Copyright troll lawsuit blows up in face of Righthaven(eff.org)
eff.org
Copyright troll lawsuit blows up in face of Righthaven
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/democratic-underground-responds-righthaven
31 comments
Hmm, the only question now is Visa, Mastercard, or Paypal?
I'm torn.
I used to give money to EFF, and I support a lot of the same causes they do. But the last couple years or so their PR tactics have shifted noticeably into the sort of gross alarmism/hyperbole that does more harm than good to those causes. So I'll find other ways to support the things I care about.
I used to give money to EFF, and I support a lot of the same causes they do. But the last couple years or so their PR tactics have shifted noticeably into the sort of gross alarmism/hyperbole that does more harm than good to those causes. So I'll find other ways to support the things I care about.
If you find a better alternative, let us all know.
I'm smiling ear to ear about this one. I hope Righthaven gets taken down hard!
Rule of thumb: Never back down from a bully.
That's a stupid rule of thumb.
What if the bully has the means to kill you and get away with it?
What if the bully has the means to kill you and get away with it?
Hence why it's a rule of thumb instead of a rule embedded in deep concrete and signed by the Highest Authority?
I don't think "bully" is the correct term in that case.
> What if the bully has the means to kill you and get away with it?
Almost everyone has the means to kill you, for most values of "you".
Almost everyone has the means to kill you, for most values of "you".
Do you live in stark, utter terror of your government? Because they can do that. :P
He didn't say "stark, utter terror", he said that sometimes you SHOULD back down from a bully.
And yes you probably should back down from the government.
And yes you probably should back down from the government.
You should back down from the government? I smell a debate forming.
Elaborate on this theory of yours, I'd be delighted to hear.
I postulate that backing down from the government can only possibly make things worse. It might be tough to stand up now, but it'll be tougher later if you don't...
Elaborate on this theory of yours, I'd be delighted to hear.
I postulate that backing down from the government can only possibly make things worse. It might be tough to stand up now, but it'll be tougher later if you don't...
[deleted]
I love reading the filings in cases like this. It's really amusing to see the kind of two-bit lawyers employed by Righthaven get taken to pieces by some of the finest legal minds in the country.
EFF's strategy is spot-on: turn Righthaven's odds game back onto themselves. Righthaven is betting that they can profit by filing scores of lawsuits, then coercing settlements in just a small fraction of them. If this case plays out in EFF's favor, then just a few contested cases could cost Righthaven all of their profits in defendants' attorney's fees.
EFF's strategy is spot-on: turn Righthaven's odds game back onto themselves. Righthaven is betting that they can profit by filing scores of lawsuits, then coercing settlements in just a small fraction of them. If this case plays out in EFF's favor, then just a few contested cases could cost Righthaven all of their profits in defendants' attorney's fees.
Grellas, any idea how a "SLAPP-back" suit would fare for any of these defendants?
Anti-SLAPP statutes are products of state law and do not apply to federal claims for copyright infringement. (See a sample discussion of the issue in this blog post: http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2008/08/copyright-and-california...). So these won't help.
The key to what happened here is that the defendant was able to elicit the help of EFF and the Fenwick firm, undoubtedly pro bono, and this gave them first-class legal talent with which to pick apart the Righthaven claims. Unlike patent trolling suits, where the claimant is typically able to assert credible claims for millions of dollars, the Righthaven model relies primarily on bulk processing of settlements resulting from threats to file suit. Righthaven will scout out the web and find one-fer instances of "copyright violation," as when a contributor to a site posts an excerpt from a news article in a comments section. The damages associated with this, even in a worst case, run no more than into the tens of thousands of dollars and likely would be far less. However, Righthaven takes an assignment from the newspaper that owns the copyrighted content and threatens to file its bullying suit, i.e., it threatens to subject the defendant to an expensive federal copyright suit that will cost far more to defend than is worth it for a typical defendant. In that context, Righthaven's business model depends on the vast majority of defendants caving and being willing to settle for a comparatively small dollar amount in order to avoid the suit. Righthaven does this in volume and that is how it makes its revenue - by coercing a lot of smallish settlements and relying on bulk processing to justify the economics of its efforts.
