Comments by user: kbingh
In the case of Lenz vs Universal in 2008 a Federal District Court ruled that copyright holders must at least consider fair use before issuing take-down letters.
Universal enacted a blanket policy with Prince that no Prince song could be posted in ANY context on the Internet regardless of fair use.
A take-down letter was sent to Stephanie Lenz who had video taped her young child dancing to a very inaudible version of a Prince Song. Universal sent a take-down letter to Youtube who took down the video prompting Lenz, along with the EFF, to sue Universal for abusing the DMCA and Lenz prevailed in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Uni....
"The court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, finding Lenz's allegation that Universal indiscriminately removed Prince-related content plausible at an early stage in the case. Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were deemed overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in preventing abuse of the DMCA as a means to stifle controversial speech."
The video was reinstated on YouTube. This case has become a symbol of obsessive and over-reaching copyright protection.
Scott
A take-down letter may not be required by the law but what Righthaven has shown is without the paper trail it is very difficult to prove that the infringement was willful. Copyright owners have a much better case when they send a take-down letter. If the person refuses then the copyright owner can take it further with clean hands because they at least tried to mitigate the situation before litigating.
Righthaven says that sending take-down letters are expensive but as we are seeing it is far more expensive not to do so.
More copyright and IP owners are demanding we tax payers prop up their failing business models. It is up to industries to adapt to the changing marketplace not use the levers of government to force consumers to comply with their preferred business practices.
mred
Yes and I am offended the RJ calls themselves a conservative newspaper. What the RJ is doing goes against so many conservative principles such as limited government and self reliance. The RJ along with Righthaven want strict government control over the Internet and regulate it with an iron fist in the name of "IP Protection". Since when does a conservative believe it is the governments responsibility to "protect" them or their business models?
No the RJ is not a conservative newspaper. Any conservatism they may espouse is like inscribing the Declaration of Independence on a pile of cow dung. They may talk conservatism but it is only talk to sell newspapers.
This shows how Righthaven's fear factor has been greatly diminished. Righthaven had early success with settlements because Righthaven lawyers were very good at the art of intimidation but in the end they were shown to be very bad litigators in court and were not able to intimidate judges. After losing so many court battles and a comedy of errors, Righthaven showed themselves to be paper tigers.
Didn't Steve Gibson just say in a TV interview that Righthaven has hired the smartest lawyers in the country?
Oh this is precious. Righthaven throws unnamed "Former In-House Counsel" under the bus and blames for not disclosing Stephens Media as an interested party. The problem is there are so many former lawyers that have quit Righthaven so this surely will not go over well with them. You have to wonder if there are former in-house counsels that are now looking for some pay-back.
Its interesting that Righthaven has not yet filed a response to Judge Hunt's threat to impose sanctions. One thing for sure RIghthaven is bad at making deadlines. This is one that could prove very costly.
I think this unauthorized practice of law could potentially be the most damning to Righthaven. Righthaven is acting like a lawfirm and has set up a system to take a 50% contingency fee which would not be allowed even with a legitimate lawfirm as boftx has mentioned.
What Sherman Frederick did was worse than what they claim the Righthaven Victims did. In his column he only gives a link and gives no attribution and he does not even put the lifted text in quotes so it is unclear to the reader if those are Frederick's words or the words of gametimeIP who Frederick did not even mention. The fact Frederick is not receiving disciplinary action at the LVRJ just shows how hypocritical the LVRJ and Stephens media really is and shows once again how the Righthaven arangment is not about copyright infringment but a method to profit from it.
If They gave former in-house counsel Anne Pieroni a waiver it makes you wonder if she is cooperating with Dana Eiser's attorneys? After Righthaven threw their former in-house counsels under the bus by blaming them for not disclosing Stephens Media as an interested party I could see some of them coming forward for some pay-back.