

Judge to copyright troll: your lawsuits are shams, give it up - jrnkntl
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/14/judge-to-copyright-t-2.html

======
grellas
This decision is astutely analyzed by Eric Goldman here:
[http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/righthaven_benc...](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/righthaven_benc.htm).

This is a _devastating_ loss for Righthaven.

Among other things:

1\. The core defect exposed by this ruling - Righthaven's lack of standing to
bring any claims for copyright infringement - applies to all 200 RH cases
pending in Nevada and likely those in Colorado as well.

2\. The defect can't be fixed as to the existing cases, putting all pending RH
cases in jeopardy.

3\. The judge found serious procedural misconduct by RH and gave it two weeks
to "show cause," in writing, why it should not be sanctioned. Court rules say
you have to disclose the name of anyone who has a financial stake in the
litigation. RH failed to do so concerning Stephens Media, which holds a 50%
right to any recovery. It failed to do so in _any_ of the 200 cases filed in
Nevada, leaving the judge seriously disturbed by this and by other RH
misrepresentations made to the court. Thus, not only will RH likely get
bounced in all its cases, it will probably have to pay a pretty penny for
having abused the court's processes in putting on its charade. No more
devastating outcome could be imagined for a litigation campaign of this type.

4\. Perhaps the most interesting tidbit that came out: in an editorial,
Sherman Frederick, formerly of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, had threatened to
introduce his "little friend called Righthaven" to those who published his
paper's content, an unmistakable reference to Al Pacino's "little friend" in
the movie _Scarface_ , an M-16 machine gun with grenade launcher - capturing
in brief the hubris behind the whole RH campaign and perhaps more than
anything else explaining why this judge has decided to make RH pay for that
hubris.

An appeal is inevitable but, for now, RH is watching its business model
crumble.

~~~
MaysonL
I wonder, will Stephens Media potentially have a malpractice suit against
Righthaven?

------
mikeryan
So if I understand correctly the history here, Righthaven doesn't actually
purchase the IP from the copyright holders. They obtain the _rights to sue_ in
the copyright holders name (and take part of the proceeds).

I believe in this case the judge found that there's no legal ability for
Righthaven to be a plaintiff in a copyright case where they don't own the
rights to the actual IP.

~~~
_delirium
In particular, the reasoning that other court cases have adopted is that the
Copyright Act only allows suits by "the legal or beneficial owner of an
exclusive right under a copyright", and then goes on to list six exclusive
rights: reproduction, production of derivative works, distribution, and three
kinds of public-performance rights (e.g. of audio transmissions, of public
film showings, etc.). So, Righthaven would need to own at least one of those
six rights regarding a work to sue over it, which it doesn't.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Wait, that's only five.

~~~
_delirium
Oops, I had muddled some of the three variants of the public-performance
right; edited.

------
skimbrel
Good. We need more smart judges and good decisions like this.

------
felipemnoa
Unfortunately Electronic Frontier Foundation is one of the few organizations
that are defending the people in cases like this. We need to do our part to
help them. Please donate some money to them if you can afford it.

------
mcantor
It's about time.

------
nextparadigms
Can't get a bigger patent troll than Righthaven. I mean, they don't even have
the patents themselves. Their business model is to sue others. You know
something is wrong when you can make money from suing others alone.

~~~
cubicle67
except it's copyright, not patents

their business model seems to be to sell their services to publications - give
RH permission to exhort money (and other stuff, like domains) from people, and
in return get 50% of the funds, potentially stop people from copying your work
and also keep your nose clean. RH did the dirty work, copped the bad publicity
and kept 50%.

well, that was the plan...

~~~
lutorm
Isn't this exactly how a law firm works? The only difference is that they
would sue in the name of the actual rights holders.

