Attorneys Ask for Public Auction of Righthaven's Assets: Going Once, Going Twice -- SOLD!

Attorneys Seek to Auction Righthaven Copyrights

Attorneys fighting Las Vegas copyright company Righthaven LLC asked for a court order Monday to have Righthaven’s assets auctioned off — notably including the very copyrights Righthaven sues over.
Attorneys at Randazza Legal Group in Las Vegas represent Wayne Hoehn, who was sued for copyright infringement by Righthaven but defeated Righthaven in court when the lawsuit was thrown out.

See: VEGAS INC article in full

Think auctioning off a "variety of assets" including the infamous Bluetooth headset worn by Gibson!

September 2011 Righthaven Victims

Lawsuit count: Sep (0), Aug (0), Jul (0), Jun (0), May (9), Apr (2), Mar (25), Feb (10) and Jan (34). View a list of 2010 Righthaven victims.

No new Righthaven victims were recorded for this month.

The lawsuit count does not reflect the actual number of Righthaven victims, as many codefendants are also named in these "sham" copyright assignment lawsuits and suffer the same serious consequence.

Copyright Lawsuit Mill Continues to Miss Deadlines; Updates on Several Cases

Missed Deadline Potentially Costly for Righthaven

Righthaven LLC watched thousands of dollars in legal work potentially go down the drain Friday when a Las Vegas judge refused to revive one of its copyright lawsuits — a suit dismissed because Righthaven was tardy by one day with a legal filing.
Righthaven has filed 275 infringement lawsuits since March 2010, but lately has been dormant while it waits for judges to rule on whether it has the right to sue under a revised lawsuit contract with the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

See: VEGAS INC article in full

Cases discussed include Garry Newman of facepunch.com, Richard Rawlings of the United States Marijuana Party, Greg Stocks and his Law Med Blog, Ryan Burrage, and veteran Wayne Hoehn.

LTN: September Has Been a 'Particularly Bad Month' for Righthaven; Group Seems 'Troubled'

Righthaven's House of Cards

September has been a particularly bad month for Righthaven. First, MediaNews Group let its contract expire with the company, leaving original investor Stephens Media as the only newspaper partner. MediaNews' new chief executive, John Paton, took a 180-degree turn from his predecessor Singleton in explaining the change, noting via Wired.com that "the idea that you would hire someone on an essentially -- success fee to run around and sue people at will who may or may not have infringed as a way of protecting yourself … does not reflect how news is created and disseminated in the modern world." Not only is he challenging the merits of the suits, he disagrees with the foundation Righthaven is built on.

See: Related Law Technology News article
See: Related EFF article (From The Ashes of Righthaven)
See: Related Wired article (It was a "Dumb Idea")

Two More Cases Dismissed Due to Lack of Service; Defendant Files Motion to Dismiss

Judge Throws Out 2 More Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits

Two more Righthaven LLC newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit defendants can rest easier this holiday weekend after a judge dismissed their cases Friday.
The cases against Peter Ashton and Kathleen Peddle were dismissed by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in Las Vegas after Righthaven failed to show the defendants had been served in time.

The cases were dismissed without prejudice, so Righthaven can choose to sue again over the same alleged infringements. The VEGAS INC article reminds readers of the central argument Righthaven has given in response to its lack of service -- an inability to find the defendants. One of these unserved defendants, Greg Stocks, fired back with a motion to dismiss with prejudice stating that Righthaven has his current address on file, but still has not received a summons or sanctions information.

See: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice

August 2011 Righthaven Victims

Lawsuit count: Aug (0), Jul (0), Jun (0), May (9), Apr (2), Mar (25), Feb (10) and Jan (34). View a list of 2010 Righthaven victims.

No new Righthaven victims were recorded for this month.

The lawsuit count does not reflect the actual number of Righthaven victims, as many codefendants are also named in these "sham" copyright assignment lawsuits and suffer the same serious consequence.

July 2011 Righthaven Victims

Victim count: July (0), June (0), May (9), April (2), March (25), February (10) and January (34).

