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!

US Marshals Ordered To Seize Righthaven Property

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-have-the-right-to-be-beaten-mercilessly dept.

The Courts 120

An anonymous reader writes "Troubled times ahead for Righthaven, as Ars Technica reports that the U.S. Marshals have been instructed 'to use "reasonable force" to seize $63,720.80 in cash and/or assets from the Las Vegas copyright troll after Righthaven failed to pay a court judgment from August 15.'"

cancel ×

120 comments

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

take their servers and router (4, Insightful)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921078)

and sell them at sheriff's auction.

Re:take their servers and router (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921370)

and sell them at sheriff's auction.

Ooo. Lemme know when the auction is. Then I can share the secrets with /. =)

It's a victory, small, but a victory no less.

Re:take their servers and router (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922720)

Why would a law firm own their IT infrastructure, that stuff is all outsourced I can pretty much guarantee.

Re:take their servers and router (3, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923352)

Why would a law firm own their IT infrastructure

Massive need for confidentiality perhaps?

Re:take their servers and router (3, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37925072)

Uhm. No.

First, you need some significant in-house resources just to connect a few hundred computers to the internet. Those aren't free. Notably, that would include routers, as the Grandfather suggested. Second, we cannot allow client data to be outside our control -- that would endanger confidentiality. In Illinois (and in every other state, I guarantee) attorneys are responsible for retaining and protecting client information -- including things like draft memos and attorneys' notes -- from access by any third party without client permission. That's why, for example, I couldn't use google-docs when I was running a solo practice. Even though I could lock access to the documents so only I could view the document, google's privacy policy (at the time I have not verified) gave them the right to view documents in their system. It is -my- responsibility to protect my client's information from search and seizure by the Gov't or a police agency. By entrusting my data to a datacluster, I could lose control of client data and not even know until I get hit for breaching the rules of professional conduct.

That's just two of the reasons its good to have in-house hardware. I haven't even dipped my toe into how useful leases are for defraying or reducing tax liability, and the myriad other more financial driven reasons why I might want to have an internal IT team.

Warning: the above is not legal advice. You are not my client. If you have a question, seek an attorney licensed in your state, not the ramblings of a lawyer on /.

-GiH

Re:take their servers and router (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37925354)

Righthaven doesn't have any clients and has a few lawyers, not hundreds....

Re:take their servers and router (2)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922972)

Holy shit, is this Righthaven storyline the most satisfying nerd storyline of the last half-century or what? This is even better than SCO! I just can't believe that justice has rained down so hard in this case.

Re:take their servers and router (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923162)

Much as I love the image of the police carting out Righthavens office furnature while some guys in suits quietly weep in the corner.. I imagine all the real assets are long gone, and the actual guys behind it all safely out of the way. Righthaven will go under.. and then re-emerge as a different LLC and keep right on trucking.

Not saying this isn't awesome, but lets not delude outselves to the nature of these trolls.

Re:take their servers and router (1)

md65536 (670240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37925440)

Righthaven will go under.. and then re-emerge as a different LLC and keep right on trucking.

It will re-emerge as something named Goodharbor or Righteousdefenders or Correctangels or some other bullshit.

Re:take their servers and router (1)

tacktick (1866274) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923242)

Oh God yes.
I wish I could see them get raided.

Re:take their servers and router (2)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#37924304)

Awww.. geez.. I drive right by them everyday to/from work.. Perhaps I'll stop by on the way home today, and do a Simpsons Nelson "HA HA" on their sorry asses... And an aside to their webguy: What a crappy website...

For others in Las Vegas, its:
Righthaven LLC
Conquistador Business Park
9960 West Cheyenne Ave, Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89129
(702) 527-5900

Re:take their servers and router (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37924380)

Whose hardware? The Las Vegas Review-Journal? Corporate indemnity. Just because they own another corporation (Righthaven) and told that corporation what to do (sue) doesn't mean they are in any way responsible for the fact that that corporation followed their commands and sued. Or did you mean Righthaven's servers? They don't have any, they are a shell corporation. Whenever they had a single cent they gave it to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. No office, no employees. Their only property was their right to sue on behalf of the LVRJ, and the judge said that is not a transferable right so they could not have been given it. That's why they lost, and why the next time the LVRJ makes a shell corporation so they can sue without risking counter-suit and without getting bad press, it'll work. It already did work, actually. They raked it in on settlements and lost not one cent, all while getting zero bad press about it.

