5-Years Ago Righthaven Unleashed Copyright Trolling Operation; Gibson Still Practicing Law

Journalist Steve Green, formerly with the Las Vegas Sun and now with the Orange County Register, who worked tirelessly reporting the depths and doings and eventually the complete undoing of Righthaven LLC has written a long follow up five years to the day that Righthaven began its copyright trolling scheme. If you were a follower of this website from 2010 to 2012, back during Righthaven's "shakedown" lawsuit heyday, the memories will flood back ten fold, particularly Righthaven's numerous PR blunders and the key cases that defeated Righthaven and ultimately threw them into bankruptcy.

Some of Righthaven's worst PR blunders included filing their typical "without warning" lawsuits against a woman who had a blog that was written from a cat's point of view and mistakenly posted a Review-Journal article about a bird sanctuary. There was also the suit filed against U.S. Senate Candidate Sharron Angle. After being sued for posting an R-J editorial and story to her website, the R-J endorsed Angle. Righthaven's tide-turning PR blunder, however, was a lawsuit against 20-year old Brian Hill, a blogger from North Carolina who suffers a mild form of autism, diabetes and hyperactive disorder.

At Chapman forum, 'Righthaven' copyright outfit still controversial five years later

It was five years ago -- March 13, 2010 -- that Righthaven LLC launched its assembly line-like copyright lawsuit campaign over newspaper content. Righthaven is long gone, but the controversies it stirred up linger today.
Righthaven was a Las Vegas company created to sue over material copied without authorization from news websites, its partners being the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post. Between March 2010 and June 2011 it filed 275 lawsuits over content from those papers in federal courts in Nevada, Colorado and South Carolina.
Righthaven was a company, not a law firm, and it ultimately fell apart after defense attorneys discovered it lacked authority to file the lawsuits.

See: Orange County Register article in full
See: Righthaven archives from VEGAS INC/Las Vegas Sun
See: March 2010 Righthaven lawsuits

Former Defendant Brian Hill Releases Video Explaining How Righthaven Operates

Brian Hill explains how Righthaven LLC works and
how they operate as a proxy to avoid liability

By Brian Hill
This video explains how Righthaven works as a legal and liable proxy to protect Stephens Media and it’s cohorts from any legal liability in any case that a judge rules in favor of defendants. The entire video's conclusion is from Sources such as the court documents from David Kerr for my case, The Las Vegas Sun, and other evidence built up in the courts thanks to the Randazza law firm.

See: Brian's blog post in full

Learn more about Brian's case:
Judge Denies Attorney's Fees to Defendant Who Inspired Many Other Victims to Fight Back
Righthaven Drops Suit Against Brian Hill
Lightening Bolts Fired in Brian Hill's Reply; Alleged Fabricated Press Release is Just One
Reporters Without Borders Sends Letter to Dean Singleton, Publisher of the Denver Post

Former Righthaven Defendant Blogs About 'Beating Righthaven'

Beating Righthaven
By Donald Douglas

Righthaven sued me for alleged copyright violation on March 8, 2011. The docket listing is here. The lawsuit claimed that I'd infringed the copyright held by the Denver Post for its picture of the invasive pat down at this article: "Controversy over pat-downs, body scans lands at DIA."
--snip--
Righthaven files "no warning" lawsuits. That is, it gives no advance notification to defendants, which violates the norm of providing "take down notices" to those suspected of copyright violations. By doing this, Righthaven --- which made a speciality out of suing small-time bloggers and "mom-and-pop" businesses --- was able to scare the bejesus out of its targets, who then would settle out of court generally in the three to five thousand dollar range. Defendants were threatened with the possibility of a $150,000 judgment and the forfeiture of their website's domain name (URL address). Let me tell you: It's frightening as hell opening up that letter of service and reading the lawsuit...

See: Blog post in full

Attorney David Kerr, who represented Brian Hill, also assisted Donald Douglas.

