BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST
See other BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST Articles
| Goldi banned censored delete elpee |
Title: NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone: tpane banned at eLPee by sysadmin, Gatlin, Palmdale, community agitators
Source:
eLPee
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=349958&Disp=12#C12
Published: Jan 6, 2015
Author: sysadmin
Post Date: 2015-01-06 22:46:59 by Hondo68
Keywords: community agitators, palmdale, tater, gatlin
Views: 58479
Comments: 94
#6. To: sysadmin (#5) (Edited) L.A. Times v. Free Republic Source: The Washington Post. I can see it now: The Washington Post v. Liberty Post courtesy of tpaine. How much did the lawsuit cost Free Republic? Sys Admin - I suggest you remove the article and include tpaine in your ping since he posted it. Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine KNOWS this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/05/uncivil- obedience/ FYI Not good. Not good. Not good at all!!! Are you guys saying that tpaine deliberately posted copyrighted material and attempted to hide that it was coming from such a source? That is a serious charge. Tpaine, I'm giving you the opportunity to explain whether or not this is the case. In the meantime I am going to redact the original article until the truth of this can be determined. Yes, I now "own" the virtual server LP is running on as I am the one one paying the bill. Very soon LP will be running on my own server. I am the one who will be held responsible for any violations. I'm very sorry, but I will not tolerate illegal actions of any kind here. NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone. Since the offending material has been removed I will leave this thread here as a warning. I'll leave it open for now but may lock it after hearing what the community has to say. Poster Comment: Shot down by nanny state community organizers, tater and palmjob.
URL Source: [None]
Post Date: 2015-01-05 22:01:50 by tpaine
#7. To: sysadmin (#5)
#8. To: Gatlin (#6) Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
#9. To: Palmdale (#8) Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
#10. To: Gatlin, Palmdale, tpaine (#9)
#12. To: tpaine (#11) I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
We duns good huh..Spike huh..huh? Spikes my hero....
#25 To: A Pole, sysadmin (#21) (Edited) How to Avoid Unintentional Online Copyright Infringement. Gatlin posted on 2015-01-07 6:44:47 ET Gatlin's link is now the first link provided in a new LP "help" section on copyright infringement. The link goes to a 2011 article about Righthaven. Preaching the ravings of Righthaven is a poorly chosen example. In 2011, Righthaven tried its douchebag act against DU. DU countersued and won $131,457.50 just in legal fees, and caused Righthaven to soon be bankrupt and out of business. Below is Document 201 of 14 June 2012 from the case. v. DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of Case No.: 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWF O R D E R (Motion for Attorneys’ Fees #191) Before the Court is Defendants Democratic Underground and David Allen’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#191, filed Apr. 10, 2012). Plaintiff Righthaven LLC did not respond to the motion. The Court notes that this motion was originally brought as against both Plaintiff Righthaven and against Counter-defendant Stephens Media LLC. However, on May 25, Democratic Underground and David Allen submitted a notice to the Court (Dkt. #200) stating that they were withdrawing the portion of their motion directed at Stephens Media separately and Stephens Media and Righthaven jointly. Thus, the only portion of the motion that remains for the Court to address is the request for fees against Righthaven separately from Stephens Media. However, since Righthaven has failed to oppose the motion, the Court need not even address that portion of the motion substantively. Rule 7-2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice provides that failure to file points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes a consent that the motion be granted. Abbott v. United Venture Capital, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 828, 831 (D. Nev. 1989). It has been said these local rules have the force of law no less than the federal rules or acts of Congress. United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574-75 (1958); see also Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929); Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 723 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, the Court grants Defendants request for fees in the amount of $131,457.50 against Righthaven. The Court further notes that it has reviewed the motion substantively, considered the non-exclusive factors used in the Ninth Circuit to determine whether fees should be awarded in a copyright action, Entm’t Research Group v. Genesis Creative Group, 122 F.3d 1211, 1229 (9th Cir. 1997), and determined that fees are warranted in this case. Further, the Court has determined that the fees Defendants request are reasonable under the lodestar method. See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhard, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Thus, even had Righthaven responded to the motion, the result would be the same. CONCLUSION Accordingly, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#191) is GRANTED. The Court awards fees as against Righthaven in the amount of $131.457.50. Dated: June 12, 2012. ROGER L. HUNT DU nailed Righthaven not only for its case, but for all previous cases. Righthaven was bankrupted and auctioned off. From Document #116, ORDER issued 14 June 2011 Finally, Righthaven contends that multiple courts within this district have already determined that Righthaven has standing to bring claims for past infringement under the Silver standard based on the plain language of the copyright assignment. At best, this argument is disingenuous. As the undersigned issued one of the orders Righthaven cites for this argument, the undersigned is well aware that Righthaven led the district judges of this district to believe that it was the true