A pity... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921098)

I'm assuming that any real money(if Righthaven wasn't itself the assetless shell company being used by the real money) will already have been snuck of the premises by various means, with nothing but a bunch of leased office furniture and a few cheap suits on site; but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street and sold off is just satisfying...

The cyclically-evicted members of the poor are all too familiar with the treatment; but we don't give it to the arrogant nearly as often as would be socially useful...

Re:A pity... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921260)

Sadly, they may have viewed this as a calculated risk, taken many times, and lost only once... I wonder if the actors behind Righthaven are really hurt by this loss at all?

Re:A pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921438)

There is no legal precedence for corporations to indemnify the owners assets - if they don't get the money from the corporation they can seize a house.

Re:A pity... (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921576)

That's not how limited liability works. The only way for personal assets to be seized would be if the proprietors committed criminal acts and the judgement of forfeiture was based upon said acts.

Re:A pity... (3, Interesting)

raydobbs (99133) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922148)

IANAL - I believe the legal language is something along the lines of 'The corporate veil (or shield) protecting agents of the corporation from judgements and legal action can be pierced if the agent in question has performed the offending actions while significantly outside the scope of the agent's duties with the employing offending organization.' Basically, it protects employees from personal lawsuits for actions taken by the corporation when the employee was acting as an agent of the corporation in performance of his/her/their job duties, when those duties are in compliance with their stated scope of their duties and those duties do not directly violate the rule of law. So, can't sue a CEO directly for when his towing company accidentally repossesses your car, causing damage - can only sue the corporation. If the CEO was using his towing company to steal cars, then you can 'pierce the corporate veil' and charge him/her directly.

Re:A pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37922424)

This is precisely as I recall it from business law classes, with the idea being malfeasance while acting as agent, not illegality specifically.

Re:A pity... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922784)

The other situation where this can differ is an S corp, there the assets of the owners are shielded from private parties but are open to the government because the profits and tax liabilities of the S corp flow through them without being taxed separably.

Re:A pity... (2)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923252)

Piercing the corporate veil in Nevada requires the presence of “fraud” or “manifest injustice”. This is the highest standard for personal indemnification available.
From: http://whynevada.com/commercialrecordings/legaladvantagescorps.asp [whynevada.com] for more info on Nevada Corporations.

Re:A pity... (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37924612)

IANAL, but it seems to me that suing someone over something you don't own could be considered fraud.

Re:A pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921604)

WTF are you talking about? There is endless legal precedence and dozens of different ways for owners of companies to protect their personal assets. Righthaven is an LLC, or Limited Liability Company. LLCs don't really have owners, they have members, and those members have little to no personal liability for the company.

Re:A pity... (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921616)

Very much not a lawyer, but I thought that was kind of the whole point of incorporating... turning the business into a seperate entity with it's own assets and protecting the owner.

Personally I think this sucks in situations like this. Righthaven will just die, and spring up as something else and keep right on going..

Re:A pity... (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921948)

Very much not a lawyer, but I thought that was kind of the whole point of incorporating... turning the business into a seperate entity with it's own assets and protecting the owner.

Personally I think this sucks in situations like this. Righthaven will just die, and spring up as something else and keep right on going..

True, but the courts have determined rules for "piercing the corporate veil" as it's known - the best known reason is if the whole purpose of a company was to commit fraud. Because the point of an incorporated business is NOT to break the law with impunity.

And no, it's not "protecting the owner" but producting the owner's non-corporate assets. Basically if a corporation shuts down, all the owners (shareholders and the like) lose their investment. However, those owner's non-corporate assets (e.g., their house, car, cash in bank, etc) are safe. So if your business goes bankrupt, if it's incorporated, the bank can't go after your house or other assets as they could for non-incorporated businesses.

Re:A pity... (2)

SecurityGuy (217807) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922320)

Right. And to put a finer point in it, let's say you own a single share of a publicly traded company. If that company gets sued into the stone age and the owners are liable, that includes you even though you had nothing to do with whatever they got sued for. Making the corp a separate entity makes corps largely possible. Without that, investors would be hard to find (I am NOT giving you $money if that means my risk is up to and including my full net worth) and getting people to start companies at all would be harder because the downside risk of any transaction would so vastly exceed the upside potential.