Judge Denies Attorney's Fees to Defendant Who Inspired Many Other Victims to Fight Back

Earlier today, U.S. District Judge John Kane denied a motion by defendant Brian Hill’s attorneys that Righthaven be required to pay his legal fees. Brian Hill, who suffers from autism and other disabilities, captured the attention of the New York Times, Reporters Without Borders and many other groups and individuals for refusing to cave into Righthaven's intimidation tactics. After the ruling, Brian Hill's attorney David Kerr told VEGAS INC that he was disappointed in the ruling but that he respected it.

"I think Brian deserves to be recognized for being the first Colorado defendant to really refuse to give into Righthaven’s heavy-handed tactics and stand up and fight. I certainly do think there is a correlation between Brian’s case and the MediaNews Group’s decision not to continue their relationship with Righthaven," Kerr said.
MediaNews Group, owner of the Denver Post, disclosed this week it’s not renewing its copyright protection contract with Righthaven. The decision came after several public relations debacles, most notably about the Hill case.

See: Related VEGAS INC article
See: Judge Kane's ruling in full
See: Brian Hill's website (uswgo.com)
See: Brian Hill's Scribd collection

Blogger Ken: MediaNews Group Will Not Renew Contract with Copyright Troll Righthaven

UPDATE 09/08/11: VEGAS INC has published an important update to the MediaNews Group announcement (See: Denver Post owner not renewing Righthaven contract after PR debacles). The article discusses the numerous PR blunders that likely led MediaNews to its decision, including "headaches" caused by defendants Brian Hill, Dana Eiser, Denise Nichols and Reporters Without Borders. The now broken relationship may have legal implications for 34 open Righthaven cases.

MediaNews Group Will Not Renew Contract with Righthaven

The Denver Post is reporting that MediaNews Group, its parent company along with the Salt Lake Tribune, will not be renewing their contract with the controversial drive-by litigation group Righthaven. According to the report MediaNews Group stopped working with them "some time ago."
--snip--
MediaNews Group’s relationship with Righthaven dealt almost exclusively with one image that of the TSA agent performing a patdown that became a symbol of the "Don’t touch my junk" movement. This image had gone viral because of the national debate over the enhanced pat-downs and both MediaNews Group and Righthaven thought they had a potential goldmine. They began suing bloggers by the scores including Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report. In the beginning most settled including Drudge until Righthaven made the fatal tactical mistake of suing a mildly autistic blogger from North Carolina.

See: Related blog post in full

The news comes just after opponents appealed again to a Colorado judge to end Righthaven lawsuits over Denver Post material. See related news article: Foes seek decisive ruling against Righthaven.

VEGAS INC Reports on Waiting Game; Updates on Numerous Righthaven Lawsuits

Judges Still Weighing Key Righthaven Cases

U.S. District Judge James Mahan in Las Vegas on Friday canceled a hearing set for Monday on the issue and rescheduled it for June 30. That will accommodate the schedules of the attorneys and provide time for more briefs to be filed in the case involving the Pahrump Life blog – a case in which Mahan has said it appears Righthaven doesn’t have standing to sue over a story that appeared in the Review-Journal.
--snip--
In this case, against Leland Wolf and the It Makes Sense Blog, the lone Colorado judge handling the Righthaven cases, Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane, is expected to decide if Righthaven has standing to sue under its lawsuit contract with the Post and its owner MediaNews Group.
(Righthaven has agreed to provide the MediaNews Group contract)

See: Article in full

Case updates include: Pahrump Life, Leland Wolf, Dana Eiser, Michael Leon, Denise Nichols, Brian Hill, Thomas DiBiase, Wayne Hoehn, Dean Mostofi, Pak.org, Bill Hyatt and The Law Med Blog.

From The Law Med Blog:

The Law Med Blog can state without hesitation that should the lawsuit filed be served, Law Med will NOT enter into a settlement but will file an answer and any motions, counterclaims, etc. that are warranted and avail itself of all legal avenues and remedies in its defense. We will not simply soil ourselves and take out our checkbook because a ‘big scary lawsuit’ has been filed. We are fortunate to have the knowledge and resources that allow us to see this for what it is and exert our rights under the law to successfully defend against it. The outrage is that other defendants do not…and Righthaven counts on that fact when targeting them.

