Sounds like Gibson could be subject to a libel claim when he says that criticism comes from the "infringement community". I for one am not an infringer but rather see Righthaven for what it is. They exist solely to profit from "infringements" as this article suggests.

Gibson thought he would reap "quadrillions" over this but instead he has reaped the whirl-wind and will be lucky to keep his law-licence intact.

To use a Vegas analogy, Gibson you have lost your shirt. Its time to to fold and go home.

boftx

I agree with you that MN may not be as willing to amend their agreement. Their involvement has been very limited to the one TSA image so I doubt MN will be willing to really stick their heads out. Who knows since it only involves that on image they could go along hoping Righthaven will insulate them but even that is a pipe dream.

Frida

Yes which shows this is designed as a money making scheme and not as means to deter infringements. In fact the articles and images in question still show the papers to be the copyright owners undermining Righthaven's assertion that they are the true copyright owners.

It looks like someone is trying to use Righthaven as a political weapon.

http://oneutah.org/2011/07/27/righthaven...

I see RIghthaven is concerned about "overburdening the courts". Of course when they do it its fine but when someone defends themselves or things don't go their way then the courts are being overburdened?

Again their arguments are weak and based on a foundation of sand. The new SAA agreement gives them "ownership" in name only. They have no control over the works, nor do they earn royalties while the real owners, Stephens Media, still retain full control including, licencing, publishing, displaying, and earning royalties. The fact that Stephens media can "buy" back the copyright after 5 years is yet another kick-back scheme to give this fraud an air of legitimacy.

The entire Righthaven enterprise is a fraud and will be found as such.

Archibald

I agree with you completely. Righthaven is finished.

Archibald and Rock if you have crawled out from under it.

If we are going to compare real property rights with copyrights then fair use would be equivalent to an easement like a sidewalk. Easements allow pubic usage without the property owners permission.

You can also walk up to someones front door and ring the doorbell and it is not trespassing unless there is a no trespassing sign.

What Righthaven has done is analogous to prosecuting someone for walking on the sidewalk or ringing the doorbell without any kind of warning against trespassing.

The penalties they ask for is analogous to suing someone for the entire value of the property for damaging a single blade of grass.

If anything has been damaged it has been all copyright holders by Righthaven and Stephen Media's irresponsibility.

Randazza not Randeeza. My apologies.

Mangano is admitting that Righthaven lacks standing in these cases by claiming the Judge lack's jurisdiction to rule on other aspects of the case since they do not have standing. Mangano is painting himself into a corner.

Tomorrow is Righthaven's deadline to pay the Randeeza Group their legal fees. Righthaven has a habit of missing deadlines. If they miss this one the Randeeza Group will throw the book at them.

boftx

I still don't believe the new SAA will sway the judges, infact it may work against them because they have admitted the weaknesses in the earlier SAA. As for the new agreement creating standing I think Righthaven is going to have a tough time convincing a judge that Righthaven has full ownership since SM still earns the royalties and retains all rights to the works in practice no matter what the paper and ink might say. SM is still Righthaven's puppet masters.