start to realize what's going on. It's not new, either - we just have a generation of politicians, lawyers and such who're doing it more obvious than before.

Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (5, Insightful)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35928988)

Seriously, they need to start disbarring lawyers who repeatedly bring these meritless lawsuits to court. That's the only thing that's going to stop them from continuing to use the legal system as their own personal slot machine.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (3, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929150)

This. We need tort reform in a big way. Lawyers and plaintiffs that bring frivolous lawsuits to court should have to repay the defendant for legal fees and lost wages. Heavy punitive damages should be levied against the bastards for abusing the court system. Lawyers who still don't get it ought to be disbarred permanently. That would end this in a hurry.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929226)

I agree, but we will never get meaningful tort reform while the trial lawyers control one of the two political parties.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929428)

As opposed to who, Palin, Joe the Plumber?

The lawyers are actually an improvement.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (2)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929456)

Just one?

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929602)

Good point, the lawyers actual do control both the Solicitor Party and the Corporate Party.

Too bad neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party ever panned out as a viable third option.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35930428)

The vast majority of trial lawyer political donations go to Democrats. Not to say that the GOP is entirely clean; but when somebody submits a tort reform bill, just watch which party screams the loudest. It's not the Republicans.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929520)

How do you figure they only control one of the two parties? In all reality, they control both parties and all 3 branches.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931258)

Here's a hint: They don't control one of the two parties...

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (2)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930230)

How about this: If the lawsuit was found to be willfully frivolous the full charges asked for by the plaintiff are leveled... against the plaintiff. Sue someone for a million Dollars for no apparent reason? Perhaps the court believes you that it was a mistake. Do it again? Congratulations, you just made someone rich. If the bar is set high enough only court-as-a-business-model outfits should be affected.

That should cut down on unreasonably high damages, too. After all, you don't want to risk losing that kind of money if your case isn't waterproof.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930468)

I think the problem lies in defining "frivolous lawsuit" or "abusing the court system" with some degree of formality. It's easy for us laymen to point to an existing or historical case and say that one is frivolous, but what standards for frivolousity should the court adhere to in making these decisions? Any such standard would have to be quite complex to account for the many caveats and nuances of arbitrary tort cases, further complicating the court system. And how would you feel if the suit you brought against someone who wronged you fell on the wrong side of an ill-defined frivolousity standard? Or your case ended up before a judge who identified with the defendant's position and indignantly ruled that your case was frivolous?

Tort reform shouldn't involve piling even more avenues for punishment and abuse on top of the mess we already have.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

Solandri (704621) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930764)

Just give them their own medicine. Trial lawyers always claim that being able to file lawsuits against people/companies in other professions is necessary to keep them honest. So make it legal to sue lawyers/law firms for filing frivolous lawsuits. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930994)

All you need is loser pays. Let them file all the bogus lawsuits they want, as long as they have to pay all court costs and all costs incurred by the winner, including legal costs, time off from work, every expense which was a direct result of having to defend oneself.

They'd quickly learn not to file bogus cases.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (5, Funny)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929154)

Seriously, they need to start dismembering lawyers who repeatedly bring these meritless lawsuits to court. That's the only thing that's going to stop them from continuing to use the legal system as their own personal slot machine.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930044)

The best idea of the whole year

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35931656)

They should start with the Number 1 member, Mr. Happy.

Nathan

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929162)

Oh man, that would be the best.... like when Jack Thompson got disbarred in Florida.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (3, Insightful)

dwillden (521345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929194)

Or just start actually enforcing the existing penalties for filing fraudulent suits and claims. Such penalties already exist, but getting the various state's to enforce them isn't always easy.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (2)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929334)

Indeed, the notions of abuse of process [wikipedia.org] and malicious procsecution [wikipedia.org] exist for a reason. IANAL, and I don't know which one applies to Righthaven's actions. Maybe both.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929926)

I guess somehow judges don't get the fact that people can use them as a means to commit crimes--like, you know, theft.

It's funny, I'm pretty sure lawyers have known that from the very beginning...

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929250)

If by "disbarring" you mean "shooting repeatedly in the face," I'm down!

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930624)

I'm sure Dick Cheney could find something in his timetable.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929764)

This.

I remember when Jack Thomspon got barred from it in a few areas.
And would most likely get barred in even more places given his popularity.
The world rejoiced.
Now he is just a mere annoyance.