Kudos to The Law Med Blog!

Flickr Royally 'Effs Up,' Removes Protected Satire Image by Brian Hill

A Las Vegas online travel website recently complained to Flickr that a satire image created by Brian Hill infringed upon their copyrights. The image depicts the interior of a casino as the setting of Wall Street. Hill told VEGAS INC Sunday, "I feel like Wall Street has become like a casino because people lose and win money there, so when people lose money they may lose their family home. That is why I chose a casino setting for the satire. I was never intending to make any casino look bad. If that casino got the wrong idea about my political satire, that was never my intent."

See: Related VEGAS INC article  |  See: Parody, satire and fair use

Related articles:
Lightening Bolts Fired in Brian Hill's Reply; Alleged Fabricated Press Release...
Righthaven Files Response to Brian Hill's Motion for Legal Fees, Reveals...
Brian Hill and other Righthaven Victims Featured in the New York Times...

Many Denver Residents Remain 'In the Dark' About the Post's Involvement with Righthaven

Unlike the situation with the Las Vegas Review-Journal, whose competitor, the Las Vegas Sun, has been keeping local residents aware of the Review-Journal's role in Righthaven's "sue without warning" lawsuits, the situation in Denver is quite different. The Denver Post has no local large competitor (it shut down in 2009). So if one only reads the Post and neglects free area newspapers, like Westword or the Denver Daily News, one might not know the role the Post is playing in these lawsuits.

The Denver Post barely covers Righthaven copyright lawsuits. The Las Vegas Review-Journal was similarly tight-lipped.

I recently emailed a Denver friend, who practices law in a different area than Intellectual Property. I asked him to, "Keep your ears open about the class-action suit being brought by Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP." He replied back, "Will do....but since the Denver Post won't cover the story, and the main news radio station, KOA 850 AM, is a 'partner' with the Denver Post, they probably won't report on the story either...so I really wonder if the local media will talk about it at all!"

I then searched for the Denver Post's mission statement, but came up empty handed. When searching "About" and "Denver Post," I found their Media Kit, which lacks a mission statement too. This contrasts greatly to what I found after switching gears to the Las Vegas Sun's website. At the bottom of each page is a link: Learn more about the LasVegasSun.com. "Fighting for the little guy" is the first part of the Sun's mission statement. Having not seen this page before, I was moved to tears.

Lights Out for Denverites

The Post's backing of Righthaven lawsuits in conjunction with an absent local competing newspaper is deeply disconcerting. Too many Denverites do not know about the frame-up jobs on defendants Brian Hill, Dana Eiser, Denise Nicols and many others, whose use of the Post's material clearly falls under Fair Use. If I were a Denver Post employee, I would be ashamed, and perhaps some of them are. Then again, we are talking about a company that is "missionless," by their own editorial choice.

"Righthaven" search results for the Denver Post
"Righthaven" search results for the Review-Journal

Lightening Bolts Fired in Brian Hill's Reply; Alleged Fabricated Press Release is Just One

New charges were leveled at Righthaven LLC in a recent Reply filed by attorney David Kerr of the Santangelo Law Offices, who represents defendant Brian D. Hill. The Reply is brimming with details, particularly concerning the Release and Settlement Agreement (Exhibit F) crafted by Righthaven. (A related VEGAS INC article contains the full text of the proposed press release as does the last page of the agreement.) I've pulled a section from the Reply where Kerr summarizes the agreement's terms:

Conditions of Release (Page 21 of Reply)

