Copyright lawsuit filed against group fighting Pahrump prison

Sun archives

A group fighting the establishment of a prison in Pahrump is among the latest to be sued for copyright infringement after a Las Vegas Review-Journal story allegedly was posted on its website.

Righthaven LLC, the Las Vegas company suing website operators throughout North America over Review-Journal stories, on Tuesday filed suit in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas against Pahrump Life and two individuals associated with the group, Maren and Michael Scaccia.

This was one of at least four Righthaven lawsuits filed Tuesday, boosting its lawsuit total since March to at least 128.

The Pahrump Life website indicates the group is opposed to plans for a Corrections Corporation of America facility planned for the town in Southern Nevada west of Las Vegas.

Righthaven, in its lawsuit, says Mr. Scaccia posted on the website an Aug. 14 Review-Journal story about officials resigning from a private prison in Kingman, Ariz., after three inmates escaped.

Court records indicate the Review-Journal was credited for the story and that it linked to the Review-Journal website.

Also sued Tuesday were:

• The operator of the website, accused of displaying a July 19 Review-Journal story about a recent gun rights lawsuit.

That defendant is Bonnier Corp., which Righthaven says is the owner of the website domain name. Also sued was Clay Cooper. Though Righthaven didn’t say how he’s associated with Bonnier, he appears to be a prolific poster to Field & Stream message boards.

Court records and a look at the website Tuesday indicate the story was uploaded to the “Firing Line” portion of the website by Cooper with credit to the Review-Journal and a link to the newspaper website.

“Bonnier knew, or reasonably should have known, that websites, such as the (Field & Stream) website, are and were at all times relevant to this lawsuit, the habitual subject of postings by others of copyright-infringing content,” Righthaven charged in the suit, further alleging Bonnier failed to monitor for or delete infringing content from its website.

This “constitutes Bonnier’s willful blindness to copyright infringements occurring on the website,” Righthaven alleged.

• Paul Anthony Parson, whom Righthaven says has a website called, where a July 12 Review-Journal story about Las Vegas police shooting and killing Erik Scott at a Summerlin Costco was posted.

That suit also claims Parson didn’t address the postings by others of copyright-infringing content and that also constitutes willful blindness to copyright infringements on the site.

The story in question was posted by user “GlockNut,” court records show. The post did not fully credit the Review-Journal but did have a link to the Review-Journal website, court records show.

Parson, in a telephone interview, said he lives in Dayton, Tenn., and runs the gun owners website as a hobby. He denied the story was posted by a third party since he is “GlockNut” and said he posted the story, not knowing that doing so could be viewed as copyright infringement.

Parson also said he didn’t find the story on the Review-Journal website but copied it from another website focusing on firearms. Parson said he wasn’t contacted by the Review-Journal or Righthaven and that the first he heard there was a problem with him posting the story was an inquiry from the Las Vegas Sun.

“I didn’t know anything about any infringement,” Parson said. “I wouldn’t have done it if I knew about that.”

• RawGuru Inc. and two officials at the Brooklyn, N.Y., company, Michael Petrushansky and Alex Malinsky.

Righthaven claims the company’s website, which is a “raw food vegan diet & lifestyle store,” displayed without authorization a July 19 Review-Journal story about the Tonopah Community Garden in Las Vegas. Court records show the Review-Journal received full credit for the story and there was a link to the Review-Journal website.

Requests for comment were left with the Pahrump Life, Field & Stream and RawGuru defendants.

As in all of its recent lawsuits, Righthaven in the new suits seeks damages of $150,000 apiece and forfeiture of the defendants’ website domain names.