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: 64319
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 # 12.
#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?
It should be noted that tpaine was wrong to post the offending material. tpaine was also wrong to advocate doing it again. His banning was justified — LP can't just let him do it again and again. Removing the offending material was correct and necessary. However, the assertion that such poster action would immediately subject a site owner to meritable copyright action is also wrong. The site owner would be responsible if, as in the case of Free Republic, he receives a takedown request and refuses to comply, citing an imagined 1st Amendment right to do so. In LA Times v. Free Republic, a judgment of 14 November 2000 stated, "6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Free Republic and James C. Robinson are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000,000 for statutory damages. Electronic Orchard is not liable for these statutory damages." Trying to exert such non-existent right can be a million dollars wrong. The argument of DU against Righthaven goes into the issue of a volitional act requirement. If the presence of the offending material is due to a volitional act of the site owner, that is asking for trouble. From Righthaven v. DU, 24 Oct 2011, DU Pleading NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [Excerpt, footnotes omitted} A. Democratic Underground and David Allen Democratic Underground maintains a website at www.democraticunderground.com (the “DU Website”) devoted to disseminating and discussing political news and progressive policies. Allen Decl. ¶ 3. Defendant David Allen is the principal of Democratic Underground LLC. Id. ¶ 4. The company has two other employees. The DU Website consists primarily of user-generated content in the form of posting by readers in one of various discussion forums (the “DU Forum”). Id. ¶ 5. The DU Website has more than 165,000 registered users who have, since its founding in 2001, posted more than 52 million posts to discussion threads addressing items of political and public interest. Id. The DU Website is supported by advertising revenue generated by display of advertising on the site. Id. ¶ 6. While Democratic Underground owns and manages the DU Website, it does not prescreen posts by contributors. Id. ¶ 7. Once a contributor writes a post, the post gets added through an automated process into a database on the server that hosts the DU Website. Id. When a reader seeks to access the web address of a particular post or DU Forum (such as by clicking a link to that location in a browser), a request is automatically sent to the server. Its software will then automatically retrieve the contents of that post from the database and send them to the reader through the Internet. Id. ¶ 8. Neither Mr. Allen nor the other two employees read every post made by users at the DU Website; in fact, such a task would be impossible as there are an average of 14,000 posts per day. Id. ¶ 9. Democratic Underground does not offer posters any financial incentive for adding content to the site. Id. ¶ 10. Democratic Underground proactively works against copyright infringement by, among other things, advising users to post only short excerpts and to provide a link to the original when posting about a news article. Id. ¶ 11-12; Ex. A. For example, on the forum for “Latest Breaking News,” contributors must identify the source and provide a link to the news article they post about in the form they fill out to make the post. Id. ¶ 12. In addition, Democratic Underground encourages readers to notify moderators if a post contains an entire article by clicking on an “Alert” link that is included on every post. Id. ¶ 13. The moderator will then edit the post to include only a short excerpt or delete the post. Id. [...] ARGUMENT I. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WERE MERITLESS FROM THEIR INCEPTION A. Democratic Underground Has Committed No Volitional Act of Infringement Democratic Underground is entitled to a declaration that it did not infringe Stephens Media’s copyright by virtue of Pampango’s post. Under the Copyright Act, direct liability only attaches, if at all, to the party who controls the decision to copy—in the case of an online forum, the user who uploaded the material. An online forum host like Democratic Underground, whose role is limited to hosting the material, cannot be liable for direct infringement as a matter of law. This Court addressed the volitional act requirement in Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006), in which the plaintiff alleged that Google directly infringed when it showed users copies of material that were “cached” on its computers—i.e., stored automatically for ease of delivery to those searching for those materials. See Id. at 1115. The Hon. Robert Jones disagreed, holding that a “plaintiff must also show volitional conduct on the part of the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement.” Id.; accord Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2006). This Court’s decision relied upon Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-line Commnc’n Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995), one of the seminal and most important cases addressing online service provider copyright liability. In Netcom, an Internet service provider was accused of direct copyright infringement based on a customer’s posting of material to the service provider’s servers. See Id. at 1367-68. The court rejected the direct infringement claim, holding that it requires “some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant’s system is merely used to create a copy by a third party.” Id. at 1370. Volitional control over the copying is necessary because any other “theory would create many separate acts of infringement and carried to its natural extreme, would lead to unreasonable liability” through the mere operation of the Internet. Id. at 1369. While the volitional act requirement is tremendously important to the Internet, it is not a new rule. The Copyright Act has always required volition–as embodied within its protection of the exclusive right “to do” one of the actions reserved for copyright owners in 17 U.S.C. § 106. Netcom simply interpreted § 106 for the digital age and has been widely followed. The Fourth Circuit’s holding in CoStar is particularly instructive. CoStar was a real estate listing service that took photos of commercial real estate offered by its customers. LoopNet provided an online hosting service for real estate listings. Some of CoStar’s customers also wanted listings on LoopNet, and uploaded CoStar’s copyrighted photographs for display on the LoopNet website. See CoStar Group, Inc., 373 F.3d at 546-47. CoStar sued for direct infringement. Following Netcom, the Fourth Circuit held that “[b]ecause LoopNet, as an Internet service provider, is simply the owner and manager of a system used by others who are violating CoStar’s copyrights and is not an actual duplicator itself, it is not directly liable for copyright infringement.” Id. at 546. Accordingly, the fact that Democratic Underground operates the DU Website, upon which a third party posted allegedly infringing material, does not state a claim for direct copyright infringement. Although the burden of proof for a copyright claim includes the essential element of volition, the undisputed facts show that Democratic Underground did not engage in any volitional act to display the Excerpt. Allen Decl. ¶¶ 5-9; 21. Moreover, as soon as Democratic Underground learned of a potential infringement claim, it removed the Excerpt. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Likewise, to the extent that Stephens Media adopts Righthaven’s assertions that Democratic Underground can be held liable because of its alleged general knowledge that some postings contain infringing material (Compl. ¶ 19), or because of “willful blindness” to infringement (Id. ¶ 23), these will not suffice. As CoStar cogently explains, even constructive knowledge that some DU Website users may be using the forum to engage in copyright infringement would be insufficient to state a direct liability claim. CoStar, 373 F.3d at 549; see also Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Maphia, 948 F. Supp. 923, 934 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (no direct liability even where defendant operating website knew some infringing games were uploaded and solicited others to upload games). Indeed, in CoStar, the user-uploaded photos were reviewed by LoopNet employees before posting, and CoStar had informed LoopNet of its claims for copyright infringement long before filing suit, yet, this was still insufficient. Democratic Underground, by contrast, does not pre-review posts, and neither Righthaven nor Stephens Media notified the forum prior to the lawsuit. Allen Decl. ¶ 9. For this reason alone, the Court should grant summary judgment declaring that Democratic Underground did not infringe by virtue of a user posting the Excerpt.
There are no replies to Comment # 12. End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
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)
#12. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#9)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Replies to Comment # 12.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]