What Righthaven is doing is a complete violation of the DMCA takedown rules, and should be dismissed

[Hawkeye-X]

First and foremost: IANAL.

As a copyright holder, RightHaven, LLC has to make the first step - notification of the violation to the person infringing their copyright. That is called the DMCA Takedown notice. Guess what? RightHaven ignored the first step and just went a-suin'. All DU has to do is ask for a DMCA takedown notice that has been sent - which I highly doubt that DU has ever received. Due to the fact that Righthaven, LLC has just decided to sue everyone and their mothers, it should be brought up before the court (can do it pro se) and get it dismissed without prejudice.

A wise judge should read the DMCA takedown law, and have it dismissed outright due to violation of due process, sanction RightHaven $5,000 per violation (count is currently at 96). That is what is saving DU's butt. NORML and the others who settled too quick should have checked the DMCA law, and saved the aggravation and the loss of money.

IRS should be contacted about RightHaven LLC. I think it's also in violation of the LLC charter.

Hawkeye-X

[RandomThoughts]

1. That so fits, that could even be part of the same meme.

Can you see it, look at the totality of actions, attacks on progressive positions.

Including coincidentally a copywrite suit on DU, and not following copywrights is the only specific comment of some legal thing I don't follow.

LOL


Come a little closer. An attack by people LOL And attacking people that support them, this is so good.

[notesdev]

2. I hope he keeps doing it

'cause one day he's going to sue the wrong person and that person is going to track him down and beat the living snot out of him like he so richly deserves.

[RamboLiberal]

7. Well he has sued a former mob enforcer

And at least two armed citizens groups. Not to mention Free Republic. Hopefully this scum goes after a Stormfront type site.

And on edit I forgot he's also going after Prisonplanet - Alex Jones who threatens he's heard on 60 radio stations.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. DCMA based approach is optional, not required

[jberryhill]

4. They don't have to use the DMCA

I don't know where you are getting that.

I'm guessing you are misreading the recent YouTube case in which the plaintiff asserted a duty to police, and was duly smacked down for that. The upshot of that case was that the site operator did not have a positive duty to police others' copyrights.

The notice issue will primarily affect whether anything more than injunctive relief is available.

[struggle4progress]

5. Could be. But judges often generally prefer that the plaintiff make some effort to reach

reach some accommodation with the defendant before rushing off to court. And the plaintiff's tale here isn't going to fill many judges' eyes with sympathetic tears

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. I do not think it would have any bearing...YMMV

[struggle4progress]

9. Depends, I think, on context: purpose of the courts is to resolve material disputes of genuine

content. But the docket is frequently overloaded, so there's some prejudice in favor of controlling the backload by quickly resolving the simplest cases, and that often means encouraging some out-of-court conversation between the parties; failure of the plaintiff to avail of such opportunity may be noted unfavorably. Moreover, the courts frown on use of the justice system for purposes other than dispute resolution -- such as lawsuits intended to score political points or used simply for fundraising

[RamboLiberal]

8. Sleazeballs give their explanation in article below

http://weeklyseven.com/news/2010/july/22/fighting-copyr...

Video of Jon Ralston interviewing him. http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2010/jun/02/4022/