Comments by user: kbingh
SgtRock
They are not using emotion to make these rulings. They are infact reading the and applying the law as written.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
----
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
----
The rules, as outlined by the US copyright office, singles out non-profits as well as using works for criticism and news reporting. which would account for most bloggers who's blogs do not generate any revenue.
Number 4 is particularly pertinent where Righthaven has failed to show any market value of the works being effected or diminished by the re-postings.
It is in fact your side that is demanding judges ignore the law and pretend that fair use does not exist.
If there is one thing to learn from Righthaven is that lawsuits are the very last resort, after all else fails, and rightfully carry a risk to the plaintiff so people don't abuse the courts by using them as their own personal ATMs and/or collection agencies.
Every news organization should be outraged at Stephens Media and Righthaven. However they have culpability in this since, by and large, the Righthaven story has been suppressed in the main-stream media. This is especially true among newspapers who are apprehensive in reporting on their own industry.This code of silence has let Righthaven avoid the scrutiny that may otherwise have made Stephens Media tread more carefully and more responsibly.
In one of my very first blog posts about Righthaven I predicted that Righthaven's tactics would have grave unintended consequences for the newspaper industry. It was extemely irresponsible for Stephens Media to attempt to curtail the posting of content in such a hap-hazard and shot gun approach and devised a scheme to profit over "infringements" rather than reduce them.
It's the old adage "Choose your battles wisely". Instead of going after sites that may really be harming them they went after everyone and took a zero tolerance approach to posting content without any regard to fair use or the circumstances of the blogger.
Instead of going after autoblogs and wholesale copying they went after cat ladies, veterans, non-profit organizations, and disabled people. Instances where there was no measurable damage done to the paper's bottom line.
Their tactics offended nearly everyone's sense of justice and fair play. They offended the public as well as the courts and now they are reaping the whirlwind, as they should.
Its a feeding frenzy for lawyers. There is Righthaven, Stephens Media, and Media News Group money to be had. Bon appetit.
boftx
Excellent point. It is amazing to me that Righthaven has sued people who meet every one of the criteria listed in the SAA but as far as we know never exercised that right. As you mention that could be a reason to bring News Media and Stephens Media into this. This is important because Righthaven was set up to insulate these news conglomerates from liabilities. By naming them as co-defendants in lawsuits it will show they were sorely mistaken when they set up Righthaven as a front company.
We're not just pond scum copyright trolls but just like pond scum patent trolls too.
She may be keeping the case alive to allow her to rule on the fair use, implied licence aspects.
I have brought this idea out before that the very coprights in question should be taken as assets. If Righthaven was to lose the copyrights you would suddenly see Stephens Media agree that Righthaven never owned the copyrights so they can't be taken. Wouldn't that be interesting?
boftx
Yes there is much more than meets the eye here. Stephens Media is deathly afraid of being left holding Righthaven liabilities. They have to keep Righthaven around at least as a throw away company to absorb them. Once Righthaven is stuck with massive liabilities Righthaven will go bankrupt and discharge the liabilities leaving Stephens Media free and clear. This is their hope anyway.
boftx
This still does not solve Righthaven's deadly flaw and that is it cannot claim harm to itself in any way for any infringements. The Righthaven is set up is to actually benefit from infringements and therefor it is impossible for them to claim harm for even the most blatant of infringements. This fact has weighed heavily on all the cases that have produced rulings.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
This part of the copyright law is the death-nail to Righthaven's argument of damages. They cannot get past this and is the very reason they have hit a brick wall in the courts.