Anyone wants a good laugh for the day, have a nice read of his wiki Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org]

With/without prejudice? (3, Informative)

Shoten (260439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929008)

If the original claim was dismissed "without prejudice," that doesn't preclude Righthaven from starting it all over again. If that's what has happened, then what they're doing isn't defiance of the court as much as trying to buy their way out of a bluff, proverbially speaking. Granted, it's not too likely that they'll succeed, but the idea of asking for all the "offending" infrastructure along with the domain name is to put a Sword of Damocles over the heads of the defendants so that if they lose, they'll lose everything.

Re:With/without prejudice? (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929042)

Righthaven's business model (extortion/copyright trolling) relies on the ongoing threat of forfeiture of IP, domains, or other assets.

Having an open lawsuit is essential to their business so they can point to it and say to their mark, "See, we're litigating this right now. You could be next." If one gets dismissed, they have to just file another one in a different way.

Re:With/without prejudice? (1)

skr95062 (2046934) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929086)

Except that if the offending party is hosted, then the server is not the property of the offender. This would be allowing the troll to take the property of a third party. It is highly doubtful the judge would ever allow it. Besides where is the DMCA notification and why hasn't the judge smacked them down over this?

Re:With/without prejudice? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929424)

Point me to the statutes that allow the winners of a civil copyright suit to seize the physical hardware of the losers. Let's just say I am doubtful such a statute exists, or that there's much in the way of precedence that supports such an idea.

They're just trying to make an example out of the defendants with no regard for the actual laws.

McBride? (1)

SniperJoe (1984152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929018)

Is Righthaven run by Darl McBride? Perhaps he's bankrolling the company. It just has that sort of flavor to it. The other thing I'll say is that from what I've seen, there are few things more ill-advised than defying a court.

Thank god IANAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929022)

What's next, a pound of flesh?

its like the record companies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929032)

You didn't pay for that 0.99 song now give me your house.

Re:its like the record companies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929048)

This is the good old USA!

Trolls Trolling Trolls (5, Interesting)

skuzzlebutt (177224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929054)

Righthaven is the copyright arm of the Las Vegas Review Journal...to give you an idea of the nuttiness we have to endure here in SinCity, keep in mind that the newspaper vehemently and viciously supported Her Wackiness Sharron Angle for Senate last year but then, in a grand showing of just how much they love their own wacky brand of libertarianism, sued her as a part of the Righthaven IP trolling campaign while continuing to donate money to her and devote editorial space to her campaign on a daily basis.

It had a strange beauty...like watching two warthogs fighting over a rotting squirrel carcass while mating.

Re:Trolls Trolling Trolls (1)

JasoninKS (1783390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929102)

"...like watching two warthogs fighting over a rotting squirrel carcass while mating." Yeah...like that's an image I needed in my head.

Re:Trolls Trolling Trolls (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931360)

You could always watch Margaret Thatcher take it all off just for you, big boy. I'm sure that would be better than watching this lawsuit stuff.

Re:Trolls Trolling Trolls (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930850)

So apparently "two warthogs fighting over a rotting squirrel carcass while mating" is considered Interesting to slashdotters.

Now I understand the real reason for the whole 'living in the parents basement' thing. What better place to stash your collection of bullwhips and leather chaps?

Bullies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929072)

Bullies in schools lead to Zangief Kid and columbine.

Bullies in tech lead to... anonymous?

The owners of copyright troll companies are going to wake up one day and find their names added to pedophile directories, their houses listed as dump sites, and their likenesses on federal no-fly watch lists.

Re:Bullies (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930936)

No, Columbine was something different. Those kids were insane. Casey Haynes is a freaking hero; he won't take shit ever again and he won't crack ever again. Next kid gets hit because he needs it; he won't be coming to school with machine guns and mowing the whole class down.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929078)

Maybe this troll and/or its lawyer can get disbarred by a Federal judge; then it won't be able to practice law anyplace in the US.

Disbarring a troll (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929152)

> Maybe this troll and/or its lawyer can get disbarred by a Federal judge

I don't like copyright trolls.

But the idea of having an actual troll who has passed the bar...

is kind of awesome.