1. Righthaven inappropriately sought to enjoin Mr. Hill from exploiting any and all Righthaven intellectual property, apart from the subject image, without identifying or specifying such works. Such overbroad demand being subject to an award of liquidated damages of $10,000 per breach.
2. Righthaven inappropriately sought to bind non-parties to the terms of the settlement, namely Roberta Hill, and Mr. Hill’s counsel.
3. Righthaven inappropriately sought to use the settlement agreement to remove content from non-party websites that are known to be critical of its for-profit litigation model.
4. Righthaven inappropriately sought to use the settlement agreement to obtain potentially privileged and confidential information from Mr. Hill’s counsel.
5. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition the release of claims against Mr. Hill only on completion of certain actions by counsel and other non-parties
6. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition the release of claims against Mr. Hill based on relinquishing his first amendment rights.
7. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition the release of claims against Mr. Hill to stifle public criticism.
8. Righthaven inappropriately sought a permanent gag order against Mr. Hill, his mother and his attorneys, not only as to the terms of the settlement, but as to ever publically discussing any aspect of this case, or Righthaven generally. Such onerous demand being subject to an award of liquidated damages of $10,000 per breach.
9. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition settlement on requirements that counsel for Righthaven remove, or seek to have removed any public comments made about this case or Righthaven, and that counsel for Mr. Hill would be further enjoined from ever publically discussing Righthaven, or this case, except with explicit permission of Righthaven, prejudicing his ability to represent other Defendants accused by Righthaven.
10. Righthaven inappropriately sought to impose onerous liquidated damages of $10,000 per breach of the settlement agreement. Such damages were applicable to Mr. Hill’s mother, and could be construed to apply to Mr. Hill’s counsel.
11. Righthaven inappropriately sought to fix jurisdiction and venue for any breach of this agreement in Nevada despite being aware that Mr. Hill’s medical and financial condition would make it impossible to defend his rights in that jurisdiction.
12. Righthaven inappropriately sought to require attorneys’ fee pursuant to any breach of the settlement agreement, even though they were aware that Mr. Hill had no recoverable assets, and that his only source of income was exempted from such relief under federal law.
13. Righthaven inappropriately sought to issue a press release that fabricated specific quotes falsely representing that Mr. Hill, his mother and attorney’s had made false statements directly contrary to the facts and prior declarations made to this court. The ultimate result being that, Righthaven sought to leverage and condition Mr. Hill’s release with a false admission that he, and his mother, and potentially his counsel had perjured themselves before this Court.
14. Righthaven inappropriately sought to issue a press release solely to embarrass and disparage Mr. Hill, insinuating that his mental condition may have led him to make false statements to the public and the Court.
15. Righthaven inappropriately sought to issue a press release which falsely represented that Mr. Hill’s counsel endorsed Righthaven’s business practices and that Righthaven had exhibited professional behavior during settlement negotiations.
16. Righthaven inappropriately sought to have Mr. Hill provide a false apology for his actions which he maintains are fair use under the law.
17. Righthaven inappropriately sought to extract a false apology from Roberta Hill’s for critical statements regarding Righthaven.
18. Righthaven inappropriately sought to extract a false concession from Mr. Hill’s counsel for critical statements made regarding Righthaven’s business model.
19. Righthaven inappropriately sought to fabricate quotes from Mr. Hill’s counsel that would contradict the facts of Righthavens litigation conduct in an effort to mitigate or cut-off any accrued liability.
20. Righthaven inappropriately sought to fabricate quotes from Mr. Hill’s counsel that would falsely admit, and make legal conclusions that Righthaven was within their rights to pursue claims of copyright infringement against Mr. Hill, and that Mr. Hill’s actions violated the law. Such false concessions would result in extreme prejudice to Mr. Hill’s legal rights and any later appeal efforts, but would be in total derogation of counsel’s ethical and professional obligations to his client.

See: Article in full | View: Reply in full

My God, what have other Righthaven victims signed?

EFF Warns Against the 'Protect IP Act,' A Reincarnation of Last Year's COCIA

If you are unaware of what has been going on in the U.S. Senate regarding potential increased protections of intellectual property (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011), now is a good time to learn. A portion of a recent EFF article is below. TechDirt and Ars Technica have written about it too, as has Righthaven victim Brian Hill.

