Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck The Courts The Media

Copyright Troll Righthaven Ordered To Pay $119,000 75

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Steve Green reports that newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit filer Righthaven of Las Vegas has been hit with an order to pay $119,488 in attorney's fees and costs in its failed lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase, who was sued over allegations he posted a story without authorization on a murder case by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. US District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed Righthaven's suit against DiBiase this summer because Righthaven lacked standing to sue him under its flawed lawsuit contract with R-J owner Stephens Media. The DiBiase case was noteworthy because his attorneys at the EFF said DiBiase's nonprofit website, 'No Body Murder Cases,' performed a public service by assisting law enforcement officials in bringing justice to crime victims — and that his post was protected by the fair use concept of copyright law. Case law created by the Righthaven lawsuits suggests DiBiase's use of the story would be protected by fair use as it was noncommercial and judges have found there can be no market harm to Righthaven for such uses since there is no market for copyrights Righthaven obtains for lawsuit purposes. Although this was by far the largest fee award against Righthaven, it will likely will be dwarfed by an upcoming award in Righthaven's failed suit against the Democratic Underground."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Troll Righthaven Ordered To Pay $119,000

Comments Filter:
  • Mixed news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Myopic ( 18616 ) on Thursday October 27, 2011 @06:01PM (#37862028)

    This is great! I'm happy to have this decision, but I wish the ruling were on the merits instead of being dismissed for lack of standing.

  • by ZombieBraintrust ( 1685608 ) on Thursday October 27, 2011 @06:41PM (#37862394)
    They are aiming at collecting from the newspapers. Defendents are filing motions that Righthaven was involved in the unauthorized practice of law. Basically the argument is that Righthaven is really a lawfirm representing newspapers in copyright cases on a contingency fee. That the contracts were an illegal attempt to shield the newspapers from liability. This ruling support that argument.

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...