Comments by user: kbingh
Makes you wonder why the Nevada Attorney General has not gotten involved in this. We need to start calling the Nevada AG to start an investigation on Righthaven.
I have written a blog post on Oneutah challenging Sherman Frederick and LVRJ's conservative credentials.
Scott
Contrary to some of Sherman Frederick's supposedly conservative pronouncements his actions show any conservatism he espouses is simply lip service when in fact his actions betray any kind of conservative principles. It is not conservative to create and participate in a corrupt organization, it is not conservative to lie to a federal court, and it is especially not conservative to go crying to the government for "protection" when you can no longer compete in the marketplace.
No Sherman Frederick is not a conservative. He is as phony as the sham agreement between SM and Righthaven.
By refiling the suit against Dean Mostofi Righthaven has gauranteed themselves another counter-suit to contend with. No Todd Kincannon has taken his case as well as others RIghthaven will be pursued relentlessly.
The LVRJ must prop up Righthaven because without Righthaven the focus will be on Stephens media and all counter-suits will be on their hands. That is why Stephens Media is stubbornly supporting Righthaven and even forced to give up even more of their copyrights and risk losing them all together. Contractually Righthaven is obligated to pay any judgments that may come to Stephens Media but if there is no Righthaven or if Righthaven does not have the cash to indemnify Stephens Media then they will be left holding the bag.
The $5000 is the easy part. Righthaven has now been found to have lied to a Federal Court. Now the Nevada State Bar will have to get involved and perhaps even the Nevada Attorney General.
Scott
There is no requirement and no one is suggesting their is but it is a good idea and one is to protect the copyright holder. For one it strengthens your case. Judges presiding over Righthaven cases have commented that not sending take-down letters undermines their case of will-full infringements.
I think Righthaven is the prime example for sending take-down letters first. As a side benefit it keeps you from being seen as a total douche-bag.
Not only does the new changes to the SAA amount to nothing but Mostofi has a good argument for a malicious lawsuit. No one can say this new lawsuit isn't personal. I am sure the Nevada courts will see right through this. Righthaven needs to go.
Sounds like Righthaven are a bunch of dead-beats.
LawMed
I do wish more of these fair use questions would be decided because the law is very vague. Fair use is critical to our economy. Infact companies that rely on fair use account for at least 18% of our economy according to a study conducted in 2007 which by far dwarfs the movie, music and publishing industries.
source: http://www.informationweek.com/news/2018...
Fair use has never gotten a fair hearing because most people have settled rather than face catastrophic and draconian penalties when they have been accused. These cases gives us our best opportunity to address these critical issues.
The very concept of fair use is under attack and many copyright holders deny it even exists and routinely send cease and desist letters to those who are clearly within any reasonable definition of fair use.
Fair use is critical in other ways as well and that is the right to use a product that you have legally bought as you see fit. Many copyright holders feel they should be able to dictate how and when the products they produce are used and often times these interfere with the consumers rights. For instance if I buy a house and decide to add on to it or change things I do not have to pay a licencing fee to the architect to alter his original design. If I own a car I do not have to give the car company a percentage of the proceeds, however restrictions like these are placed on items all the time that are considered "intellectual property".
Take DRM for instance. The movie industry has placed restrictions on Blueray disks and DVDs that do not allow copying even though it has been ruled by courts that those who legally purchase movies and music can copy them for personal use. DRM violates this right. It is equivalent to a property owner fencing off the sidewalk. The movie and music industry demand their rights be protected but then trample the rights of their own consumers.
Murrayburns
I would say contact the US Attorney General Eric Holder but I wouldn't hold my breath on him doing anything but it is a good Idea to contact the local Federal Attorney on this matter. Nevada Attorney General has jurisdiction on the State Level and there are potentially many state laws that have been broken.