The "PROTECT IP" Act: COICA Redux
Last year’s rogue website legislation is back on the table, with a new name: the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011"—or (wink, wink) "PROTECT IP". The draft language is available here.
The earlier bill, which failed to pass thanks largely to a hold on the legislation placed by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, would have given the government dramatic new copyright enforcement powers targeted at websites "dedicated to infringing activities," even where those websites were not based in the United States. Despite some salient differences (described below) in the new version, we are no less dismayed by this most recent incarnation than we were with last year’s draft.

In February, the U.S. Government shut down 84,000 websites by "mistake". They also shut down "potential" infringing sites prior to the Superbowl.

Righthaven Files Response to Brian Hill's Motion for Legal Fees, Reveals Confidential Settlement Demands

Righthaven has given their response to awarding legal Fees to Brian Hill's Attorney David Kerr. Their main argument is that they should not be subject to attorney's fees because they dismissed the case against Brian Hill with prejudice which means the case cannot be refiled. They are trying to make the case that if a case is going badly for a plaintiff they can simply dismiss it with prejudice and it absolves them from any consequences even if their actions caused the defendant and/or the defendants lawyer to incur large legal costs . Novel legal theory but I'm sure David Kerr will have no trouble poking holes in it.

Read: Righthaven's response to Brian Hill's motion for legal fees

In their response, Righthaven reveals their "Confidential" settlement demands and claim that Brian Hill was acting in "bad faith" for not simply capitulating to Righthaven's demands. In the settlement demands that Righthaven has revealed shows they were willing to settle for as low as $1 even though they had demanded as much as $6000, but even that $1 would have been illegal per federal law for them to collect since Brian Hill's only form of income is Social Security Disability.

The worst part of the settlement demand was to force Brian Hill to publicly disavow everything he had ever said or written about Righthaven and to remove any posts he had written about them and never to write anything "untruthfull" about Righthaven which would mean anything Righthaven objects to. This assault on Brian Hill's First Amendment right to free speech was unacceptable.

Righthaven also claims in their response that they did not object to Brian Hill's motion to get a 21 day extension after he had obtained legal council from David Kerr.

4.Righthaven did not oppose Defendant’s first request for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint.

This is at odds with this Las Vegas Sun article by Steve Green dated March 1, 2011 where attorney David Kerr says that Righthaven did oppose Hill's 21 day extension:

Despite all that, Kerr complained Righthaven wouldn't agree to give Kerr more time to file a more thorough legal response.
Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane sided with Kerr on Tuesday, giving him until March 21 to file an amended answer to the lawsuit.

Brian Hill and other Righthaven Victims Featured in the New York Times

Finally a major news organization writes about Righthaven and some of their victims including Brian Hill of North Carolina whose case was recently dismissed by Righthaven after a string of bad press stories over suing the mildly autistic blogger for alleged copyright infringement over the now infamous TSA image. Brian Hill recently reopened his alternative news site uswgo.com. Brian Hill's lawyer, David Kerr of Colorado, is now in the process of petitioning the Colorado District Federal Court to order Righthaven to pay his legal fees.

Read the Story in the New York Times: Enforcing Copyrights Online, for a Profit

It's good to see Brian Hill is still giving Righthaven major headaches.

Righthaven Drops Suit Against Brian Hill

UPDATE 04/11/11: Judge Kane, who is presiding over this case, was not too pleased with Righthaven's rant about Brian Hill in their notice of dismissal and quickly issued an order striking all but the first paragraph off the record keeping only the part stating they are dropping the suit.

See: Judge Kane's Order to Strike

04/11/11
Righthaven LLC, of Nevada has dismissed the case against North Carolina blogger Brian Hill. They were handed a humiliating defeat after they were unable to answer Brian Hill's dismissal petition written by attorney David Kerr. Righthaven had requested a 21 day extension which was summarily rejected by Judge John L. Kane of the Federal District Court of Colorado who issued a stern rebuke against Righthaven and their business model.