No new Righthaven victims were recorded for this month. At least one person was revictimized.

Righthaven Amends Lawsuit Contract for Second Time; Files Five Amended Complaints

Righthaven Amends Lawsuit Contract Again

On Friday, Righthaven responded to an order to show cause why 10 more lawsuits shouldn’t be dismissed for lack of standing. That order was issued last month by U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks in Reno and covered all 10 Righthaven cases he is presiding over.
In filings Friday, the Las Vegas company said the third version of the lawsuit contract with Stephens Media addresses the reasons Pro threw out a lawsuit against Kentucky message board poster Wayne Hoehn on standing grounds...

See: Related VEGAS INC article

Righthaven also filed five amended lawsuits today based on the revised Strategic Alliance Agreement. Cases include: Brien Smith, Chris Brown Web Network, Charles Coker, John Kirk and Bob Sieber.

Righthaven Ordered to Pay Attorney's Fees to Group Who Provided Pro Bono Representation

UPDATE 07/06/11: In the early hours of Wednesday, VEGAS INC posted an article about Navarro's order for Righthaven to pay attorney's fees. What remains striking is the volume of litigation errors made by Righthaven whose "sole business is litigation," commented observer Eric Goldman. Such errors also run in stark contrast to Steve Gibson's recent appearance on the Jon Ralston Show where he voiced oddities like: "Righthaven has hired some of the top lawyers across the country..."

07/05/11
You read the title correctly. U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro's order was issued today: Righthaven must pay for the pro bono legal services provided to defendant Michael Leon by attorney J. Malcom DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group. The case against Leon was dismissed without prejudice on April 20. Shortly thereafter, DeVoy submitted an affidavit in support of the motion for attorney's fees. The requested amount of $3,815.00 was granted by Judge Navarro on July 5 and ordered to be paid.

This is a very interesting and endearing development in Righthaven's Shakedown Operation. In the case against Leon, Righthaven failed to serve him properly, which helped his case be dismissed. (Other defendants have also been improperly served or not even served at all.) Leon was represented on a pro bono basis in the April 20 hearing. DeVoy and the Randazza Legal Group successfully argued in subsequent motions that Righthaven still must pay their legal fees -- the judge agreed.

See: Judge Navarro's order to pay attorney's fees

VEGAS INC reported today on far pricier demands for defendant's legal fees!

English Professor and Former Righthaven Victim Fires Off Rounds in July Fourth Post

Last August, Margaret Soltan, an English professor at George Washington University was sued after excerpting part of a Las Vegas Review-Journal article on her blog. In a reflective July Fourth post, Soltan notes details about the "eager beaver" Righthaven attorney she corresponded with during her case, who now may be facing consequences. Soltan also reminds readers that although Righthaven is collapsing, "a lot of damage has been done, and that’s damage that you don’t ever really undo..."

UD’s July Fourth Post

By Margaret Soltan
Last summer, at just this time, my freedom to blog ended.
I lay next to my husband in bed one afternoon and said to him:
I’m going to stop. I’m going to shut the whole thing down and not write another word. This firm that has sued me – Righthaven – they could sue me again, for something else I’ve excerpted from a newspaper. Any other firm with the Righthaven business model could also sue me. Righthaven is seeking damages of hundreds of thousands of dollars from us. All because I excerpted part of a newspaper article. I named and linked back to the source of that excerpt, the way millions of bloggers do every day. I got no commercial benefit from it, because my blog has no advertising. But a man just came to our door and served me with legal papers that say that if I lose this copyright infringement case they’ve filed against me we will be ruined. I don’t have any choice. I have to shut down University Diaries.

See: Blog post in full | See: Related VEGAS INC article

It can't be measured how many former and existing Righthaven victims, and the law groups defending them, appreciate this post. All of us thank you for this Fourth of July contribution Margaret!

June 2011 Righthaven Victims

Victim count: June (0), May (9), April (2), March (25), February (10) and January (34).

No new Righthaven victims were recorded for this month.

