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!

Wounded Copyright Troll Still Alive and Kicking

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the beneath-the-mines-of-moria dept.

The Courts 44

Hugh Pickens writes "Steve Green writes that even as defendants who defeated Righthaven in court and won their attorney's fees complain they haven't been paid a total of $216,000 and try to seize Righthaven assets, the copyright troll proved that it is alive and kicking by filing a brief that District Judge James Mahan in Las Vegas was wrong to find an Oregon nonprofit was protected by fair use in posting an entire R-J story on the relationship between immigrants and Las Vegas police. A key factor in Mahan's decision was that the defendant, the Center for Intercultural Organizing in Portland, couldn't harm the market for a copyright to the story Righthaven obtained for lawsuit purposes from Stephens Media. Mahan also 'found that because the work was a news article, the totality of its content was informational and permissible for productive use by others,' Righthaven's outside attorney Shawn Mangano wrote in his brief that 'in reaching this erroneous conclusion, the district court failed to accord any degree of creative effort to the work (story) whatsoever.' In a second appeals brief, Mangano appeared to face an uphill challenge in arguing that Righthaven had standing to sue or should have been allowed to sue after amending its Stephens Media lawsuit contract to fix defects — assertions rejected so far by six Nevada judges. The defendants in the appeals have not yet filed their briefs, and it's likely to be months before the appeals court hears arguments on the cases."

cancel ×

44 comments

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

Solution (1, Flamebait)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174266)

Appropriate the internal organs of righthaven lawyers whenever they show up in court.

Re:Solution (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174344)

Nah - you'd get done by the local feudal Lord or King for troll harvesting. Fireball is the way to go.

Re:Solution (4, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174412)

Appropriate the internal organs of righthaven lawyers whenever they show up in court.

That is just an offal idea...

Re:Solution (4, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174438)

Just don't go for the spine, you won't find any.

Other missing organs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178768)

> Just don't go for the spine, you won't find any.

There's no heart or brain, either. Just a giant liver, full of bile. And alcohol.

Re:Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174630)

yes with something that causes large amounts of damage to it ability to procreate ie stick it in a microwave for 30 seconds ...

or irradiate it

Re:Solution (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38182766)

No. Detain the external dangling organs of the lawyers (different organs for male of female) in the court room. The rest of the lawyers may leave - indeed, should be encouraged to leave, or just plain dragged away. But the dangly organs should be detained in the court room.

If you're feeling so inclined, you could provide the lawyers with a knife. As long as it's blunt.

What was that creepy-fun film I saw a while ago ... ? 127 Hours [wikipedia.org] .
Picture the same general situation, but with much less appealing characters without redeeming features. And a blunter knife.
Making them drink their own piss wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Hey, this is beginning to sound good! Something useful to do with lawyers. Or we could use them for street lamps [wikisource.org] , I suppose.

Shewtin's too good for 'em. (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174270)

The Righthaven jerks do not even own the copyright. They have no standing whatsoever. How are they getting away with this without sanctions? I really want to know why. There really isn't any dispute about who owns the copyrights.

The time when taking the vexatious plaintiffs out to the desert and staking them down next to a fire-ant hill is acceptable keeps getting closer every day.

--
BMO

Re:Shewtin's too good for 'em. (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174474)

Judges used to be lawyers. So you are seeing a part of the Good-ol-boy network in action.

It's how cops that are dirty or evil get protected by other cops.

Re:Shewtin's too good for 'em. (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174744)

Don't forget how politicians enter into the mix - take a look at how many US politicians started out as lawyers.

Then again, anyone from an honest profession can't afford to spend the amount of money it takes to run these days.

Re:Shewtin's too good for 'em. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38175146)

You apparently have never dealt with lawyers before. Those dudes will put someones nuts in a vice (especially other lawyers) just because it amuses them. They *LOVE* to fuck each other over.

