This was discussed somewhere here. You might want to use the Fogbow search engine for Righthaven.

You can jump in there. {{where's the jump-in smilie?}}

Copyright troll Righthaven this week promised to narrow its lawsuit campaign in the face of a courtroom defeat, when a judge ruled that a real estate website made “fair use” of a newspaper article from the Las Vegas-Review Journal.

*snip*

A Nevada judge agreed with the real estate firm’s argument that eight of 30 sentences from a Review Journal story about the real estate market qualified as fair use of the material.

*snip*

“Righthaven does not anticipate filing any future lawsuits founded upon infringements of less than 75 percent of a copyrighted work regardless of the outcome of the instant litigation,” Righthaven wrote the court.

*big ol' honkin' snip (comprising way over 75% of the article even though Wired.com is unlikely to hire Righthaven any time soon)*

Righthaven on Monday asked U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt to dismiss its original claim against Democratic Underground, and the EFF’s counterclaim, essentially crying “no harm, no foul.” It asks that Democratic Underground and the EFF not be awarded legal fees and costs, because Righthaven claims it still could win if it really wanted to.

David Duke, the nation's best-known white supremacist, is being sued by Las Vegas copyright enforcement company Righthaven LLC.

Righthaven, which sues over alleged online infringements of material from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, filed suit against Duke last week in U.S. District Court in Denver.

Also sued was Duke's nonprofit Louisiana-based European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO).

Righthaven charged in its lawsuit that a Denver Post photo of a Transportation Security Administration officer patting down a passenger at Denver International Airport from Nov. 18 was posted on a website controlled by Duke and EURO, whitecivilrights.com.

Righthaven and Stephens Media have attempted to create a cottage industry of filing copyright claims, making large claims for damages and then settling claims for pennies on the dollar, with defendants who do not want to incur the costs of defending the lawsuits, are now offended when someone has turned the tables on them and insisting on a judgement in their favor rather than a simple dismissal of the lawsuit.

The use of phrases, in the Motion to Strike, such as “underhanded,” “a ruse,” “blatantly ignored,” “brazen attempt,” “fumbling attempt,” “purposefully muddle,” and “Defendants' complaint reeks of hypocrisy,” is a very unprofessional attempt to attack counsel rather than address the issues. There is an old adage in the law that, if the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, you pound on the table. It appears there is a lot of table pounding going on here.

There has been presented absolutely no basis to strike the Request to Unseal, and that
motion will be denied.

Fascinating stuff, and very pertinent to every online forum and blog that focuses on political issues.

I'm glad to see DU is turning the screws on these parasites, which is exactly what they are. I hope the court makes them feel some pain. (Legal pain. Not a death threat.)

... and the lawyers disbarred by the California Bar Association a few years ago.

I know it sounds miraculous, but a similar shakedown scheme being conducted by a few lawyers in California (suing stores after they were cited for minor violations of licensing or handicap access laws) was shut down and the lawyers disbarred by the California Bar Association a few years ago.

Righthaven Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over Its Sham Copyright Transfer And Lawsuits
from the keep-digging dept

Things keep looking worse and worse for Righthaven. After documents were unsealed that show that the transfer of copyrights from the Las Vegas Journal-Review (and its parent company, Stephens Media) to Righthaven were almost certainly a sham transfer, designed solely to pass along "the right to sue" (which is not a separately transferable right under copyright law), it seemed like Righthaven might finally have to suck it up and realize that its business model might be a disaster. Instead, it's chosen to fight on, even as other courts have publicly raised concerns about the legitimacy of Righthaven's efforts. And while the company has hired a "star" attorney with lots of case experience supporting extreme maximalist copyright positions, Righthaven is facing even more challenges. Buzzfeed.com, one of the sites sued by Righthaven, has now filed a class action counterclaim against Righthaven based on these documents. The idea is to bring together various Righthaven defendants, as a class, and have them all sue Righthaven for its faulty lawsuits. The class action effort claims not only did Buzzfeed not infringe, but that the whole legal effort by Righthaven is an "abuse of process," especially in light of the newly-exposed legal documents. I'm not sure if this kind of class action has much of a chance, really, but it's interesting to watch Righthaven getting beat up repeatedly lately. That's what happens when you try to use a legal loophole as the basis for an entire business model.

Sincerely,

Your friends at TPM TMP

Dear Ms. Goldenberg:

A federal judge in Las Vegas today issued a potentially devastating ruling against copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC, finding it doesn't have standing to sue over Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, that it has misled the court and threatening to impose sanctions against Righthaven.

Because he found Righthaven doesn't have standing to sue, Chief U.S. District Judge for Nevada Roger Hunt dismissed Righthaven's copyright infringement lawsuit against the Democratic Underground.

But he's allowing the Democratic Underground to continue its counterclaim against Stephens Media LLC, owner of the Review-Journal. That could be expensive for Stephens Media as the Democratic Underground attorneys from the Electronic Frontier Foundation are asking to be awarded attorney's fees.

"The court believes that Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the court," Hunt wrote in his ruling, citing specifically Righthaven's failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in the litigation as Stephens Media clearly had an interest in the outcome of the copyright lawsuits.

Judge: copyright troll Righthaven has no standing to sue
By David Kravets, wired.com

A Las Vegas federal judge threatened to sanction copyright troll Righthaven, calling its litigation efforts Tuesday “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful.”

The blistering decision also places into doubt the litigation factory’s year-old business model, which is also under a Colorado federal judge’s microscope.

{snip}

Judge Hunt’s diatribe was in a ruling in which he said Righthaven did not have standing to bring a copyright lawsuit against the Democratic Underground blog for allegedly pilfering four paragraphs from a 34-paragraph story published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media. The judge suggested Righthaven never had standing because a “copyright owner cannot assign a bare right to sue.”

{snip}

“Making this failure more egregious, not only did Righthaven fail to identify Stephens Media as an interested party in this suit, the court believes that Righthaven failed to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in any of its approximately 200 cases filed in this district,” Hunt ruled. “Accordingly, the court orders Righthaven to show cause, in writing, no later than two weeks from the date of this order, why it should not be sanctioned for this flagrant misrepresentation to the court.”