owner of the copyright in the relevant news articles. Righthaven did not disclose the true nature of the transaction by disclosing the SAA or Stephens Media’s pecuniary interests. As the SAA makes abundantly clear, Stephens Media retained the exclusive rights, never actually transferring them to Righthaven regardless of Righthaven’s and Stephens Media’s current contentions. Further, Righthaven also failed to disclose Stephens Media in its certificates of interested parties, despite Stephens Media’s right to proceeds from these lawsuits. (Dkt. #79, Ex. 1, SAA Section 5 (granting Stephens Media a fifty percent interest in any recovery, minus costs).) Since those orders were tainted by Righthaven’s failure to disclose the SAA and Stephens Media’s true interest, those decisions are not persuasive and do not support standing here. [...] IV. Order to Show Cause As shown in the preceding pages, the Court believes that Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the Court. Here, however, the Court will only focus on the most factually brazen: Righthaven’s failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in Righthaven’s Certificate of Interested Parties. (Dkt. #5.) Rule 7.1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada requires parties to disclose “all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships or corporations (including parent corporations) which have a direct, pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.” This Local Rule requires greater disclosure than Federal Rule 7.1, which only requires non-governmental corporate parties to disclose parent corporations or corporations owning more than 10% of the party’s stock. Frankly, if receiving 50% of litigation proceeds minus costs (Dkt. #79, SAA Section 5) does not create a pecuniary interest under Local Rule 7.1-1, the Court isn’t sure what would. Making this failure more egregious, not only did Righthaven fail to identify Stephens Media as an interested party in this suit, the Court believes that Righthaven failed to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in any of its approximately 200 cases filed in this District. Accordingly, the Court orders Righthaven to show cause, in writing, no later than two (2) weeks from the date of this order, why it should not be sanctioned for this flagrant misrepresentation to the Court. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/copyright-troll-righthaven-finally-completely-dead/ Never had standing to sue, Ninth Circuit confirms. by Nate Anderson - May 9, 2013 7:00 pm UTC Righthaven, the Las Vegas operation that sought to turn newspaper article copyright lawsuits into a business model, can now slap a date on its death certificate: May 9, 2013. This morning, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the two Righthaven appeals that could have given the firm a final glimmer of hope—and the court told Righthaven to take a hike (PDF). [snip] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven
Good find, thank you, nc, Righthaven is a poorly chosen example, but one only has to look at the source to understand. lmbo.... May I have your permission to post this information on LP?
http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349958&Disp=63#C63 Righthaven was merely used as an example to show the need for preventative measures. Yes they lost their case. I read all about that while it was happening. Gatlin posted on 2015-01-07 21:25:00 ET Righthaven did not "lose its case." The bomb that exploded in the DU case tainted all previous cases by Righthaven, and doomed all pending cases, with Righthaven being liable for legal fees and expenses in all of them. There were hundreds of cases that burned and crashed. The liabilities quickly extinguished the Righthaven shell. The best way to overcome fear of being a victim of "a Righthaven campaign" is to know that DU, with help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) squashed Righthaven, exposed them for what they were, and sent them and their business model into retirement. At this time, fearing a Righthaven campaign is like fearing a rampaging herd of unicorns. Righthaven decidedly lacked ownership and, thereby, any standing to sue on behalf of Righthaven. Not only did they not have ownership in the Hoehn and DiBiase cases, the DU case blew up in their face when DU obtained proof that Righthaven deliberately misled the Court, and specifically the same judge in both cases, about the nature of its business agreement and its falsely alleged ownership of copyright. Righthaven had no standing to bring any of their cases and one after another the pending cases blew up in awards of legal fees. They set a precedent with their business model... that's one way to put it. It does not appear anyone has tried to "perfect" the Righthaven model. https://www.eff.org/effector/24/21 In a decision with likely wide-ranging impact, a judge in Las Vegas dismissed as a sham an infringement case filed by copyright troll Righthaven LLC. The judge ruled that Righthaven did not have the legal authorization to bring a copyright lawsuit against EFF's client, the political forum Democratic Underground, because it had never owned the copyright in the first place. Regarding the victory, EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl said: "Righthaven's copyright litigation business model is fatally flawed, and we expect the decision to have wide effect on the over 270 other cases Righthaven has brought." http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/righthaven-v-hoehn.pdf In Righthaven v. Hoehn No. 11-16751 and Righthaven v. DiBiase No. 11-16776, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion excoriating Righthaven. The Court explained the sham that was Righthaven thusly: (footnotes omitted) CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: Abraham Lincoln told a story about a lawyer who tried to establish that a calf had five legs by calling its tail a leg. But the calf had only four legs, Lincoln observed, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so. Before us is a case about a lawyer who tried to establish that a company owned a copyright by drafting a contract calling the company the copyright owner, even though the company