posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:12 AM
In talking with attorneys that I know personally, it seemed evident to them that the 'business model' adopted by the Righthaven senior partners was
brazenly predatory and not really based on anything other than the window of opportunity. As legislation has been further and further molded by
industry insiders, it was a relatively 'probable' development. In other words, no one was too surprised.
This was one of those 'Since we can do it, we will." deals. I suspect they made a pretty penny over the last few years on this campaign of so-called
'copyright protection' which seems to be underpinned by the internationally significant push for 'intellectual property rights' justice.
Fortunately, their greed may have gotten the better of them. The idea to protect someone's work has merit; but in my opinion, should not serve as an
excuse to slash and burn every person with a rebuttal to, or opinion on, published work; the essence of 'fair use.'
It's as though, once the principle of "information as property" was married with corporate immortality, it was clear that those who 'own' information
(a ludicrous concept - in my opinion) would expect profit in perpetuity for any exchange of that information.
Now that an opinion has been tendered allowing an entire article to be subject to fair use, Righthaven will have to develop a new strategy, or abandon
this crusade. Perhaps they envision a Supreme Court case.... bring on the writ certiorari! We can already imagine who will be submitting the
'amicus' briefs supporting them can't we?
Probably those institutions manned by the RIAA, and MPAA, at the very least.... because this will echo in their realm as well.... Youtube, Google,
and other such services that enable 'use' of copy-written video and audio should be paying attention as well.....
edit on 23-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)