Show Posts
76
Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty, Masterfile, Righthaven, and others committing crimes on a daily basis?
« on: August 19, 2011, 06:16:29 PM »Many of us here are well aware of the tactics of Masterfile, Getty, Righthaven, etc.
Many arguments have been made about "standing". But, no matter how you slice it, only the exclusive copyright holder has any hope of recovering any significant damages in court.
The prospect of court is often the only thing that convinces some people to pay out, even if a court date isn't even a remote possibility.
So, what of those who are threatened repeatedly with litigation, or those who are sued needlessly just to make them settle out-of-court for a large amount of money?
Some are sent threatening letters by lawyers representing these stock image companies; what can be done?
What about those who are threatened by collections agencies even though no debt is owed?
I believe that such groundless acts may fall under the concept in law called "barratry".
I came across this when I realized that a person is suing Righthaven for "barratry", and I feel that this could apply to other copyright trolls and their actions in many, many cases.
The following is an explanation of "barratry", and details of the Righthaven lawsuit that I mentioned.
In the United States:
Several jurisdictions in the US have declared barratry (in the sense of a frivolous or harassing litigant) to be a crime as part of their tort reform efforts. For example, in the U.S. states of California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor;[5] in Texas, a felony.[6]
Many arguments have been made about "standing". But, no matter how you slice it, only the exclusive copyright holder has any hope of recovering any significant damages in court.
The prospect of court is often the only thing that convinces some people to pay out, even if a court date isn't even a remote possibility.
So, what of those who are threatened repeatedly with litigation, or those who are sued needlessly just to make them settle out-of-court for a large amount of money?
Some are sent threatening letters by lawyers representing these stock image companies; what can be done?
What about those who are threatened by collections agencies even though no debt is owed?
I believe that such groundless acts may fall under the concept in law called "barratry".
I came across this when I realized that a person is suing Righthaven for "barratry", and I feel that this could apply to other copyright trolls and their actions in many, many cases.
The following is an explanation of "barratry", and details of the Righthaven lawsuit that I mentioned.
In the United States:
Several jurisdictions in the US have declared barratry (in the sense of a frivolous or harassing litigant) to be a crime as part of their tort reform efforts. For example, in the U.S. states of California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor;[5] in Texas, a felony.[6]
- California Penal Code Section 158: "Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)."
- California Penal Code Section 159: "No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy."
- Revised Code of Washington 9.12.010: "Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
One defendant in South Carolina hopes that it adds up to barratry. Dana Eiser, sued by Righthaven for copying an article from the Denver Post, has sued Righthaven back, claiming that Righthaven's business practices are a form of barratry and thus an unfair trade practice. In South Carolina (it's a state law claim, so the contours will vary from state to state), "Any person who shall willfully bring, prosecute or maintain an action and has no direct or substantial interest in the relief thereby sought shall be guilty of the crime of barratry." Not actually owning any exclusive right that is infringed, yet bringing lawsuits, sounds a lot like not having a "direct or substantial interest in the relief thereby sought."
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=1v&xhr=t&q=Dana+Eiser+righthaven+barratry&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Dana+Eiser+righthaven+barratry&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cab8d79b6906b781&biw=1680&bih=922
Read Dana Eiser's lawsuit:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57780379/Eiser-v-Righthaven-LLC-Civil-Unfair-Trade-Practices-Complaint
With the explosion of copyright trolling the barratry concept may quickly gain importance.
This could be the key to a class-action that many have been hoping for.
S.G.