

EFF explains why Righthaven's copyright assignment is a sham - grellas
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/why-righthaven-s-copyright-assignment-sham-and-why

======
teyc
If only the following can be applied to patent trolls.

    
    
      Righthaven has continued to assert that it is
      entitled to a presumption of harm to
      its market for the work, which makes no sense
      given that it is contractually prohibited from 
      exploiting the work financially.
    

How about a scheme where people who hold patent portfolios but do nothing with
it would be classified as an absentee landlord and temporarily lose their
right to block other parties from exploiting it?

------
jrockway
Clearly Righthaven should have provided some stickers in exchange for the
copyrights. Then it would have been all good.

(When the FSF sends you a copyright assignment form, they send you some GNU
stickers. The document says something like, "in exchange for these stickers
valued at $1, I provide FSF a non-exclusive copyright assignment." You get
stickers, they get software, and it's apparently all good.)

~~~
logic
Funny, but not quite right. :) In this case, I think it can be reasonably
argued that Stevens Media and others aren't actually assigning copyright,
although their verbal maneuvering would like you to think that they are:

    
    
        7.2 Despite any such Copyright Assignment, Stephens
        Media shall retain (and is hereby granted by Righthaven)
        an exclusive license to Exploit the Stephens Media
        Assigned Copyrights for any lawful purpose whatsoever
        and Righthaven shall have no right or license to Exploit
        or participate in the receipt of royalties from the
        Exploitation of the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights
        other than the right to proceeds in association with a
        Recovery.
    

They're basically saying that Stevens Media is assigning copyright to
Righthaven, but retains a license to do whatever they want with the content.
So far, so good. The part that's tricky is: they're trying to constrain what
Righthaven can do as the new copyright holder, ie. you own this, but you can't
do anything that someone who would normally own a thing can do.

In other words, it's a sham assignment.

------
bluedanieru
This is great for current defendants I guess, for now. Perhaps I'm confused
and this is a bigger deal than I thought, but won't Stephens Media and
Righthaven just modify their agreement and then get right back into the
copyright-trolling 'business'?

~~~
rhizome
Modify their agreement how, by signing over their copyrights? I highly doubt
that would happen, especially when working with a company like Righthaven who
now has documented shadiness. Would you trust RH not to skip off with your
family jewels?

Having the actual copyrights is required for standing to sue for damages,
that's why they got smacked down.

