R-J owner says copyright lawsuits target ‘parasitic’ infringers

[Newsjock]

Source: Vegas Inc (Las Vegas Sun)

The owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Monday disputed criticism by a federal judge about its no-warning copyright lawsuit campaign.

... Their filing, and filings by Righthaven on Monday, were in response to charges by defense attorneys in the case of the Democratic Underground who say the newly-unsealed lawsuit contract between Stephens Media and Righthaven shows Righthaven’s 212 lawsuits over Review-Journal material are invalid.

... The interpretation of Mahan and the Democratic Underground attorneys is wrong, attorneys for Righthaven said in court papers Monday.

... However, to remove any doubt, they said the Strategic Alliance Agreement for the lawsuits was amended Monday, effective to January 2010, to further solidify Righthaven’s standing as the true copyright owner, with Stephens Media continuing to receive licensing rights from Righthaven to display and archive stories and other material covered by the copyrights.

Read more: http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/may/10/r-j-owner-says-copyright-lawsuits-target-parasitic/

[Angry Dragon]

1. I did not know you could backdate a legal binding agreement.....

sounds like they are playing fast and loose with the law............

[dmr]

2. Can they do that?

They can legally do that? Just retroactively change their existing contract to benefit them in the old law suits?

However, to remove any doubt, they said the Strategic Alliance Agreement for the lawsuits was amended Monday, effective to January 2010, to further solidify Righthaven’s standing as the true copyright owner, with Stephens Media continuing to receive licensing rights from Righthaven to display and archive stories and other material covered by the copyrights.

Am I understanding this correctly?

[rbixby]

4. I think that would be Ex Post Facto

And wouldn't apply to any litigation that happened before the contract was amended. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the precedent has stood since the Magna Carta, and I seriously doubt they have any real legal standing here.

[Xithras]

9. That's an interesting question. Probably.

The IP owner can assign control of any outstanding infringements to a third party, even if those infringements occurred before the contract was signed. This would be similar to creditors selling debts to each other. In this case, the actual IP owners aren't relinquishing their ownership of the content, but are merely assigning collection rights to a third party.

If someone owes me money from an action that occurred several years ago, it's perfectly legal for me to sign a contract giving someone else the right to pursue and collect on that debt.

OTOH, I don't know that anyone has ever tried this tactic with IP suits before. It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to it.

[Downwinder]

3. I not only will not knowingly buy a Stephens Media publication,

I will not knowingly read one.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Hear! Hear!

I think there was even a Firefox extension which would help you avoid any of the sites affiliated with them.

PB

[alfredo]

7. The list

http://www.stephensmedia.com/newspapers/

[Kurska]

5. Anyone who calls other human beings parasites needs to be slapped in the mouth n/t

[SoapBox]

8. Wow...that list

...if there are any DUers in those towns, I don't mean to insult you personally.

BUT, they are in some real brain dead areas, just ripe for brainwashing and getting the religious/mindless to do their bidding.