Re:A pity... (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921518)

Nope, that's the beauty of the limited liability guaranteed to proprietors of Corps., S-Corps., LLCs., etc.. They'll just let the old corp burn, file some paper, incorporate as Righthaven 2.0 and are back in business once again. No one is held responsible for stupid business practices unless they happen to exist within the set of illegal business practices and then if and only if they neglected to strategically apply lubrication.

Re:A pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921886)

There is the possibility that the corporations that hired Righthaven could be held liable. It would be a tough one to win, but it is the way such a cost should be properly attributed.

Re:A pity... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923086)

Maybe if Righthaven acted as their agent.

Re:A pity... (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923970)

Um, no, it's not that easy. Any court would rule that the "new" business is just the old business and allow whatever lawsuits to proceed.

Re:A pity... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37925554)

Well depends on how much you need credit. The average small business LLC don't enjoy full indemnity since banks will be hesitant to lend money to your next venture. However if you are a large company making strawmen LLCs to do your bidding then it's great.

This. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921530)

I used to know a guy that had become a millionaire using the "calculated risk" model.

He created bunch of B2B "information" and "benefits" products that were really just marketing copy in large volumes. He'd pay online contract workers $pennies to create both the marketing and the essentially nonexistent/useless product that amounted to a website with a login and a search box (that didn't show results for much of anything) and a lot of graphics of people playing golf and enjoying themselves and sitting and desks being productive and other $1 microstock-style photos.

He'd then sell annual contracts to corporations for $hundreds of thousands or even $millions. Eventually in the case of each "business" than he started there would be legal action from one or two clients, but he always settled and many more clients just wrote it off and didn't "renew" the subscription to the "service" the following year.

Of course, the following year there would be another service on the market, different name, different website, different graphics, different "product," same quality level.

What made it work for him was the way he presented in person—professional, gregarious, confident, with a great suit and a great golf game.

The man was a millionaire many times over and I'm glad I don't know him anymore.

Re:A pity... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921662)

Nope, I'm sure they will just register a new LLC with a different name and keep on trucking as before. They just busted a couple guys here in Madison for fraud; him and a friend were locksmiths and it turned out they had registered something like thirty different corporations over the last 10-15 years. They would rip people off and when it finally seemed like they would actually have to pay for their actions, that corporation would fold and disappear and a new one would spring up in it's place not long after; same people, same games, but for all intents and purposes, a completely new entity that is clean as a whistle.

It's ridiculous that it took them this long to finally get these con men off the streets and locked up, but lord knows they will probably do a year or two in jail (if even that) and be right back on the street to do it all over again, and it will probably be another 10-15 years before they get caught. Obviously the laws must be pretty broken, but IANAL obviously, so I really couldn't suggest what they could do to fix it in a way that won't end up negatively effecting honest small-business owners that fall on hard times and lose their business.

Re:A pity... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922076)

'S a good point. The company is finished. Let's stop concentrating on that, and go after individuals for the rest of the funds. I know, incorporating is supposed to protect them from that, but there ought to be some way in egregious instances like this.

Re:A pity... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922576)

Yes. You start holding the board of directors and Executive Officers criminally liable for the actions of the corporation. The purpose of these positions is to keep watch over the corporation and make sure the corporations is doing everything nice an legal. When the entirety of the Corporation is corrupt, you must go after the people running it.

I understand "limited liability", but criminal negligence is not a liability it is a lifestyle.

Re:A pity... (2)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921302)

...but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street...

You're confusing seizures and evictions. In a seizure ("attachment" in legalese) they load it onto a U-Haul and take it to a nice storage facility to await auction ;-)

Retribution (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921310)

but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street and sold off is just satisfying

Retribution does satisfy the primal urges, but it doesn't help me all that much (as a member of this society).

I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses, so I can avoid ever getting into a business transaction with them. The US Marshalls stealing their copy machine doesn't actually help society in any meaningful way.

Retributive justice is deeply ingrained in human society, but we have the tools to progress beyond that now.

Re:Retribution (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921642)

It is almost certain that any such database would end up in the hands of someone who should be in the database.

Re:Retribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37925402)

It may then be possible to "occupy" them with an endless recursive query as they search for themselves searching for themselves searching for the....

Re:Retribution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37922286)

The US Marshalls stealing their copy machine doesn't actually help society in any meaningful way.

It IS useful if you can get the hard drive from that photocopier. Its true that there might not be a single important thing on it. But any legal document that got photocopied...

Re:Retribution (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922958)

I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses

You should be able to find what you want in their corporate filings.