Maybe it's this one. [wikimedia.org]

Re:Great! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929174)

First there us nothing in the rules of the bar that you can't file bad lawsuits especially when your clients wish to proceed otherwise. Second lawyers are licensed by state. To practice in other states, lawyers apply for temporary admission if they happen to have a single case or have to take another bar exam.

Re:Great! (1)

nosferatu1001 (264446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929568)

Yes there is. Knowingly submitting cases which you know have no merit can lead to disbarrment.

You are allowed to say "no" to a client, and recuse yourself.

*note: not a lawyer, but work for a firm with a large number of them

Re:Great! (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929774)

Depends on your definition of merit. In all the cases the defendants did use copyrighted material. Most of the uses fall under fair use. That's not the problem as Righthaven can make arguments against it. They won't win but doesn't mean the suit is without merit. The problem is that Righthaven may not have standing to sue and has been told that. And yes you are allowed to say no to a client and the client can take their money elsewhere. The question is whether you want to take the case.

If anyone... (1)

vistapwns (1103935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929100)

ever deserved a friendly 10 gigabit DDOS from anonymous, these guys are it.

Re:If anyone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929276)

No point. Their business is in the legal system, not online. Taking down their placeholder website won't affect them in the slightest. If anything, you should fsck up their fax lines.

Barratry? (1)

EQ (28372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929108)

Or Contempt - when will either of those be used against the lawyers in Righthaven, who apparently disregard the judge, and the rulings, and the law.

HAHAHAHAHAH (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929124)

Once you let it go, it devolves - see, private corporations/copyright trolls are already at the point of making laws out of their own ass, circumventing even the usual custom of buying them through the puppet parliaments via lobbying corporations ..

"hosting of any infringing material meant that the entire domain name was forfeit" says the guys. they also claimed hardware, software, everything. next, they may be claiming that engaging in hosting infringing material should cost your car.

The law is too slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929126)

And too prone to miss justice. Where's the snipers when you need them?

Creative Commons et al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929172)

Righthaven is just doing its part to help kill traditional content created by producers clinging to their old business model for dear life.

When the only content that can be safely shared is freely sharable content ... we all win; mission accomplished.

Time is Nigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929176)

It is seriously time someone did something about companies like this once and for all . It would be nice to see them locked up for a time maybe 5 years with no early release the company forced to close and share their profits out with the people they have conned so far and as stated above their legal bed partners thrown out and totally disbarred for good with all employees barred from working in the legal profession ever again .

But i also like the idea of getting them all on the paedophile lists and the no fly lists that should scupper them completely and get word round to other copyright trolls this is what happens when you start doing this crap .

Thank You for Smoking (3, Insightful)

repetty (260322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929260)

This reminds me of a bit of dialog from the movie "Thank Your for Smoking":

Joey Naylor: Dad, why is the American government the best government?
Nick Naylor: Because of our endless appeals system.

Any day now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35929366)

There will be a court-room shooting -- by the judge!

Seriously, how in-bad-faith-ey can these fucks get before the Law Man decides that enough is enough?

Even more impressed than usual (1)

fmachado (89905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929402)

Fellow North Americans,

    How can you ever allow this to happen? The least a court can do is to disbar the lawyers, followed by a class action from all the offended to the amount of 10X the amount demanded by RightRaven. It would even be in the interest of the justice since a LOT less "adventurers of the new judicial business model" (MAFIA?) would be interested in losing all their possesions, including the underwear.

    There has to have a way to rebalance the court system in USA or else there will be all kind of problems. Justice can't be a weapon against competition, even less against potential customers.

    I made a proposition once that the plaintiff should have to make a deposit of at least half the value demanded and if they lose, that money would go the defendant to pay defense costs and if something is left, half would be donated to charity, half back to the plaintiff. I foresee that only very meritful claims would ever arrive at civil court because the risk of losing. Seems crazy, but less crazier than actual system that only tilts to big corporations or the bullies. The judge would need to make some factor to preserve the little guy (like a 1:100 or 1:1000 deposit proportion) so the big one loses more.

    The other alternatives are: troll lawyers hunting season; civil disobedience (thousands of sites doing similar things hosted on russia servers, better yet with disposable domain names and/or some very sarcastic ones); voting right next time. Every one of this has some drawbacks, but alternative 1 would be the funniest if made legal. The most effective (and harder) is the last one.

