It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Whoops—in its bid to sue hundreds of bloggers, commentors, and website operators from posting even a few sentences from newspaper stories, the copyright zealots at Righthaven have just scored an own goal. Last Friday, a federal judge ruled in one of the company's many lawsuits, saying that even the complete republication of copyrighted newspaper content can be "fair use."
Righthaven has achieved national notoriety for its business model, which involves scouring the Web—including tiny blogs and nonprofits—for Las Vegas Review Journal and other newspaper stories. When it finds a match, Righthaven licenses the copyright from the cooperating newspaper and sues the article poster without warning for statutory damages of up to $150,000. In addition, it routinely demands that the poster's domain name be transferred to Righthaven.
As Green noted in a follow-up piece, the result here is almost comical: Righthaven goes to war in the name of tough copyright enforcement and winds up with a ruling that complete republication by some nonprofits falls under the scope of fair use. "Some 250 Righthaven lawsuits later, Righthaven's startling achievement is that newspapers now have less—not more—protection from copyright infringers," Green concluded.
Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
Copyright in the sense of media and entertainment was seriously flawed when it was first devised. Its a self destructing law where it can either be enforced or be completely removed.
Originally posted by leelo
reply to post by Maxmars
Just to make sure I understand what these people at Righthaven are doing (excuse me I am doped up on Allergy medicine, dang pollen count).......so these RightHaven People are not suing bloggers and other people for misuse of THEIR copyrighted material, but they are suing random people for alleged misuse of copy righted material that does not belong to RightHaven? Am I correct in saying this? If so, I do not understand why it is legal for them to sue on the behalf of someone else. Pre-Thanks for helping clarify for me.
Originally posted by ugie1028
So... basically... we can go on a copy/pasting frenzy now (With the source of course) from any news outlet anywhere in the USA without fear of violating copyright laws?
Time to get our copy/paste on!
Originally posted by buddha
They can not have it both ways.
they wont the right to print any thing about any person.
so WE can do the same.
they steel are stuff.
so we can use there stuff.