Judge Reveals Secret Righthaven Copyright Contract 130
Hugh Pickens writes "Judge Roger Hunt has unsealed the confidential agreement between Righthaven and the Las Vegas Review-Journal that has allowed Righthaven to sue over more than 250 charities, impoverished hobby bloggers, reporters, and the newspaper's own sources, for $150,000 each in damages and forfeiture of the sites' domain names, and the contents of the agreement could end up being ruinous for Righthaven's campaign of copyright lawsuits. The problem is that Stephens Media, the company that owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal, didn't actually assign any of the rights related to copyright to Righthaven except the right to sue — and that has been found in Silvers vs. Sony Pictures to be illegal under case law. In other words, none of the important things that come with a copyright — such as the right to make copies of a work, or distribute it, or make 'derivative works' — were handed off to Righthaven. Only the right to sue was given, and that makes the copyright transfer bogus, argue lawyers for the Democratic Underground, which is being sued for one of its website users posting the first four paragraphs of a 34 paragraph story."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can this judge reverse all previous cases? (IAN (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, come on. TFS bases its conclusions on the concept of "illegal under case law" ("there a legal precedent against it, therefore it's 'illegal'"). what do you think? :)
Re:Why was the contract unsealed? (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of trying to run a business with the sole purpose of making income by suing people is probably quite angering to judges. After all, courts are not meant to be used for business, they're meant for solving actual real problems.
No, what has angered judges in the Righthaven cases has been the conduct of Righthaven. Specifically in the Colorado case, the Judge did not like the Righthaven method of suing first then asking questions later. Righthaven sued all the defendants without notifying them of possible copyright material or giving them a chance to remove the material. That did not sit well with the judge. Righthaven apparently angered the judge by then asking for more time which he denied explaining: " . . . the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability." In other words, courts are to resolve legal disputes when no settlement can be reached by the parties. By suing first Righthaven was abusing the court system. It's the conduct of Righthaven not the intent.
Re:Why was the contract unsealed? (Score:4, Insightful)
She received the damages because McDonald's was found to have been purposefully negligent. That is they knew prior to this incident that the coffee was too hot (and had similar complaints/claims/lawsuits in the past), yet determined that the cost savings to them was less than the potential costs of medical bills (because the coffee was too hot to drink when initially given to you) than having to throw out and remake the coffee more frequently. THAT is what cost them, as the jury wished to send a message to the company that their profit margins mean less than the potential to injure.
The woman was parked (not driving), and was trying to remove the lid to add creamer and sugar when it spilled. If the coffee had been served at the LEGAL temp, no burns would have been caused, and if any had, McD's would have not been liable. The victim initially only asked for her medical bills to be paid, but was told to go away by McD's....which meant she had to sue to get recompense. And, McD's attitude cost them the large sum of money as a result.
Re:Why was the contract unsealed? (Score:2, Insightful)