See: Righthaven's notice of dismissal

Brian has maintained his innocence in this matter and refused to be intimidated into settling. David Kerr said that there are still issues to be addressed by Righthaven so even though Brian Hill is off the hook, Righthaven may not be. There are also scores of other cases pending in Colorado and being presided over by the same judge. Brian Hill's case will certainly way heavily on other cases and should have Righthaven re-evaluating their business model and hopefully will convince News Media Group and the Denver Post to re-evaluate their business arrangement with Righthaven.

See: Related Ars Technica article

Colorado Federal Judge Rebukes Righthaven

Judge John L Kane of the Federal Court of the District of Colorado has denied Righthaven's motion to grant a three week extension to respond to Brian Hill's motion to dismiss that was submitted to the court by his attorney David Kerr.

In Judge Kane's denial to extend he issued a scathing rebuke against Righthaven stating his court will not be used as a tool to encourage and exact settlements from defendants who may be intimidated due to the high cost of litigation and potential liabilities. Thus cutting to the heart of Righthaven's business model.

See: Judge Kane's ruling

"the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability."

The very fact that Righthaven requested an extension suggests they are having difficulty answering David Hill's dismissal petition by David Kerr and are stalling for time in hopes of strong arming some kind of settlement which, according to court documents, they are far from getting.

The Judge also stated that after Righthaven responds this case will not proceed further until he rules on the motion to dismiss which is a good sign he will grant the motion.

The Judge appears to have little patience for Righthaven and their business model. This is consistent with Federal Judges in Nevada who have not been kind to Righthaven. Federal Courts do not like being used for profiteering and this ruling is another sign that Righthaven has a lot of trouble ahead in the courts.

See: Related VEGAS INC article

Righthaven vs Brian Hill Dismissal Petition

I just finished reading the entire 52 page affidavit from Attorney David Kerr who is representing Brian Hill of North Carolina. He is a 20 year old mildly autistic man who is currently being sued by Righthaven for posting the TSA image that originally appeared in the Denver Post. Righthaven is seeking $150,000 from Brian along with his domain name http://uswgo.com which is a non-profit alternative news site. His site was shut down when he first heard of the lawsuit against him.

Here is a link to Mr. Hill's entire dismissal petition by Atty. David Kerr.

As David Kerr eloquently points out in his riveting law brief shows the absolute cruelty that Righthaven is subjecting Brian Hill to by continuing this lawsuit.

The present case is even more problematic. Mr. Hill is a 20 year old mentally and physically disabled young man who has been unwittingly swept up in this unforgiving “business model.” Mr. Hill is a resident of North Carolina, was the registrant domain name holder of the not-for-profit website www.uswgo.com Mr. Hill suffers from autism, as well as a rare and severe form of diabetes known as brittle type-1 diabetes, Attention Deficit Disorder and hyperactivity. These severe medical conditions require around the clock attention which is provided by his Mother Roberta Hill. Due to these medical conditions, Mr. Hill cannot work, and will likely not be able to work for the rest of his life. In particular, Mr. Hill’s blood sugar must be monitored around the clock

Righthaven was made aware of Brian Hill's health problems and his financial situation when they first contacted Brian and told him they would settle for $6000 dollars, which would almost be his entire years income from a Social Security Disability Check that is his and his mother's only source of income. According to Mrs. Hill, Righthaven was cold as ice when they explained this to them. Righthaven made their demands knowing full well they cannot, by law, collect from a Social Securty Disability check.

Mr. Kerr's petition to dismiss mainly covers the inappropriateness of holding the lawsuit in a Colorado Federal Court and request the case either be moved to North Carolina or outright dismissed. The dismissal petition sites several grounds including the fact that neither Righthaven nor Brian Hill reside in Colorado, nor has Brian had any dealings with anyone in Colorado. Since The Denver Post is not a party to this lawsuit then no alleged "infringement" could possibly have occurred in Colorado.

