Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Remember Righthaven? On appeal, copyright troll looks just as bad  (Read 2150 times)

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3347
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
There are second chances in life, though; and Righthaven got one yesterday. The company's new lawyer, Erik Syverson, argued that the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit should overturn Righthaven's losses in two cases: the DiBiase case, defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Hoehn case, defended by Las Vegas attorney Marc Randazza. Yesterday's case is the first Righthaven case to be argued at the appellate level.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/remember-righthaven-on-appeal-copyright-troll-looks-just-as-bad/
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Remember Righthaven? On appeal, copyright troll looks just as bad
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2013, 12:08:25 AM »
Thanks for the update..!
I was checking on this periodically, also...

It's rather odd that a bankrupt company that owes thousands to defendants in court judgements can still hire lawyers and litigate.
It begs the question as to whether Gibson should be held responsible for any losses instead of the insolvent Righthaven.
"Righthaven" continues to litigate, but is essentially judgement-proof.  This sort of thing has to stop.

Too bad that the judges in the original cases didn't deem their decisions "with prejudice", so that Righthaven couldn't give it another go.
After all, the material facts of Righthaven's "legal standing" wouldn't change after the fact.

I wish that Hoehn and DiBiase would have bought the rights to the news articles that they were being sued over.
Sure, Righthaven/Gibson could make the argument that they didn't own the copyrighted materials at the time of the alleged infringement.
But, Hoehn and DiBiase could say the same about Righthaven.  That would have been funny.

S.G.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.