Salt Lake Tribune Aligns With Copyright Troll Righthaven
On Saturday, blogger Ken wrote a very informative post on OneUtah.org regarding copyright troll Righthaven and the anticipated relationship between the firm and The Salt Lake Tribune newspaper. Ken also created a graphic for bloggers, message board operators and website owners who wish to make a statement opposing Righthaven's 'shakedown' tactics.
On Saturday, blogger Ken wrote a very informative post on OneUtah.org regarding copyright troll Righthaven and the anticipated relationship between the firm and The Salt Lake Tribune newspaper. Ken also created a graphic for bloggers, message board operators and website owners who wish to make a statement opposing Righthaven's 'shakedown' tactics.
See: Article in full...What gives this story a local angle is the fact that the Salt Lake Tribune’s parent company News Media Group have signed on with Righthaven. Articles and images from the Denver Post are now subjects of Righthaven Lawsuits and signs are very strong that the Salt Lake Tribune will be following in the Denver Post’s footsteps. Only a few weeks before the first Denver Post lawsuit they issued a warning very similar in wording and tone to the one recently issued by the Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City Weekly published an article recently warning Utah bloggers and website owners of possible lawsuits coming soon for articles and images posted on Utah websites...
‘Champerty’ is unethical behavior that occurs when a person or company obtains an interest (like an assignment of copyright) in something by merely taking part in a lawsuit in which the person or company otherwise has no independent right to join.
ReplyDelete‘Maintenance’ is officious intermeddling in a lawsuit that in no way belongs to the intermeddler by maintaining or assisting some party to the case, with money or otherwise, to prosecute the case. Maintenance occurs when one supporting, promotes, or maintains, the court litigation of some other person. To maintain the other person’s lawsuit is unlawful unless the person maintaining has a legitimate interest or right in the object of the suit.
Champerty is a subcategory of maintenance whereby the intermeddler strikes a deal with one of the parties to the lawsuit to be paid out of any proceeds of the case. Champerty is a bargain to share the proceeds of a lawsuit between the rightful owner of the claim and the intermeddler supporting or enforcing the claim in a lawsuit.
Champerty is repugnant to public policy against profiteering and speculating in litigation or lawsuits; and Champerty provides grounds for denying any relief from the court. At common law, a victim of champerty or maintenance had a cause of action for champerty, and, the doctrines of champerty and maintenance can still be used to undo the assignment of contracts or transactions.
Courts developed the laws of champerty and maintenance to prevent officious intermeddlers from stirring up trouble and conflict by vexatious and speculative litigation that would otherwise disturb the serenity of society, lead to corrupt practices, and prevent the remedial function of law by clogging up the courts’ dockets. However, the doctrines of common-law champerty and maintenance are no longer recognized in may jurisdictions.
Claims for maintenance or champerty have been substituted with causes of action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, frivolous litigation, and the rules of professional conduct for attorneys.
The writing above is original work by this author and may be reprinted and republished without permission.
“A champertous agreement is one in which a person without interest in another's litigation undertakes to carry on the litigation at his own expense, in whole or in part, in consideration of receiving, in the event of success, a part of the proceeds of the litigation.” Martin v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc., 665 F.2d 598, 603 (5th Cir.1982), cert. dismissed, 458 U.S. 1122, 103 S.Ct. 5, 73 L.Ed.2d 1394 (1982). “To maintain the suit of another is now, and always has been, held to be unlawful, unless the person maintaining has some interest in the subject of the suit.” Lum v. Stinnett, 87 Nev. 402, 408, 488 P.2d 347, 350 (1971) (citing Gruber v. Baker, 20 Nev. 453, 23 P. 858, 862 (1890)). “Where a person promoting the suit of another has any interest whatever, legal or equitable, in the thing *590 demanded, ... he is in effect also a suitor according to the nature and extent of his interest.” McIntosh v. Harbour Club Villas Condominium, 421 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982).
Schwartz v. Eliades, 113 Nev. 586, 589-590, 939 P.2d 1034, 1036 (Nev.1997).
The excerpt above is a quote from case law in the public record.