Flávio
CNOPEBR21

PS: If the hunting season gets approved I expect to be invited to the party as an observer :)

Re:Even more impressed than usual (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929680)

The problem I see in your proposition is that the small guys who really do have a case will have to take out loans or gather donations/credits to foot that bond. Granted, if you have a case, doing so may be justified, but it is an added burden.

Can the EFF get them for Malicious Prosecution? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929458)

The tort of Malicious Prosecution comes in when no reasonable lawyer would believe that the law supports a case they have brought and the case has caused clear damage to the victims. The EFF should consider this route since Righthaven does not have legally valid ownership of any of Stephens Media's works. Therefore I would be surprised if they had a reasonable legal basis on which to bring suit...

What plaintiffs like Righthaven don't get... (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929574)

Is that the only thing that keeps people from shooting each other is the court system.

If you remove the trust that society places in the court system for dispensing significant amounts of justice, then courts are no longer the barrier between people with weapons.

Don't say it doesn't happen, because it happens all over the world.

Go ahead guys, keep abusing the system. First ones against the wall and all that.

I feel like I am living in France in 1788 and we are all arguing over mouldy bread and bad wine.

--
BMO

Re:What plaintiffs like Righthaven don't get... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35931848)

Thank you. there are a lot of politicians, lawyers, businessmen, judges (esp. 5 Supremes), who are eroding most peoples trust in rule of law way past any reasonable limits. once recent supreme court decision allows district attorneys to essentially avoid all problems (ie fines and jail time) that can arise as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. They can deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence, and when caught, avoid any consequences for ruining people lives. Its starting to feel like a bad "mad max" remake without a nuclear holocaust or leather chaps.

Something is Wrong with this Picture. (2)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929580)

If you've got a judgment rendered in state court, the fed courts won't let you re-present the same case in federal court. The general doctrine is called abstention, and the particular variant is called the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

If they're jerking the same people around over the same subject matter, the federal judge will eat their face.

Start up the sanction motions!

This is part of a much larger problem (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35929776)

... the fact that "suing as a business plan" is allowed at all.

When lawsuits are allowed to provide a revenue stream beyond verified actual damages plus reasonable expenses, they can be abused. And so they are abused, because profit is not restrained by ethics.

Morgaine.

mud anyone? (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930064)

I agree with the first thread posted, let the mud slinging begin. Back in the days of our forefathers, (USA, not US), common sense would ring forth and that turning sound you hear would not exist, because we've long since entered a state of capitolism so deep, no jagged
gripping claw can climb us back out.

We need another revolution i think, and all of them have been at our doorstep for far to long.

Just my opinion on the matter,
forgive my english even though it is my primary,
i must take haste in speaking the words of good conscience,
we as a people must do for our own, and leave everyone else to do the same.

This WAS the dream.

Lying to the court? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930092)

From what I have read, Righthaven didn't actually aquire any copyrights. They aquired the right to sue for copyright violations. Which means they don't actually own any copyrights. Which means that when they sue for copyright infringement, they are actually lying because they have no copyrights that are infringed on. And they most know this, because the previous court told them off for exactly that reason.

I am wondering where the point would be reached where suing someone who you _know_ didn't do what you accuse them off would be criminal.

Re:Lying to the court? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931694)

From what I have read, Righthaven didn't actually aquire any copyrights. They aquired the right to sue for copyright violations. Which means they don't actually own any copyrights.

Sounds like they are in effect a "shell corporation" specifically to allow some other entity/ies to sue without risk of any counter suits.

Re:Lying to the court? (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35931900)

I think it is. It's called perjury as far as I know. Of course, someone actually has to bring the charge up.

Capitalism: You're doing it wrong. (1)

neoevans (179332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35930300)

Forget the legal problems with a company solely dedicated to luring other companies into court, why is Righthaven even allowed to be a company? I'm all for capitalism, but if selling sex (something both natural and legal on it's own) isn't legal, how is intentionally trying to harm other companies and their ability to turn a profit? This is the corporate equivalent of parking a van outside an elementary school with the words "free candy" spray painted on the side.

Not even close (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35930538)

This is not even close to the semi-legal extortion that copyright infringement cases appear to be. This sames of hubris, fraud and overwhelming greed.

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35931708)

What The Fuck are They Smoking ???

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?