Judges follow the rules. They go out of their way to follow them. As they do not want cases handed back to them (by higher up lawyers saying they are total screwups...). Screw up enough times and judges find themselves without a job...

Re:Shewtin's too good for 'em. (3, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38176024)

Huh? Righthaven was ruled against, by multiple judges. They missed several deadlines to pay the fees, and US Marshals were ordered to seize their property (not sure how that turned out). To be honest, I'm not even sure how or why they can still file briefs.

If anything, Righthaven is an example of the legal system actually working more or less as it should: frivolous lawsuits get thrown out and the defendants get paid their legal fees. Or will, if Righthaven ever actually obeys the law.

Re:Shewtin's too good for 'em. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38178682)

I'm not even sure how or why they can still file briefs.

Because, unfortunately, none of their lawyers have been disbarred yet.

Re:Shewtin's too good for 'em. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38175674)

The time when taking the vexatious plaintiffs out to the desert and staking them down next to a fire-ant hill is acceptable keeps getting closer every day.

--
BMO

Now that sounds like an extremely interesting way of dealing with these idiots

Of course it's still alive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174286)

Everyone knows the only way to kill a troll is either acid or fire. Excuse me while I get the gasoline and matches.

Re:Of course it's still alive (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174432)

The power of acid or fire is largely symbolic when it comes to troll slaying and the general weapon of choice is something along the line of a "slightly sour giant greatsword of ridiculous electric discharge and decaptitation"
As such you just need to voimit on either the troll or the stick you're planning to beat it with. And given the general repulsiveness of righthaven this should happen even if you're not planning on doing so.

so can i break the GPL and claim fair use? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174290)

after all, the entire legal foundation of the GPL is based on the enforcability of copyright law.

Re:so can i break the GPL and claim fair use? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174310)

No you cannot, Dan Wallace. You lost and therefore cemented the issue forever. Deal with it.

--
BMO

Re:so can i break the GPL and claim fair use? (2)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174600)

You can claim anything you like. Whether it stands up in court is a different matter though.

SCO Redux (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174294)

How many of you feel we're still going to be hearing about the ghost of Wronghaven for years to come?

Re:SCO Redux (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174320)

If this is SCO redux and we're going to hear about this for 7 more years, I suppose we should shoot them now.

I give you the most censored routine in history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyPFQKpRnd0 [youtube.com]

--
BMO

Did I drop that? (4, Funny)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174298)

This is why zombie lawyers are the most feared D&D monsters. There is always something you should have been keeping in your inventory to kill them but didn't.

Re:Did I drop that? (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38175300)

Rule #2: Double Tap.

Re:Did I drop that? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38175598)

are they like green slime? only fire will do?

Re:Did I drop that? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38176514)

If your the rogue, and your warrior, mage, and cleric are dead, have beaten the green slime to 1 health, then suddenly realize you dropped that fire whip scroll because it was only worth 3 coins, yes. :)

Double-tap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174300)

- Columbus, Zombieland

(describing rule #2) "You need to get a gun and learn how to use it which leads me to my second rule, the double tap. In those moments when you're not sure that the undead are really dead-dead, don't get all stingy with your bullets, I mean one more clean shot to the head. You can avoid becoming a human happy meal. Woulda, shoulda, coulda."

Don't confuse delaying making the payment (4, Insightful)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174366)

With a legitimate argument. Sure they are going to appeal. Because they are out of business if they don't.

Re:Don't confuse delaying making the payment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38191934)

With a legitimate argument. Sure they are going to appeal. Because they are out of business if they don't.

Without a legitimate argument they are going to appeal, because the lawyers are out of work if they don't.

As a non american i'd like to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174470)

how many levels of appeal there are in the united states. In most countries, it is two (one to the appeal court then one to the supreme court). Whenever I hear about the united states, I'm under the impression it is much more than two.

They think they still have assets worth suing for? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174490)

Seize those too.