The US Marshalls stealing their copy machine doesn't actually help society in any meaningful way.

Seized assets are used to satisfy the judgement, which is a benefit in my opinion.

Re:Retribution (3, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923474)

"Retributive justice is deeply ingrained in human society, but we have the tools to progress beyond that now."

The assumed conclusion is that something else will produce better results against determined opponents!

Retributive justice is the only deterrent to logical people that also deals effectively with those it does NOT deter. It compels, rather than "asks for", some degree of obedience. It can be used to destroy those who harden their neck and will not obey.

Qaddafi feared no law. He was killed. That's "retributive justice". He won't act again because he has been deleted. He had no qualities making his preservation desirable, but the example of his death is a nice reminder to others that they shouldn't shit on their people beyond tolerance.

"I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses, so I can avoid ever getting into a business transaction with them."

Boycott IS retribution, of the mildest most weakling sort.

White collar criminals should be thrown in with vicious convicts who will abuse them, with the goal of frightening others into compliance with the law. Such "financial predators" are as bad as armed robbers, so put them together.

Re:A pity... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921458)

Righthaven didn't even own the copyrights to the files they were suing about. I doubt they have much else. What really needs to happen is disbarment of their legal staff.

Re:A pity... (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921610)

What do we have here? A comedian?

Re:A pity... (1)

drainbramage (588291) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922222)

I heard of a lawyer getting disbarred once, back in the 80's.
He was already in prison for murder and other issues.
Sometime after the Seattle P.I. ran a series of stories people began wondering about his status and the (I imagine) embarrassment it was causing seemed to be what led to his disbarment.

Re:A pity... (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922394)

Clinton was disbarred.

Re:A pity... (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922698)

As were Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] , Laurence Canter [wikipedia.org] (of "Green Card Lottery spam" fame), and Morbo's good friend Richard Nixon. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] lists a number of others who suffered the same fate.

Re:A pity... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37922550)

The lawyers probably won't be disbarred, but they very easily could face Rule 11(c) sanctions. [cornell.edu] Last week I saw a federal judge make an unprepared young attorney read Rule 11 into the record (despite the fact that all of the Federal Rules are considered "in the record"). He was definitely crying while he did so.

Re:A pity... (3, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922766)

Sadly, the, uh bar for disbarment is set very high. You have to be absolutely whackadoodle moonbat crazy like Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] to be in with shout.

Re:A pity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37923608)

Sadly, the, uh bar for disbarment is set very high. You have to be absolutely whackadoodle moonbat crazy like Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org] to be in with shout.

Or Fred Phelps [wikipedia.org]

Re:A pity... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922026)

So, let's throw the cheap suits in jail and... wait, you meant clothes, didn't you?

Re:A pity... (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922294)

You're probably right - but a precedent has been set. Next step, is to find some legal means to get into the pockets of the primary shareholders, and/or the parent corporation. I certainly HOPE that some bright, imaginative young lawyer can find a way to do so. THAT precedent would be the best thing to happen in a long time!

Eye For An Eye (4, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921118)

Take their domain, computers and women!

Re:Eye For An Eye (5, Funny)

melted keyboard (798559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921424)

Well, we could find a use for their domain and computers, but what would we do with their women?

Re:Eye For An Eye (2, Funny)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921464)

Well, we always need cooks and secretaries.

Re:Eye For An Eye (1)

chiguy (522222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921638)

Ah, wit!

Re:Eye For An Eye (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921734)

Hear their lamentations, of course ;)

Re:Eye For An Eye (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922112)

Crom!

Re:Eye For An Eye (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921854)

...but what would we do with their women?

Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?
Taggart: Naw, we rape the shit out of them at the Number Six Dance later on.
Hedley Lamarr: Marvelous!

Ahhh... 70s humor. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

Make an example out of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921136)

Copyright laywer troll companies beware!

Re:Make an example out of them (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921238)

Copyright laywer troll companies beware!

Really?

1. Set up shell company.
2. Shake down people for easy money
3. Pay yourself lots of money immediately.
4. Let shell company go bankrupt.
5. Profit!!!

No question marks. This formula will be repeated over and over. Probably by the same people.

Re:Make an example out of them (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921426)

Copyright laywer troll companies beware!

Really?

1. Set up shell company.
2. Shake down people for easy money
3. Pay yourself lots of money immediately.
4. Let shell company go bankrupt.
5. Profit!!!

No question marks. This formula will be repeated over and over. Probably by the same people.

