If you’re not familiar with Righthaven, it’s a fairly simple organization:
Righthaven LLC is owned 50/50 by two limited liability companies. The first is Net Sortie Systems, LLC, which is owned by Las Vegas attorney Steven Gibson – the Nevada attorney who is behind all of the lawsuits filed by Righthaven. The second is SI Content Monitor LLC, which is owned by family members of investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens whose investments include Stephens Media, LLC which owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Righthaven is the leading copyright troll organization in the country. They use Google searches to find text or images that have been used on blogs, forums or websites. When they find something, they buy the rights to that specific article from the rights holder and sue the offending party. Righthaven never offers any warning. In fact, those being sued usually learn about it in the newspaper.
Righthaven has a standard list of demands which includes a six figure sum (often $150K) for infringement plus the domain name of the site that published the material. This is mostly bluster. Here’s the real plan as described by Boing Boing:
the copyright troll business-model is to skimp on legal analysis, threaten to sue people, and offer “settlements” that are cheaper than paying for a legal defense.
Indeed, they almost always settle out of court for small sums from bloggers who have no means to fight them off. To my knowledge, they have never been given a website URL. In fact there is apparently no basis in law for ever doing so.
There have been over 200 Righthaven lawsuits so far and they have expanded their operation beyond Stephens media to include a list of mostly small time, local newspapers. The papers of note which are now part of this scheme are as follows:
- The Sun
- San Jose Mercury News
- Denver Post
- Detroit News
- Salt Lake Tribune
- Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
- and the one that started it all the Las Vegas Review Journal
If you are a blog owner who has excerpted material from any of these sites, ever, you need to remove it immediately. Righthaven is known for having a particularly narrow view of fair use. In fact, they sued Democratic Underground for posting just four paragraphs (12%) of a long story, even though DU included a link and clearly intended to direct readers to the story.
They’ve also gone after a number of notable sites on the right. They’ve sued Sweetness and Light, SayAnythingBlog, Pajamas Media and the Drudge Report, the latter two for use of a TSA photo (the one where a guy is on his knees with his hand in someone’s crotch). Drudge settled for an undisclosed sum.
Righthaven sued Sharron Angle for posting a positive editorial on her site just a few weeks before the election. Curiously, they did not sue Harry Reid, despite the fact that his Senate website contained at least two complete LVRJ articles. They also gave the White House a pass on material copied onto the White House blog.
But it’s not just bloggers that need to worry. If you are a blog commenter or forum poster, you can be sued as well if you post portions of an article from one of Righthaven’s clients.
To be clear, many of the suits are not political in nature. Recently, Righthaven sued an autistic hobby-blogger on disability, demanding $6,000 to avoid going to trial. Like leopards on the savanna, it appears to be part of Righthaven’s considered strategy to go after those least capable of defending themselves. A list of their recent targets makes clear that no Fortune 500 companies are involved.
Fortunately, some of the organizations they’ve sued have begun to fight back. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has offered to help a number of bloggers and businesses that have been sued. In fact they defended Democratic Underground from the suit brought against them and won. In December EFF asked a judge to force Righthaven to pay for the cost of the defense. Hopefully, this is the first of many failed suits which will make Righthaven’s business model ultimately unsustainable.
In the meantime, there are a few things you can do to protect yourself:
- One, avoid the media outlets listed above like the plague. You can actually set your browser to reject loading any material from these sites. Instruction for several different browsers can be found here.
- Two, if you run a blog or forum, do a search on your own site for the papers listed above to make sure you haven’t used any of their material in the past. If you have, delete the material immediately or reduce the excerpt to no more than a sentence or two. There is such a thing as fair use even if Righthaven doesn’t like it.
- Third, you can register what is known as a DCMA takedown agent with the US Copyright Office. This only requires filling out a one page form and paying $100 fee. Theoretically, any site which has done this is insulated from suits aimed at commenters (or forum posters) and, just as important, you should be given notice to remove material prior to any lawsuit being filed. If that sounds like a good deal to you, Wired explains how to go about it here.
- Fourth, you can find out which articles Righthaven is buying (and thus planning lawsuits around) by going to the US Copyright Public Catalog and doing a search. Instructions are here. Here’s what it looks like.
- Fifth, you might consider making a donation to EFF. They’ve led the charge against these shakedown lawsuits.
There’s no telling how much longer this reverse Robin Hood business model will be a winning strategy for Righthaven. Until they are forced to fold by a string of losses in court, keep an eye on them.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
27 Comments
It appears as though Steven Gibson and Warren Stephens are taking a page out of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Morris Dees, bottom feeders profiting on nuisance lawsuites…..
This is just another progressive assualt on the second amendment ….the cornersone of American exceptionalism….
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/the_southe...
This is the thing that closed down my all time favorite local Texas new blogs (it's my avatar link).
