Talk:Righthaven

Righthaven lawsuits

Righthaven LLC is currently embroiled in over 200 lawsuits, concerning their copyright. The problem that exists is the fact that Righthaven, exists as a Copyright troll company. Any idea how to further contribute here? redORANGEblack (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If by "contribute" you mean expand this and other articles, there is always plenty of work to do around here. With Righthaven specifically it would be useful to find more sourced information about its history, who set it up, why, and some of the more notable lawsuits they have filed (e.g. the one against Sharon Angle's campaign). You are right that they are known mostly for their copyright lawsuits. However, like them or not, on Wikipedia we do try to present a neutral, factual account of everything without applying value judgments. The fact that a number of commentators have objected and called them a "copyright troll" is such a fact, but we don't endorse it or advocate, we just report it. That's sometimes hard to do sometimes, and we all have personal opinions... but the idea is that if you report things fairly, the truth comes out and people can make their own decisions. If by "contribute" you mean to try to deal with the implications of what this company is doing, you might consider looking at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit and mostly volunteer legal advocacy group that is handling a few of the defenses. There are also probably some projects connected with law schools, free speech groups, copyright policy, etc. One thing you could do is urge people not to cut and paste large pieces of newspaper articles to their own websites, but summarize and use a link instead. That's what they're suing for. Wikipedia articles too! They're freely copyable, but you need an attribution. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable Lawsuits

I'm still a little bit new at contributing so please bear with me.

Would it be possible to make a Notable Lawsuits section? There are some big and/or interesting names in the list of defendants. Some that catch my eye are:

• Righthaven LLC v. David Tina, Michael J. Nelson and Realty One Group, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01036, Filed June 25, 2010 (This one had an important decision.)
• Righthaven LLC v. Sharron Angle, Case No. 10-cv-01511, Filed September 3, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. Matt Drudge and DrudgeReportArchives.com, Case No. 10-cv-02135, Filed December 8, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. David Allen and Democratic Underground, LLC, Case No. 10-cv-01356, Filed August 10, 2010
• Righthaven, LLC v. Democratic Party of Nevada, Case No. 10-cv-01129, Filed July 09, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. Free Republic, LLC, James C. Robinson and John Robinson, Case No. 10-cv-01194, Filed July 19, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. Motorcycle Racing Association of Nevada, Case No. 10-cv-00855, Filed June 4, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. American Society of Safety Engineers and Jack Spackman, Case No. 10-cv-01017, Filed June 25, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. Center for Intercultural Organizing; and Kayse Jama, Case No. 10-cv-01322, Filed August 5, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. Thomas A. DiBiase, Case No. 10-cv-01343, Filed August 9, 2010
• Righthaven LLC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Building Association and Walt Schmidt, Case No. 10-cv-01765, Filed October 12, 2010

There is a full list of Righthaven lawsuits and links to many related documents here: http://ix23.com/righthaven-shakedown/righthaven-copyright-lawsuits.php

Chuck Coker (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Section called "commentary"

I'm concerned about using "commentary" as a section name. I haven't fully thought through whether the content of that section is OK, but it strikes me that this is not an appropriate section heading. Doe anyone disagree?--SPhilbrickT 13:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible addition to article

I don't have the time to do this justice at this time, but Righthaven accuses defendant of running up legal fees in copyright case is a link to an article about a case that isn't going so well for Righthaven, and may turn out to be one of the most notable cases. It is breaking news, which also suggests it may well be appropriate to take some time to work out how or even if it deserves inclusion in the article.--SPhilbrickT 13:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Vexatious Litigation?