lacked the rights associated with copyright ownership. Heeding Lincoln’s wisdom, and the requirements of the Copyright Act, we conclude that merely calling someone a copyright owner does not make it so. [...] The SAA provided that Stephens Media automatically received an exclusive license in any copyrighted work it assigned to Righthaven, so that Stephens Media retained “the unfettered and exclusive ability” to exploit the copyrights. Righthaven, on the other hand, had “no right or license” to exploit the work or participate in any royalties associated with the exploitation of the work. The contracts left Righthaven without any ability to reproduce the works, distribute them, or exploit any other exclusive right under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. Without any of those rights, Righthaven was left only with the bare right to sue, which is insufficient for standing under the Copyright Act and Silvers. [...] Righthaven also argues that the district court failed to construe the contract in accordance with the “parties’ intent to convey all rights necessary . . . for Righthaven to have standing.” Under Nevada law, which the SAA provided should govern its interpretation, courts should effectuate the intent of the parties when construing ambiguous contracts. Sheehan & Sheehan v. Nelson Malley & Co., 117 P.3d 219, 223–24 (Nev. 2005). But the contract was not ambiguous. The SAA clearly delineated the respective rights of Righthaven and Stephens Media in any assigned works. Moreover, the contract evinced not just an intent that Righthaven receive whatever rights were necessary for it to sue, but also an intent that Stephens Media retained complete control over all exclusive rights. The problem is not that the district court did not read the contract in accordance with the parties’ intent; the problem is that what the parties intended was invalid under the Copyright Act. [...] Under either the original or amended SAA, Righthaven was not the owner of any exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. It therefore lacked standing to sue for infringement. The motions to dismiss in both Hoehn and DiBiase were properly granted. For those who have trouble understanding Righthaven, TechDirt poster Arsik Vek summed it up in the following humorous reader comment and received recognition for most insightful comment of the week—and second funniest comment of the week. Marc Randazza represented Wayne Hoehn in litigation with Righthaven. Stephens Media owned the copyrights. Righthaven was an empty shell. Stephens Media owned the copyrights. Righthaven could have filed its shotgun litigation on behalf of Stephens, but then the assets of Stephens would be at risk if the whole thing went south. So, to make sure I'm getting this right.... 1) Stephens Media decides to get them some of that awesome copyright trolling money. 2) Stephens Media spawns Righthaven. 3) Stephens Media takes their box o' copyright, dumps out all the contents, then sells Righthaven the empty cardboard box. 4) Righthaven brandishes the empty cardboard box in a threatening fashion demanding money. 5) Court says that's fscking retarded, demands Righthaven pay back legal fees. 6) Righthaven puts the empty box over their head and pretends they can't hear. 7) Court takes Righthaven away and starts auctioning it off. Realizes it has no assets except an empty cardboard box. 8) Randazza takes the empty cardboard box and sells it back to Stephens Media for $80k. In the end, Stephens Media donates eighty thousand dollars and it's reputation to Randazza for no appreciable gain. Well done. This week, it turned out that the Righthaven saga was not quite over. The denouement led Arsik Vek to win most insightful comment of the week—and second funniest comment of the week—by summing up the story: [...] Number 8 is the best joke. Righthaven lacked standing because the court found Stephens still owned the copyrights. Randazza offered the Righthaven empty shell to Stephens Media and Stephens paid the $80k for the copyrights it already owned. Well, that and avoiding further litigation about the mess and the misrepresented deal between Stephens Media and Righthaven.
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou're gone: tpane banned at eLPee by sysadmin, Gatlin, Palmdale, community agitators
#7. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#1)
From LP:
RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN,
an individual,
Defendants.
United States Judge 5. Prior Rulings within this District
Copyright troll Righthaven finally, completely dead
On October 26, 2011, Righthaven was ordered to pay $119,488 in attorney's fees and court costs in its lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase. Righthaven had sued DiBiase for posting a Review-Journal story about a murder case without permission. Hunt, who had also presided over the Democratic Underground case, threw out Righthaven's suit that summer after finding Righthaven lacked standing.
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
#16. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#9)
I don't see a problem with the information in the link. The RVC Blog article was not information and/or directions from Righthaven about how to avoid unintentional online copyright infringement and the lawsuits that it can cause.
This article discusses the basics and suggests ways to avoid being a victim of a Righthaven campaign.
Update: [...] Among other issues, their case was flawed in that they apparently did not have full ownership of the copyrighted material in question.
While Righthaven appears to have made some strategic blunders (see VegasInc.com article regarding “lack of legal standing”), they set a precedent with their business model. Given the lawsuit oriented society we live in, if Righthaven fails, others will likely come along and try to perfect the process.
Victory! Court Declares Righthaven Copyright Troll Lawsuit a Sham
OPINION
Arsik Vek, Mar 18th, 2013 @ 6:55am
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt from the victories,-both-repeat-and-pyrrhic dept
8) Randazza takes the empty cardboard box and sells it back to Stephens Media for $80k.
Replies to Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]