Give 'em some room (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174548)

You don't want to stand near a dinosaur that's sinking in the tar pit, it tends to lash out.

News isn't creative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174628)

Since when is news 'creative'? Tabloid's maybe but not news. Mangano's more of a huckster than a lawyer.

Wasn't the transfer the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174668)

I thought the major issue with RightHaven, and the reason they were defeated in court was that they weren't legally allowed to have the right to sue transferred to them by the copyright owners.

Essentially, they are making an argument to the courts, when the courts have already decided that they cannot argue a case at all.

To do the car analogy for those that need it, it's like arguing that Volvo should update the in-car computer for their cars when you don't even own a Volvo.

Re:Wasn't the transfer the problem? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38175068)

To do the car analogy for those that need it, it's like arguing that Volvo should update the in-car computer for their cars when you don't even own a Volvo.

Not exactly, everyone's entitled to have an opinion on what Volvo should do to their cars' computers (in general) whether they own one or not.

It's more like demanding that Volvo update the computer on *your* Volvo when you don't even own a Volvo (though perhaps that was what you meant anyway?!)

Re:Wasn't the transfer the problem? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38175624)

well it seems the problem was that they bought copyrights to a story that has no market besides them, so someone copying the article isn't in fact hurting their market.

Re:Wasn't the transfer the problem? (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38177346)

well it seems the problem was that they bought copyrights to a story that has no market besides them

No, that's not what happened. Righthaven bought the _right to sue for copyright infringement_. And several judges told them, completely logical, that if you don't own the copyright, then you have no standing to sue, and it doesn't matter if the copyright holder sells you the right to sue.

Let's say you go to Avis and pay them money to rent a car for two weeks. So for two weeks you have the right to drive their car. Except if you lose your driving license. In that case you don't have the right to drive the car, even though Avis sold you the right to drive it.

mod 0P (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38174706)

To keep up. as [goat.cx]

Re:mod 0P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38175074)

Fail goatse trick link is fail.

Just Surrender Already (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38174712)

Let's just divide everything in the world into patents. Like, Written on QWERTY vs. Not-Written-on-QWERTY. Patent on English, corresponding Patent on Non-English, whatever. Then we auction off the two patents for a trillion dollars and let the two trolls sue each other to hell.

Creative effort in news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38175912)

Those two don't belong together.

What is the point of copyright? (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38176614)

I get that if someone copies a work with no revenue, they cannot be sued for lost revenue. But if copyright is owned by the copyright owner, and is their right to not allow copying, then I do not understand how someone who obviously copied something can still be innocent. They would be guilty, but not liable for damages. They should at most have to pay for the plaintiff's legal fees if being taken to court is what it took.

In the case of film and music there are huge disproportionate criminal fines in place, and you'd think it would be the same with journalism... but I guess the lobbyists weren't aggressive enough to steer the law their way!?

fire? (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38176890)

it's been decades since i played any sort of D&D games but don't you need fire to stop trolls regenerating?

"Degree of Creativity" and News Stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38177612)

Righthaven Attorney Mangano wrote in his brief that "the district court failed to accord any degree of creative effort to the work".

As I recall from my education in journalism "no degree of creative effort" is the key to a news story. It's what makes a news story a news story, instead of "A tabloid fabrication, gossip, tittle-tattle, invention, expansion, propaganda, fiction or any other kind of crap." as the instructor used to say. He'd also say, "Do your creative writing somewhere else." if you gave him something that wasn't solid information.

This means that while Righthaven Attorney Mangano's assertion may be a compliment to the journalist, it ain't an argument against the judge's ruling.

There is a critical flaw in Righthaven's argument. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38186488)

"....Righthaven had standing to sue or should have been allowed to sue after amending its Stephens Media..."

Sorry, but that "amended" contract with Stephens media could not possibly apply to an alleged PRIOR infraction.

You can't change the terms of a contract after the fact.

Check for New 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>