Righthaven Adds Forum Posters To Copyright Suit 83
eldavojohn writes "The last time we discussed the Las Vegas Review-Journal and their litigating attorneys at Righthaven LLC, they were suing all the websites that had violated their news copyrights. Well, they've now added seven individual message board posters that they've managed to identify, bringing the number of DMCA-related lawsuits they have launched since March to 203. In one case, LVRJ is upset that a Google Groups user named Jim_Higgins posted a column that cited the columnist but failed to cite the original LVRJ article. But Google Groups is protected from these suits, as the article explains: 'Both the madjacksports and Google sites are somewhat protected from copyright lawsuits because they have posted "DMCA" notices as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These notices, which must be registered with the US Copyright Office, inform copyright holders who to contact if they would like infringing material removed.' The first decision of this cluster of lawsuits was against Righthaven, yet the onslaught continues. Righthaven has publicly dismissed fair use as well."
Re:Well. (Score:4, Informative)
Calling fair use a law isn't really accurate. Fair use isn't a right. Rather it is a defense against infringement claims.
In fine Slashdot tradition, I haven't RTFA (yet), but Righthaven is likely saying their copyrighted materials weren't used in a way that would qualify as fair use.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright maximalists like to make that claim, but the law says in black and white that Fair Use is a limitation on the scope of copyright. That means that if a use is Fair Use, it is by definition not infringing (whether the artificial monopoly holder likes it, or not).
You can quibble over whether a citizen's rights come from Fair Use, or simply from the fact that in the absence of copyright, the citizen would have a natural free speech right to copy and use the material. But it is misleading to assert that a citizen who is (correctly) asserting Fair Use has no rights; that the artificial monopoly recipient has an absolute monopoly; for that simply is not how the law is written, or how the law is supposed to work.
Re:Well. (Score:4, Informative)
It happens here all the time. A key reason is when there is something about the original article that feels offensive. Paywalls, Olde School attempts at control, and 12 pages for a 2000 word article.
Re:Well. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think anybody is saying a citizen has no rights, just that fair use is actually a defense and not a right.
You may be allowed to use portions of a copyrighted work to comment or report on that work, but it isn't your right. Copyright holders who use DRM to deny access to the work aren't obliged to provide access to allow fair use. If fair use was a right, there would be no problem breaking DRM schemes for fair use purposes and the DMCA would have been overturned years ago. Slowly, the defenders and proponents of fair use are chipping away at the DMCA and I'm hopeful that we will end up with a more balanced law soon.
Nobody is saying the copyright holders have an absolute monopoly. They don't and the law is clear on that. In the case referred to in the summary, an article was reproduced in its entirety. If the defendants had only reproduced excerpts their fair use claims would be stronger. I'm not saying their fair use claim is bogus, but I can understand how Righthaven thinks a line was crossed and they may win the case.