Has this firm been found to be a vexatious litigator by some court? If so a city would be great, if not, I think one of you Smart People ought to remove it as NPOV. I was hoping that the article (or Google for that matter) would take me ot the firm's website. Oddly, they do not seem to have one. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that a case has been published there is something to cite: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/order6-14-11.pdf In short, it is not the proper use of the courts to frighten people into settling claims that have no legal standing. The findings of fact contained therein also suggests that the article appears to need some correction, as in this case ( therefore probably the others too) they didn't even own the copyright. I consider the The Electronic Frontier Foundation as a reliable source, even if it has COI when reporting such things. Righthaven Copyright Troll Lawsuit Dismissed as Sham. It also appears that they are now the ones being sued: Going after a troll for barratry. However, I consider it far too early to included this latest turn of events in the article's text.--Aspro (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page already moved by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Note - I'm undoing a speedy nonadmin closure but for now not undoing the move. It may well be that consensus supports the move but this has been open less than 24 hours and is neither unopposed nor a "no brainer". Many organizations are commonly known by their corporate designations, not as an abstract technical matter to distinguish them from other terms but simply because that's how they're known. If consensus is that this is not the case here, I'll respect that. Please leave this for a few days to see if anyone else has any thoughts. Wikipedia has no deadline. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Righthaven LLC → Righthaven – It appears that, generally, corporate designations such as Inc., LLC, Ltd., and the like don't appear in Wikipedia articles (this would seem to be analogous to not including degree titles with the name of a natural person). Apart from legal filings (which generally include the full name of a corporate litigant), it appears that the company is usually known simply as Righthaven. See [1], [2], [3] (interchangeably using Righthaven and Righthaven LLC), [4], and [5]. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The company is alternately defined by the sources as "Righthaven" or "Righthaven LLC". "Righthaven" standing alone as a title does not identify that it is an organization, as opposed to most where it is apparent from the name (e.g. Constellation Brands, American Airlines, Gannett Company, The Walt Disney Company, Smithsonian Institution, etc. (emphasis added) Indeed, when companies have a name that does not immediately identify that they are an organization in context, something is usually appended, e.g. Apple Inc., Levi Strauss & Co., Target Corporation, Chevron Corporation, Toto Ltd.. I don't know all the ins and outs but a few factors that apply are that it seems to be a coined name that doesn't clearly identify what it is, it's relatively obscure (not a well known company by the general public), and there is no product or service branded under that name. If you look at the sources, they often do use Righthaven LLC, and omit it only when it's clear from context or they expect the reader to already know because it's ongoing coverage. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing that I would say about your examples of Apple Inc., Levi Strauss & Co., Target Corporation, Chevron Corporation, Toto Ltd. is that the common name is ambiguous and therefore the full corporate name can serve to disambiguate the companies from other articles like Chevron (a disambiguation page to various articles like the shape) or Levi Strauss (about the person). "Righthaven" is completely unambiguous and therefore I don't see any need to deviate from the common name of "Righthaven" as the article title. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCCORP which states "The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title". Jenks24 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as mover, it is clearly a no-brainer per WP:NCCORP and no argument as been provided as to why that should not apply. And, BTW, you should have preserved my move rationale in full, rather than refactoring. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I provided an argument, above. Per WP:COMMONNAME it is generally referred to as "Righthaven LLC" by sources trying to be precise. The two most prolific sources, Las Vegas Inc. and the Las Vegas Sun, always introduce it as Righthaven LLC in their ongoing coverage.[6][7] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NCCORP is a long-standing guideline and in this instance trumps WP:COMMONNAME, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that and at first blush it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would we call a company something other than its usual name? Plus, in a quick search that does not seem to be how it works in practice.[8] Would you mind pointing to something to establish an accepted Wikipedia rule that NCCORP trumps COMMONNAME? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

800 pound gorilla not mentioned in the article

More than one judge has found Righthaven's claims contradict the doctrine of fair use which is an exception to "exclusive right" (as it turns out Righthaven did not have exclusive right to the material, but only a nonexistent right to sue, with exclusive right to re-use of the material retained by LVRJ). "Fair use" means reasonable quotation with citation of source for research, education, political commentary, etc. Most folks who disagree with your use of their material send a takedown request; Righthaven sent a threat of a 75K dollar lawsuit and loss of domain name, or else settle for ~3K out of court. Righthaven's lawsuits have lead to a chilling effect on free discussions in the Internet. I have lost count of how many times a link to an article has gone dead.

The balance between copyright and free speech is the fair use doctrine.

17 USC 107
§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USC § §106 and 106A], 
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies 
or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such 
as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for 
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.  
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair 
use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted 
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted 
work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if 
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Exempla gratia: Eric Goldman: Technology & Marketing Law Blog, 21 Oct 2010, "Blogger Wins Fair Use Defense...On a Motion to Dismiss!" case of Righthaven v. Realty One Group, Inc., 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2010). Involving reprint of 8 sentences from a 30 sentence article, the court ruled "use of the copyrighted material is likely to have little to no effect on the market for the copyrighted news article." Naaman Brown (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Domain Name

The domain name was bought, it turns out, by swiss-based righthaven hosting company, which provides, ironically, services (a "spine" they call it) against frivolous lawsuit. --Promateus (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved from article page

Update: Judge strips Righthaven of rights to 278 copyrights and its trademark

Probably should be worked into the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)