Direct from The Legal Satyricon Blog (randazzawordpress.com)
See related articles from VEGAS INC:
From the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Yesterday, the District of Nevada ordered evidence regarding Righthaven’s ownership of the copyrights it sues on to be unsealed.See: Article in full | See: Strategic Alliance Agreement
Today, Docket # 79, which reveals heretofore unknown information about Righthaven’s business model, was unsealed. As of right now, I don’t believe that any other source has this information. Read the whole thing here.
See related articles from VEGAS INC:
From the Electronic Frontier Foundation
"Despite any such Copyright Assignment, Stephens Media
ReplyDeleteshall retain (and is hereby granted by Righthaven) an exclusive
license to Exploit the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights for any
lawful purpose whatsoever and Righthaven shall have no right or
license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from
the Exploitation of the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights
other than the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery.."
However in their court filings:
7. Righthaven is the owner of the copyright in and to the Work.
30. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to reproduce the Work, pursuant to 17
31. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the
Work, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106(2).
32. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to distribute copies of the Work, pursuant to
17 U.S.C. 106(3).
33. Righthaven holds the exclusive right to publicly display the Work, pursuant to 17
60 Days to Sue Your Lover
ReplyDelete(Section 3) Righthaven has 60 days to sue until the rights are reverted back to Stephens Media. Section 3.3 even includes the following (regarding the "Declination Notice"): "Stephens Media shall only send any Declination Notice on a reasonable basis with the grounds of reasonability being that a particular putative infringer is a charitable organization, is likely without financial resources..." (One has to wonder if Stephens Media ever submitted a Declination Notice to Righthaven)
Sham Copyright Assignment
(Section 7.2) "Despite any such Copyright Assignment, Stephens Media shall retain (and is hereby granted by Righthaven) an exclusive license to Exploit the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights for any lawful purpose whatsoever and Righthaven shall have no right or license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from the Exploitation of the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights other than the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery.."
Debt Collector Clause
(Section 12) "Stephen's Media understands and acknowledges that Stephens Media and Righthaven may be liable for an Infringer's attorneys' fees as required by Law in connection with an Infringement Action. Stephens Media further understands that a lawsuit brought solely to harass or to coerce a settlement may result in liability for malicious prosecution of abuse of process..." (Why have a clause like this unless both parties were perfectly aware this is exactly what would happen?)
fairuser
ReplyDelete"alicious prosecution of abuse of process" Sounds like malice of forthought to me. This document is absolutly damning. Righthaven better stop filing any new lawsuits because it will only put them in deeper. Righthaven is going to have to spend all their time and years fighting hundreds of counter-claims that about to come their way. The clause that shields Stevens Media from lawsuits is meaningless. This will not shield them from any liability.
If Ken's Apr 15th comments are correct, then perhaps Righthaven should be worrying about a perjury charge?
ReplyDelete