Sherman Frederick Lifts Content from Blogger

UPDATE 06/23/11: I have confirmed from Patrick Anderson from GametimeIP.com that he did not give Sherman Frederick permission to post parts of the three article on Sherman Frederick's column. Patrick Anderson is now offering on his blog to sell the rights to any interested party of the three articles in question. Makes you wonder if Sherman Frederick or the LVRJ will take him up on the offer as a defensive move.

UPDATE 06/21/11: Other blogs and sites have picked up on the fact the Sherman Frederick lifted content from another blog to decry lifting content:

TechDirt.com: Righthaven's Biggest Fan Copies Content As Part Of His Argument Against...
PaidContent.org: Righthaven Loses Another—And LV R-J Columnist Has A Strange ‘Defense’

06/19/11
This is interesting. Sherman Frederick, The former editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal and staunch Righthaven supporter as well as current defendant in a counter-suit involving Righthaven may very well have his hands in the cookie jar himself. He has an article on the LVRJ called "Content protection -- Night of the unthinking commentator" Here is the Google Search link for the article in question to avoid giving a direct link to the LVRJ.

Frederick's article contains content from three paragraphs of posts from the blog GametimeIP.com. Frederick fails to even use basic netiquette for citing other sources. The parts taken are not attributed to the author except for a link and not even set in quotation marks which could leave the reader to assume those are Frederick's words and not those of GametimeIP. To prove this point I put one of the portions used by Frederick into a Google search and both GametimeIP and Frederick's column came up.

It is interesting that Sherman Frederick writes about protecting his own content while taking the content from others. This is not the first time this has happened. Frederick embedded a Youtube video of a Saturday Night Live Skit that was later removed by NBC over copyright, as reported by Techdirt.com.

Sherman Frederick may claim he is within fair use, and probably is, but there are so many others that were also within a reasonable definition of fair use who have been called "content thieves" by Frederick and Righthaven so the hypocrisy is quite astounding.

Sherman Frederick once likened cutting and pasting someone else's content to stealing a Cadillac. I ask you Sherman Frederick, why did you take GametimeIP's Cadillac?

Intellectual Property Law Expert Weighs In: 'Righthaven's Entire Enterprise is on the Ropes'

Eric Goldman, an intellectual property law expert and Righthaven critic, comments on the ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt in a blog post today. Among other aspects, Goldman addresses the judge's severe criticisms of Righthaven, such as the rejection of Righthaven's basic substantive argument as "flagrantly false—to the point that the claim is disingenuous, if not outright deceitful." Given the tenor of the opinion, Goldman writes, "it seems like a sanctions order is inevitable."

Righthaven Benchslapped in Ruling Saying It Lacks Standing--Righthaven v. Democratic Underground
--snip--
In addition to the adverse substantive ruling, the judge criticized Righthaven unusually harshly in this opinion. The "high"lights:

• the judge rejects Righthaven's basic substantive argument as "flagrantly false—to the point that the claim is disingenuous, if not outright deceitful."
• the judge emphatically rejects Righthaven's attempt to argue that other judges had already upheld the copyright assignment, saying that "at best, this argument is disingenuous." Righthaven took the very aggressive position of citing one of the judge's earlier rulings back to him--and he seemed pretty angry that Righthaven sandbagged him in the prior ruling and then tried to estop him.
• the judge summarizes the overall ruling by saying "the Court believes that Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the Court."
• the judge then goes on to lambaste Righthaven for not identifying Stephens Media as an interested party in the lawsuit, calling that omission "brazen" and "egregious."

See: Article in full

Eric Goldman is an associate professor at California's Santa Clara University School of Law and director of its High Tech Law Institute.

May 2011 Righthaven Victims

Victim count: May (9), April (2), March (25), February (10) and January (34).