You should probably read up on the case a little more. For one thing, in order to pursue the cases they ended up having to transfer actual ownership of patents/copyright to Righthaven. ALL the intellectual property is potentially up for seizure if they don't have enough other assets to cover. Those companies are shitting themselves right about now.

Setting up a shell company like that is fraud, textbook almost. It doesn't shelter anything, and could open the actors up for even more liability and possible criminal charges as well.

Re:Make an example out of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921594)

No. Righthaven didn't HAVE any of the copyrights. That's the reason they lost and ended up with this judgement against them.

Re:Make an example out of them (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921684)

I would be hopeful but for the fact that they are subject to US law and the mechanics thereof. I think it's time to go back to the good old days of going for a walk down by the river in concrete shoes.

Re:Make an example out of them (3, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921728)

Can you cite where the copyrights were transferred to them?
As I recall that was the whole point of the issues to begin with, was that they were suing without ownership.

Re:Make an example out of them (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37924748)

In some cases after the judge noted the lack of ownership, RightHaven had some copyrights transferred (ie for specific stories). But that didn't appease the judge who said the transferred should have occurred before not after they sued. I could have remembered it wrong.

Re:Make an example out of them (2)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921788)

I will be very amused if a third party that's friendly to fair use ends up owning the IP of a trollish company that willingly licensed the IP to Righthaven...

Re:Make an example out of them (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921718)

It's worth noting that without limited liability, this maneuver would not be possible.

A similar idea, one that I'm sure has been used many times:
1. Get a large business loan for an LLC. (This is the hard part)
2. As head of the company, give yourself a nice large bonus, which you stash in the Cayman Islands.
3. Bank tries to recover the money from the company, but can't go after you due to it being an LLC.
4. Retire to Fiji.

Re:Make an example out of them (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922120)

This would look on the face of it to be fraud on the part of the directors, in which case limited liability no longer applies and the bank can go after the directors directly.

That doesn't stop flight with cash in the pocket as a possibility. I remember years ago that the owner of my wife and I's first apartment managed to get a few million bucks in loans from some banks in what was basically a real estate scam. When it became clear that the whole con was coming down due to a real estate crunch, he and his wife fled the country with a briefcase full of money, ending up in Cuba, where, I suppose, he remains today, safe from extradition and probably living rather well for cheap.

Re:Make an example out of them (1)

danb35 (112739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923218)

That's why most banks will require a personal guarantee from the owners of a small corp/LLC.

they're in vegas? (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921148)

I could pay them a visit. What would you /. ers do? Egg 'em?

Re:they're in vegas? (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921166)

A few good whacks with Mjolnir would suffice.

Re:they're in vegas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37922706)

It's Mjollnir.

Re:they're in vegas? (5, Funny)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921270)

go down to the local drug store, pick up a piece of posterboard, and put it on a stick (protest-style).
print out/draw/whatever a giant-sized version of nelson muntz from the simpsons pointing a finger at the onlooker with a giant "ha-ha" balloon next to him. stand outside their offices for an hour or two as their shit is getting thrown in the street.

for extra epic ironic insult win, get a friend to get another giant posterboard placard, and stand next to you. His placard should have an arrow pointing at yours and simply read "Copyrighted images used on these placards are protected by fair use laws of the United States."

Re:they're in vegas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37922500)

Found it !!

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Nelson_Muntz

Re:they're in vegas? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921274)

It is my understanding that copyright trolls are supposed to have their faces either branded or tattooed with a scarlet trollface [wikipedia.org] to prevent them from blending in with real humans, and ensure that all mankind can avoid and revile them.

Re:they're in vegas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921742)

Well there goes my next tattoo idea.

Re:they're in vegas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37924788)

Turning an internet meme into a permanent tattoo is probably a bad idea in any case.

Scarlet Letter (1)

careysb (566113) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923984)

We already have a precedent for this: sex offender database.

Re:they're in vegas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37924738)

That trollface looks like Jim Carrey in The Mask.

Re:they're in vegas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921306)

Acetone hydroxide. Lots of it.

Re:they're in vegas? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921982)

Dihydrogen Monoxide. Lots of it. Don't watch TV and assume you know what you're talking about. You're probably looking for acetone peroxide [wikipedia.org] .

DISCLAIMER:you're an idiot if you make the later by reason of legality and physical danger and an absolute moron if you try for the former by reason of the obvious.

