ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Righthaven Lawsuits Forum => Topic started by: SoylentGreen on August 25, 2011, 01:08:42 PM
-
Judge again suggests Righthaven is practicing law without a license
"A federal judge today suggested for a second time that Las Vegas copyright lawsuit filer Righthaven LLC has been involved in the unauthorized practice of law."
"The case at issue Wednesday is the Righthaven lawsuit against the Democratic Underground, which remains active despite Righthaven’s dismissal from the suit so the Democratic Underground can pursue its counterclaim against Stephens Media LLC, owner of the Review-Journal."
"Righthaven wants to intervene in the case to protect its interests. Democratic Underground attorneys, however, say Stephens Media has always been the true copyright holder and Righthaven’s lawsuit and its effort to re-enter the case are a sham"
"The court is dubious as to whether Righthaven can essentially create standing in the middle of a case so as to either prosecute the case independently or intervene. Further, the court questions whether Righthaven can even have a legitimate interest under any agreement (no matter the rights purportedly transferred) because Stephens Media and Righthaven’s arrangement seems very much like a contingency fee arrangement with an entity unauthorized to practice law," Hunt wrote in his order Wednesday."
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/aug/24/judge-again-suggests-righthaven-practicing-law-wit/
S.G.
-
Judge to Righthaven: "are you an attorney?, are you allowed to practice law?"
Righthaven: no but I stayed at a holiday inn express last night"
If you dig a hole deep enough, the sides will cave in eventually!
-
That's a good one, buddhapi!!
I think that the Righthaven cases have weakened the concept that one cannot fight "exclusive agreements".
I could see a future litigant possibly using a defence against Getty or Masterfile as follows.
It wouldn't be too hard to show that these companies go after so many people for money that they probably survive only because of their demand letter programs.
Given that, I'd try to demonstrate that their "copyright assignments are really impermissible contingent-fee lawsuit representation contracts".
Some may say that this hasn't been tested in court, but I'd need only refer them to Righthaven via a Google search.
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/aug/25/righthaven-says-foe-jeopardizing-its-due-process-r/
S.G.