Rightaven claims, without proof, that Brian knowingly took the photo from the Denver Post when in fact Brian Hill first found this photo from a parody site called 'deadseriousnews.com' that to this day still has the TSA image and has not been sued by Righthaven even though they are the source of many Righthaven victims.

The supported facts of the case are as follows: Mr. Hill’s first contact with the photo in question came when he accessed through the internet, what he reasonably believed to be a California based humor and parody website, www.deadseriousnews.com. Mr. Hill, being politically opposed to what he views as intrusive physical inspections conducted by employees for the Transportation Security Administration.

The story along side the image in deadseriousnews leads the reader to believe the photo was taken in San Fransisco and the site does not attribute the photo leaving no indication this was a copyrighted photo from the Denver Post.

One revelation in Brian Hill's affidavit shows that Righthaven may not even have standing in this case and that Brian Hill's site was shutdown before Righthaven even "acquired" the copyright and registered it with the US Copyright office.

Righthaven alleges that Mr. Hill infringed upon its copyright. While Righthaven specifically claims ownership of the photo in question, it however fails to plead the relevant dates of its ownership interests, or the transfer of any accrued rights. prove such infringement, Righthaven must allege that it is the owner of a valid copyright as well as any accrued actions of infringement. Righthaven alleges that Mr. Hill first displayed a copy of this photo on his website on, or about December 1, 2010. Righthaven also admits that the United States Copyright Office only granted the registration on December 8, 2010. However, Mr. Hill’s website was suspended for excessive resource usage on December 7th, 2010, one day before the grant of registration.

The affidavit also demands that Righthaven be made to pay legal fees because they filed the suit with "unclean hands" and are are engaged in "potentially champertous and barratrous relationship with Media News Group"

This Court is presented with a most curious and problematic case. Plaintiff, Righthaven LLC, (“Righthaven”) appears to be what is often referred to as a “copyright troll.” Righthaven is believed to be acting as a proxy plaintiff for reluctant media corporations. On information and belief, Righthaven might even be in a potentially champertous and barratrous relationship with Media News Group, Inc., the parent corporation of the Denver Post, Corp., to serve as a proxy
Plaintiff against Defendant Brian D. Hill, (“Mr. Hill”) - as well as hundreds of other similarly situated persons across the country.

Righthaven has yet to respond to the charges leveled against them in this dismissal petition. It is clear they will have a hard time refuting many if not all of the carefully thought out and maticulously sited court precedences that are contained within this legal document.

The arguments can help other Righthaven victims as well. If Righthaven loses this case it will put their entire operation in jeopardy which has already suffered two devastating court losses over fair use that if upheld will effect every newspaper in the country.

Righthaven surely cannot go on much longer with so many counter claims and court losses. As well as the PR problems and embarrassment their client papers our receiving over cases like Brian Hill's. Only if their backers are willing to lose millions of dollars and risk setting more unfavorable court precedents can Righthaven continue on. Righthaven is a failed experiment by Stephens Media. They should acknowledge this failure by pulling the plug on Righthaven before the courts do it for them.

Denver Post should not be held blameless for this. They sold an image they knew had gone viral for the express purpose of not stopping infringments put to profit from it.

To contact the Denver Post to let them know how you feel about Righthaven and their unholy alliance:

Kevin Dale
News Director
THE DENVER POST
101 W. Colfax, Suite 600
Denver, Co. 80202
O - 303.954.1213
F - 303.954.1090
kdale@denverpost.com

See: Related Las Vegas Sun article

To send a message to all papers associated with Righthaven feel free to put this image on your blogs and sites to send a message that we will not send traffic their way if they continue to sue bloggers who are exercising their fair use rights. I created this image myself and you have my full permission to use it.