This model rapidly falls apart in any case where a serious defense is mounted and particularly where the defendant (a) is represented by first-class lawyers (as it was here) and (b) forces Righthaven to spend far more on processing the case than it can ever hope to recover. Here, Righthaven got hit with all this, plus aggressive counterclaims, leaving it unable even to dismiss the case without getting permission from the court. Seeing it had a major loser on its hands, Righthaven brought just such a motion to get permission to dismiss and met with a response from the defendant saying that the court must condition any such permission to dismiss on Righthaven's paying all of the defendant's attorneys' fees. All in all, a pretty disastrous result for Righthaven.
I am not sure how much this may be replicable in other cases but it certainly underscores that the Righthaven model is vulnerable to attack and may spur others to mount similar efforts. It is in any case a good first step.
The key to what happened here is that the defendant was able to elicit the help of EFF and the Fenwick firm, undoubtedly pro bono, and this gave them first-class legal talent with which to pick apart the Righthaven claims. Unlike patent trolling suits, where the claimant is typically able to assert credible claims for millions of dollars, the Righthaven model relies primarily on bulk processing of settlements resulting from threats to file suit. Righthaven will scout out the web and find one-fer instances of "copyright violation," as when a contributor to a site posts an excerpt from a news article in a comments section. The damages associated with this, even in a worst case, run no more than into the tens of thousands of dollars and likely would be far less. However, Righthaven takes an assignment from the newspaper that owns the copyrighted content and threatens to file its bullying suit, i.e., it threatens to subject the defendant to an expensive federal copyright suit that will cost far more to defend than is worth it for a typical defendant. In that context, Righthaven's business model depends on the vast majority of defendants caving and being willing to settle for a comparatively small dollar amount in order to avoid the suit. Righthaven does this in volume and that is how it makes its revenue - by coercing a lot of smallish settlements and relying on bulk processing to justify the economics of its efforts.
This model rapidly falls apart in any case where a serious defense is mounted and particularly where the defendant (a) is represented by first-class lawyers (as it was here) and (b) forces Righthaven to spend far more on processing the case than it can ever hope to recover. Here, Righthaven got hit with all this, plus aggressive counterclaims, leaving it unable even to dismiss the case without getting permission from the court. Seeing it had a major loser on its hands, Righthaven brought just such a motion to get permission to dismiss and met with a response from the defendant saying that the court must condition any such permission to dismiss on Righthaven's paying all of the defendant's attorneys' fees. All in all, a pretty disastrous result for Righthaven.
I am not sure how much this may be replicable in other cases but it certainly underscores that the Righthaven model is vulnerable to attack and may spur others to mount similar efforts. It is in any case a good first step.
I'm all for copyright trolls getting their due, but does anyone know if this kind of thing is enough to seriously hurt their profits?
It's not the profits that matter. It should be shown that these cases are defensible and the average victim should defend themselves. This way, the company would not be able to settle with anyone and thus not make any profit, and hopefully die.
And similar companies as well. It's a step towards preventing this sort of shit from existing in the first place.
This single event? Not directly. But rulings carry precedent. If they are actually ruled against in this case, it would be much harder for them to go after someone else with the same tactic.
If this company is built upon this type of trolling, then yes it will greatly impact their revenue.
If this company is built upon this type of trolling, then yes it will greatly impact their revenue.
I'm kind of surprised this hasn't made the top of DU's list. Maybe it did, and got buried under all the WikiLeaks stuff before I could get over there...?
Ahhh the joy I get from seeing these weak, greedy copyright trolls beg for mercy from the innocent people they prey on!
I love this story. Kudos to them.
A New Hope? Now I'm waiting for the Empire to Strike Back....
I kid but seriously, this is great great news. Patent trolls are anti-innovation, impede creators/entrepreneurs, and drive up costs for consumers.
I hate to be a pedant, but this case concerns a copyright troll, not a patent troll. The distinction between the two is well worth acknowledging.
However, I agree with everything you've said about intellectual property trolling, in general. :)
However, I agree with everything you've said about intellectual property trolling, in general. :)
Oh oops! I didn't catch that before, but yes I do understand the distinction. My mind was just being lazy.
For anyone here who hasn't, here's a clickable: http://www.eff.org/
:)