A copyright enforcement service has filed a lawsuit seeking $150,000 from Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle for posting two newspaper articles without authorization. The complaint, which was filed in US District Court in Las Vegas, is at least the 117th lawsuit to be filed since March by Righthaven LLC, a …
I feel sleazy just reading this article.
Righthaven should not be allowed to buy rights and then sue others for infringement. This sounds so much like mob-based activity - extortion, etc. Wouldn't surprise me if it WAS mob-based.
He who takes what isn't his'n
Pays for it or goes to prison.
The moral is surely not to plagiarise other people's copy. You can always pay a hack to rewrite the same sentiments in different words (which turns it from an illegal act into the "sincerest form of flattery"). These days it may even be possible to program a computer to do the rewording (and when someone writes that program, I forsee a very interesting lawsuit a la SCO with respect to natural language rather than code).
But this is a plain old boring lawsuit. Plagiarism is actionable - and should be, or no-one could writre for a living! Get over it.
@Nigel 11 - Nice troll
Nice troll Nigel 11, this has nothing to do with plagiarism, this is about copyright, the difference being duplicating someone elses work without their permission vs duplicating someone elses working and claiming its your own original work, major difference...
I highly doubt she plagiarized the work considering the article says she posted 2 news articles on her website from a local newspaper...
love patent trolls
> in a departure from previous actions, it is seeking $150,000 in damages.
2 articles @75k = $150k, no departure at all.
These trolls are the only hope the system will change. More of them please!
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
From her website:
"Sharron has been endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly"
They can bankrupt the cow for all I care, then.
As much as I love watching Repubs getting bit by the same big-corps they claim to "protect", I really wish that they counter-sue with a RICO lawsuit. This is mob-like behaviour, and should be treated as such.
it will be interesting to know how many times they got some money from this scum-bag technique.
any info about older cases?
obvious troll is obvious.
Check the LA Sun Archives:
"The group is seeking possession of her domain name, sharronangle.com..."
Uhh... Ok, this I gotta see.
The more politicians and would-be politicians learn first hand how screwed up or intellectual property laws are the better.
The more people who set/support these crazy laws (or the crazy abuses of the law) who get it in the neck, the better. Hopefully we'll see some changes.
However, I do wonder about the legality of this. Surely the first question from the court will be "Did you give the defendant an opportunity to rectify?" hopefully followed by "No? Kindly bugger off then."
I'm hoping that Angle doesn't become an elected politician. She is rather loose with both facts and reality, much more so than even a normal fringe politician. It's scary that she has got this far already considering the huge number of outrageous things she has said so far.
Couldn't have happened to a more obnoxious person
Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle is a racist nut bar and deserves all the harassment she can get.
She wants to deport Mexicans and their American-born children - who have citizenship.
With a nod to b3ta
This twat ^H^H^H^H guy should become the next meme.
See his picture at: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/
Well, first the dems now the glenbecks, at least the troll is an equal access/opportunity/crosshairs type troll!
"Electronic Frontier Foundation have labeled Righthaven a “patent troll”"
How can they be a patent troll when it involves copyright? They are trolls, no mistake, but not patent trolls.
This is twaddle
has she claimed the material to be her own? Or are they trying a "reproduced without permission" approach?
Surely the reproduction with source and links means there is no infringement? If not then students the world over are in a whole area of pain with their cited content.
Right to sue?
I'm wondering if this technique even gives them standing to sue. Unless the sale of copyright document is very closely worded the defendant could clame that the original copyright owner implicitly waved any right to sue, by not suing before transferring the copyrights.
...let's piss him off. Everyone outside the US, without these copyright laws, lets go copy...granted being a troll he will think US laws apply outside the US.
Surely it's a copyright troll, they have nothing to do with patents at all (so far as this article reports).
Strange. Nauseating and strange.
Handing over domain names usually requires some sort of legitimate interest that you have that trumps the reasons the holder of the domain name has. What would that be in this case?
I seem to recall that damages have to have some sort of relation to the damage done, and what would that be in this case?
What they've done is not so much buy the right to the articles, but buy the right to sue. Especially because of the without warning or attempt to settle first part I'd countersue for wilful abuse of law and damages of twice the demands (damages) times three (wilful), plus costs, of course.
On another note, who hates her so much they'd sic a litigous troll on her? Or did she do it herself for some publicity? Campaigns aren't cheap, especially not in dollars.
Cost of trial
Well, I think it works like this. Either you pay them whatever they want (including your domain name) or noegotiate even more money (without the domain name) or, hey you want a trial? They have lots of lawyers, and you might end up paying diddly-squat in compensation, but a couple of mil' in costs. So pay up!
Who hates her?
Probably all those American citizens she's trying to deport. It would be funny if these lawsuits end up eating away at their campaign funds...
These fuckwits sit around wiring laws for the RIAA so if we happen to walk past a shop where a customer is listening to a tune on their headphones and we happen to hear it we're liable for prosecution and the shop owners being burned at the stake and then when they get caught breaching the same laws they cry foul?
I think it'll be self correcting
If they are suing policiticans from all camps, then eventually there will be legislators elected who have a motive to improve the law.
If they bought the copyright knowing that the copyright had already been breached (if indeed it was) surely they would have offered a price which took this into account, therefore they have suffered no loss?
It would be hard for them to argue that they didn't know about the breach. It is easy to find out (a google search on some of the phrases in the article), they have made this same "mistake" many times, and it is in their interests to check before purchasing.
In any case, how have they lost substantially more than th e amount they paid for the copyright?
I looked at her web site because I felt that I should at least see the situation prior to spouting off about it. The sources were cited, mind you not very thoroughly, but it still gives credit to the provider of the news which was posted, which means that it is NOT plagiarism. She's not passing it off as her own work, so the copyright suit is groundless and all comments about the allegedly offending posts on her web sites being plagiarism are also groundless. The copyright troll involved needs to be put back under the bridge from whence it came.
... and ...
... then the bridge needs demolishing with explosives!
I had someone reply to my post stating that my previous post demonstrated a lack of understanding of copyright law. I do know that copyright is the stick people wield to try to control who distributes what content and when, but usually if you write something and use a quote or excerpt from a source, as long as the source is cited and isn't claimed as the one doing the quoting's own work, no one cries foul. That was my point. The fact that copyright law is being misused to the end of disallowing someone from putting a quote from a news article on their web site is ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed, especially since the firm involved is getting the rights to the material after the fact that the material was re-posted. There needs to be some copyright reform to disallow this sort of thing from happening, especially since Righthaven isn't even the original publisher. This is an abuse of a system that was put into place to prevent people from copying whole books or other entire works and trying to sell them as their own product. Quoting and citing the source should fall under fair use, and if it doesn't, something is terribly wrong, since billions of students in colleges everywhere are in potential danger of copyright lawsuits being filed on them if this doesn't get straightened out.