Four babies hemorrhage after parents refuse vitamin K shot, a practice on the rise

[MADem]

186. Better for you and better for DU.

You do know that DU was embroiled in a NASTY copyright case for awhile there, don't you? It's not something to take lightly and it's why copyright admonishments are part and parcel of the TOS here. The DU site owners prevailed, because the supposed "copyright holders" were a bunch of copyright-troll grifters, who would try to "shake down" website owners by threatening them with expensive lawsuits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire ordeal caused the site owners a few sleepless nights, a few wrinkles, and maybe a couple of gray hairs before they emerged victorious.

It's why copyright admonitions are part of the TOS:

Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.
To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

More detail is available at the link within that paragraph--they mean it.

In the event you are not aware of this case--and I suspect you are not--here are the specifics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven_LLC_v._Democratic_Underground_LLC

Righthaven LLC. v. Democratic Underground LLC. was a copyright infringement case which determined that a contract giving a party right to sue on behalf of a copyright holder does not give the party legal standing to file such lawsuits. Judge Roger L. Hunt ruled that Righthaven lacked standing to file a copyright infringement suit and ordered Righthaven to show cause within two weeks why it should not be sanctioned for failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party. This case is one of over 200 similar cases filed by Righthaven against media outlets using content from Stephens Media.

....On June 14, 2011, Judge Roger L. Hunt found that Stephens Media had not transferred any copyrights to Righthaven, but merely a "right to sue," which is not a transferrable right under copyright law.[5] Since Righthaven did not own the copyright for which it was filing the lawsuit, Hunt dismissed the case for lack of standing. In addition, since Righthaven had failed to identify Stephens Media as an financially interested party, Hunt ordered Righthaven to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for "flagrant misrepresentation to the Court."
On July 15, 2011, Righthaven was ruled to have misrepresented to the court its relationship with Stephens Media and Stephens Media's financial interest in the lawsuit and sanctioned $5,000.[6] Righthaven was further ordered to file the transcript of the ruling in all the hundreds of other copyright cases it had brought forth against other parties in Nevada.
After requesting and receiving a stay of the monetary sanction, Righthaven sought another extension which the court did not grant.[7]