Righthaven Victim Petitions Judge to Dismiss Lawsuit; Starts Facebook Page

Righthaven defendant Brian Hill recently created a petition on the Care2 Petitionsite -- Care2.com was vicitmized by Righthaven in January -- directed at Judge Kane to dismiss the lawsuit against him. The reasons why include: "Brian Hill broke no copyright law. The usage of the TSA Enhanced Patdown Photo was for educational, political, bringing out the news, and non commercial purposes thus exempted from Copyright Law under Fair Use."

Hill also created a Facebook public event titled, "Boycott Righthaven newspapers and petition Colorado Court." A separate Facebook page, Stop the LVRJ/Righthaven Witch Hunt, was started last year after Righthaven teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal. We encourage readers to sign Hill's petition and to offer support on both Facebook pages to increase visibility of the injustice that Righthaven and its partners continue to inflict upon innocent infringers.

"Destroying People's Lives" and Chilling Free Speech is Not the Intention of Copyright Law

Defense Attorney Fights for Internet Free Speech
Luke Santangelo, the founder of Santangelo Law Offices, was recently mentioned in an AmericanFreePress.net article concerning Righthaven victim Brian Hill, who is being represented by attorney David Kerr of his law firm.

Following Hill’s response, Kerr, an attorney with Santangelo Law Offices in Fort Collins, Colo., offered his services pro bono. Kerr is also a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of digital rights.
When his firm’s founder, Luke Santangelo, heard that Righthaven’s attorneys were threatening to take away Hill’s disability, Kerr recalls, “Santangelo said, ‘I’m on board. Copyright protection is important, but destroying people’s lives with copyright is not what we’re about’.”

See: Article in full

Righthaven & cohorts are knowingly destroying people's lives and chilling free speech by filing these lawsuits. How does "media baron" Dean Singleton sleep at night? Find out here...

Reporters Without Borders Sends Letter to Dean Singleton, Publisher of the Denver Post

The Westword reports that Reporters Without Borders, a group that usually targets dictatorships and other "iron-fist" nations that intimidate and imprison journalists, has taken note of Righthaven's shake down operation that began in Las Vegas and has stretched into European nations. The international watchdog and advocacy group is particularly concerned about the Righthaven case involving defendant Brian D. Hill. In a March 3, 2011 letter to Singleton, they wrote:

We were surprised to witness such behavior here, in the United States, while this is generally a phenomenon Reporters Without Borders witnesses in authoritarian regimes to silence netizens and intimidate journalists, bloggers and others. Therefore, we ask you to drop the lawsuit against him and find a reasonable compromise regarding his case.
As MediaNews Group Inc. is one of the largest newspaper publishers in the US, we fully understand the copyright issues that The Denver Post has to face and we are not at all supporting the theft of a picture. However, this decision led Brian Hill to close down his website, which constitutes a very bad precedent for freedom of the press in the US. Though we believe news organizations deserve to make money off their creative work, Reporters Without Borders urges The Denver Post to reconsider its approach...

See: Article in full | Read: Letter in full

Price Increase: Righthaven Now Asking Bloggers for $6,000 to Avoid Trial

Brian Hill: Hobby Blogger Sued by MediaNews & Righthaven...
According to blogger and activist Brian D. Hill, copyright trolling group Righthaven LLC recently demanded $6,000 for an out-of-court settlement. In 2010, the price was reported to be between $2,000 to $3,000 and $3,000 to $5,000. The price increase, particularly for individual bloggers, is significant at a time when many believe the U.S. economy is being sucked into a black hole. It's unknown how much Righthaven is asking of larger entities, such as Care2.com, Inc.

According to Hill, a Righthaven representative responded by telling me "that if I paid them $6,000 in an out-of-court settlement, it wouldn't go to trial."
Unfortunately for Hill, he has neither the $6,000 nor enough money to travel to Colorado for a hearing. He received a summons last week that gives him 21 days to respond -- "so me and my mom sent a letter to the judge to try to get him to dismiss the case." And if he doesn't? "Then the only way we can afford to go to Colorado is to countersue Righthaven and have them pay the filing fee."

See: Article in full

Brian Hill is the author of U.S.W.G.O., an alternative news website, and a video podcaster.