05/06/11	John Kirk - (Dismissed)	johnjohnsaidit.com
05/06/11	Neil G. Brommell and Holly L. Brewer	tvclubhouse.com
05/06/11	Bob Sieber - (Dismissed)	atomicbobs.com
05/05/11	Computer Services One LLC, Norman Edwards - (Dismissed)	floridasteaks.com
05/05/11	Extreme DUI and Johannes Garrido	extremedui.net
05/05/11	Affordable Hunting Trips, Gunner's Alley LLC, Bradford Justus - (Dismissed)	affordable-hunting-trips.com
05/05/11	Law Med Consulting LLC, Law Med Blog and Greg Stocks	lawmedconsultant.com
05/05/11	Alan Gray, Newsblaze LLC	newsblaze.com
05/05/11	Jane Smith, Subliminalselfhypnosis.com -(Dismissed)	subliminalselfhypnosis.com

It must be noted that this month "might" mark a turning point for Righthaven in that they may have started targeting their "no warning" lawsuits at websites that fall on the edges or outside of fair use.

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...

No News Means No New Righthaven Victims; Week Wraps with Sparring and a Stall

Lawyers Sparring over Righthaven Copyright Lawsuit Issues

With litigants in the Righthaven newspaper copyright infringement lawsuit campaign waiting for key rulings on Righthaven’s standing to sue, attorneys continue pounding away at each other on that and other issues.
--snip--
Thirty-five Righthaven suits in Colorado over a Denver Post photo are on hold while the judge handling all of those cases reviews the standing issue while several of the Nevada federal judges hearing Righthaven cases are also considering arguments for and against dismissal focused on the standing issue.

See: Article in full

A hearing regarding the EFF's discovery effort of communications between Stephens Media and Righthaven and several others is set for next week.

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

Victim Brings Class-Action Counterclaim Against Righthaven LLC

UPDATE 05/21/11: Defendants seeking to join this class-action, please click here for information.

Righthaven Hit with Class-Action Counterclaim

One of the website operators accused of copyright infringement by Righthaven LLC has retaliated, hitting the Las Vegas company with a class-action counterclaim seeking to represent defendants in all 57 Righthaven cases in Colorado.
--snip--
The claim seeks an adjudication that Righthaven’s copyright infringement lawsuits amount to unfair and deceptive trade practices under Colorado law, an injunction permanently enjoining Righthaven from continuing the alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices, an unspecified financial award to the class-action plaintiffs for damages as well as their costs and attorney’s fees.

See: Article in full | View: Class-Action Counterclaim

The bringer of the class-action counterclaim is Buzzfeed, represented by attorneys with the Denver law office of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. Buzzfeed was sued by Righthaven in March.

View: List of potentially affected Colorado cases (57)
View: Collection of counterclaims against Righthaven LLC

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?

It's Gotta Hurt: Motion for Attorney Edward Fenno to Withdraw from Dana Eiser Case

Journalist Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun (and sister newspaper VEGAS INC) recently reported that "Righthaven may need to find a new local attorney in South Carolina" in its case against Dana Eiser of Summerville. In December, Eiser posted a Denver Post column, "A Letter to the Tea Partyers," to her nonprofit advocacy website. Attorney Edward Fenno filed court papers May 17 saying he’s withdrawing from the case for undisclosed reasons. A judge has yet to rule on Fenno's motion.

Righthaven LLC v. Dana Eiser
MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Movant, Edward T. Fenno (“Counsel”), respectfully moves for withdrawal of his appearance as counsel for Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) in the above-referenced matter, and to stay proceedings in this matter for fourteen (14) days to allow Righthaven opportunity to obtain substitute counsel. In support thereof, Counsel states the following:
1. Counsel’s withdrawal is permissible under the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct pursuant to Rule 1.16(b)(1) (“withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client”); Rule 1.16(b)(5) (“the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services or payment therefore and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled”); Rule 1.16(b)(6) (“the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client”); and/or Rule 1.16(b)(7) (“other good cause for withdrawal exists”).

See: Motion in full

Related articles:
Counterclaims Stack Up Against Righthaven; Latest Asserts Malicious Prosecution Claim
Eiser's Attorneys Reject Demand; Offer Righthaven Chance to Settle by Paying $250,000
Eiser Team Releases More Correspondence; Righthaven Drops Domain Seizure Demand