Re:they're in vegas? (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921990)

That's acetone peroxide. You've been watching too much NCIS [imdb.com] .

This victory is relatively insignificant (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921222)

This victory is relatively insignificant compared to the massive corporate extortion schemes from the likes of MPAA/RIAA, tech companies, and other industry giants, that go unabated.

For Example: +3, Helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921472)

The extortionists examined in this episode [thisamericanlife.org] of This American Life.

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout

Re:This victory is relatively insignificant (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922160)

Yes, but it does continue to set precedence which is what we direly need lots of. Once enough precedence is set, the courts will have more of a foundation to stand on when throwing these bum's cases out the window.

Re:This victory is relatively insignificant (2)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923860)

No it doesn't. In this case they didn't have rights to the copyrighted material they claiming as their own. That doesn't need to be precedent, that's kind of the basics of law...it doesn't apply to the RIAA because while the RIAA doesn't hold the rights, they also have never sued anybody. (Music labels do the suing, and for some reason Slashdot editors delete all mention of music labels and replace it with RIAA).

Re:This victory is relatively insignificant (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37924744)

It does set precedent for other companies that would try this same scam.

Re:This victory is relatively insignificant (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37925014)

Yes, but it does continue to set precedence which is what we direly need lots of. Once enough precedence is set, the courts will have more of a foundation to stand on when throwing these bum's cases out the window.

The term is precedent, the plural is precedents. Precedence is a completely different thing. Sound almost the same, but the meanings are totally different.

Re:This victory is relatively insignificant (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37925278)

I blame autocorrect on the Touchpad...

Re:This victory is relatively insignificant (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37925588)

Good answer. :)

How dare they! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921336)

How date they enlist the police to seize all this property over a civil matter. Oh wait this is someone we hate unlike the piratebarry guys? Oh, never mind. Woot for justice!

Re:How dare they! (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37921840)

How date they enlist the police to seize all this property over a civil matter. Oh wait this is someone we hate unlike the piratebarry guys? Oh, never mind. Woot for justice!

...this is taking place on American soil. The Pirate Bay stuff happened in Sweden, where they were heavily influenced by the American government. Incidentally, being a politician and succumbing to foreign influence is a pretty big crime in Sweden.

woot for twisting facts/being mal informed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37921900)

Dude, the real problem with the piratebay related seizures was that they seized a lot of servers hosted by the hosting company but owned by other unrelated companies and organizations, not just the PBs, to scare away customers. PB couldn't care less, they had their shit up and running within 48 hours while others had to wait for months to get their hardware back and the incident cost them large amounts of money. So it's the fugly illegal intimidation tactics that most reacted to. Anyway, thanks for playing.

empty victory (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922134)

The people behind Righthaven must have known this would have a high probability of happening, and prepared to cast off the company when they had gotten what mileage they could out of it. So we have the pleasure of seeing the name disappear and some rented furniture thrown out into the street, but they'll just try again elsewhere. This is but a small battle in a large war. On the other hand, we *did* win this one, and some celebration is probably in order.

Righthaven? (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922198)

I want to see the lawyer lose his ticket.

Not good enough (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37922248)

We've crushed our enemies, now we need to see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women

But who are the people behind Righthaven? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37923124)

Its interesting, there are some details about them on the http://righthavenlawsuits.com/ website.

"Righthaven LLC is owned 50/50 by two limited liability companies. The first is Net Sortie Systems, LLC, which is owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson – the Nevada attorney who is behind all of the lawsuits filed by Righthaven. The second is SI Content Monitor LLC, which is owned by family members of investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens whose investments include Stephens Media, LLC which owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal."

These are the people I wish they would go after for this.

Oh yeah!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37923572)

Time to dance in the streets. I love it when abusive tactics come full circle to bite 'em in the ass!

Peice The Corp Veil (1)

tomwish (2499164) | more than 2 years ago | (#37923772)

Let me preface this with I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. It is possible to go after the corp partners. The LLC does not protect you in case of fraud. Since Righthaven did not own the copyrights and filed suit anyway. This caused the defendant to have to defend himself to fraudulent accusations. If it can be shown that Righthaven knew or should have known that they had no standing to bring suit then the hurdle to pierce the corp veil is low. I think that that since the judge has ruled against Righthaven at every turn that a ruling to pierce the LLC and allow the partners to be held liable would not be a hard case to make.

only one (1)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37924996)

There's only one fitting comment:

Bwuahahahahaha!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>