Makes me with I could just punch them in the nose. (ooooOOOooo…am I in trouble now!!!! Violence!!!!)
just another form of ambulance chasing by lowlife bottom dwelling scumsuckers. you know, what is the difference between a catfish and a lawyer, one is a lowlife bottom dwelling scumsucker, and the other one is a fish.
AIDS researchers have recently replaced laboratory rats with lawyers for clinical testing. The reasons are:
1. There are plenty of them
2. The lab technicians do not get attached to them
And…
3. There are some things a rat won't do
Befuddling! You would think they would appreciate the additional traffic to their sites…
Hmmm, since Righthaven didn't sue Harry Reid or the Obummer White House, can I sue Righthaven for not having sued those 2 on the premise of them having a "Double Standard"? …sure could use a small 6 figure settlement in these economic times.
don't worry about it, apparently violence is ok again, just look at the signs in wisconsin by those peaceful union thugs.
This is what happens when you have a nation full of lawyers who are nothing but bottom feeders. This kind of activity goes on all the time in the field of inventions and has been for quite some time. I am a independent inventor with no corporate affiliation whatsoever. I have been successful at my work. The problem is lawyers and sometimes former patent office employees will buy the rights to competing products or, in some cases, file for a competing invention then sue the original inventor with product in the marketplace. They always seek damages for less than the cost of actually defending the suit by the inventor so, one (I, in 2 cases so far) is obliged to concede the case and make a settlement. There is no honor in the profession of law anymore, if there ever was.
I was going to post something like "Post as much of their material you can while masking your IP." but then… I've never even heard of any of those papers! So what's the point?
…and lawyers wonder why they are disliked as a profession. They engage in the same type of protectionism as silent moderate muslims as they are afraid that they will become targets. When will honest lawyers stand up and fight these scum?
Scum-buckets. I wish gigantic Denial of Service and worm attacks upon them.
Ambulance chasers. My opinion of the gentlemen who own Righthaven is completely based on John Turturro's attorney character in the movie Brain Donors. To the best of my knowledge they do not own the rights to this movie and my mere mention here is well within the Fair Use doctrine.
Yeah these guys are superbad. They will be co-opted by the leftist censors to be the internet police by way of legal terrorism.
I think they hit Drudge already and they can be pointed in any direction. If they attack government favored sites, they'll be punished so they'll steer clear of them.
.
Better chance of capturing Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster and an Alien all in the same day on National TV then finding an HONEST Lawyer.
A criminal enterprise which needs to be closed.
Yeah, I don't see 'em hitting Instapundit, Volokh Conspiracy or Legal Insurrection–seeing as how those sites are run by lawyers…
I'm not an attorney, but if a blogger uses an article from the San Jose Mercury News, then a year later Righthaven buys the rights to that article, how can they sue a blogger who used that article before Rightshaven bought the rights to it?
If anyone could sue, it would be the party that owned the material at the time of the alleged infringement – which would be the San Jose Mercury News.
Am I missing somethng?
and when will a bunch of Judges dismiss the suits as frivolous??
Thank you for posting this very informative article.
i live near South Carolina and often listen to radio stations broadcast from there. currently some SC lawyers' group is running image advertising to counter the negative impression folks have of their profession. every time i hear it i think, "Why don't you a-holes spend some $ on ridding your industry of the f'ing scum in its ranks?" naaahh, never happen…………..
i would guess that as long as the copyrighted material still appears/exists on a site, the current licensee can exercise its rights over it.
This article is a must read for any blogger. I will share it widely.
Nope, they don't have the integrity to do it.
I have to take issue with your comment. While I am NO fan of the modern-era SPLC (despite the fact I am black), it actually does something. Righthaven, as far as I can tell, is not even trying to pretend that it is a journalistic enterprise — it's just finding opportunities to sue for violations that have harmed nobody (or else, they would have done the suing themselves)!
My opinion of the SPLC is that it was so successful in devastating the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups throughout America that it had to find reasons to continue to exi$t, and thus had to lower the bar on what characterizes a "hate group" that needs their vigilant monitoring.
My memory is that the EFF wasn't concerned at all about suits against Free Republic by the New York Times & Washington Post back in the late nineties. That was eventually settled, and FR agreed to only allow excerpts of online articles with links to the original site. It seems that in the Righthaven era, that's not even good enough anymore.
Here's what I don't get: If Righthaven is buying the rights to these articles, isn't it expected they are doing so for a journalistic purpose, and not just purchasing an opportunity to sue when the original publications refuse to? Or are the original publishers getting a cut of Righthaven's action on top of the sale of rights?
If they did any real good in the past they certainly deserve credit for it….
Now though….the bastards are are going after OathKeepers….
I'd like to share this post on my blog. What do I need to do that?
You must be logged in to post a comment.