Content deleted Content added
HeyElliott (talk | contribs) MOS:TIES, redundant |
HeyElliott (talk | contribs) ce |
||
Line 79:
The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], together with other ''[[pro bono]]'' attorneys, filed an Answer and Counterclaim on behalf of [[Democratic Underground]], a political website that Righthaven sued after a Democratic Underground member posted a five-sentence excerpt from a ''Review-Journal'' article; the counterclaim, filed against Stephens Media and Righthaven asserted that alleged a "sham relationship" between the newspaper and Righthaven, and accused Righthaven of copyright fraud.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/eff-seeks-righthaven-defendants|title=EFF Seeks to Help Righthaven Defendants|date=25 August 2010}}</ref><ref name="counterclaim">{{Cite news|last=Green|first=Steve|title=R-J owner faces counterclaim in copyright lawsuit campaign|newspaper=[[Las Vegas Sun]]|location=[[Henderson, Nevada]]|date=September 28, 2010|url=http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/28/r-j-owner-faces-counterclaim-copyright-lawsuit-cam|access-date=2010-10-08|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>Copy of the "Answer and Counterclaim" available at [https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/AnswerandCounterclaim.pdf EFF.org]</ref>
In March 2011, a federal judge dismissed a suit brought by Righthaven, stating that no evidence had been presented that the forum posting of a ''Las Vegas Review-Journal'' editorial for 40 days for noncommercial use harmed the market value of the work.<ref>{{cite news|last1=David|first1=Kravets|title=Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article is Fair Use|url=https://www.wired.com/2011/06/fair-use-defense/|access-date=11 October 2017|publisher=Wired Magazine|date=20 June 2011}}</ref> In June 2011, another federal judge ruled that Righthaven had no standing to sue for copyright infringement, on the grounds that the original parties retain the actual copyrights.<ref name="Vegasinc ruling">{{cite news|last=Green|first=Steve|title=Judge rules Righthaven lacks standing to sue, threatens sanctions over misrepresentations|url=http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jun/14/judge-rules-righthaven-lacks-standing-sue-threaten/|newspaper=VegasInc|date=14 June 2011|url-access=subscription}}</ref> In August 2011 another case was dismissed by Federal judge [[Philip Pro]], who found that Righthaven had no standing to sue, and in any case the defendant's posting of a ''Review-Journal'' editorial to a blog was protected by fair use.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/23383214779/righthaven-loses-big-yet-again-cementing-two-previous-issues.shtml|title=Righthaven Loses Big Yet Again, Cementing Two Previous Issues|author=Mike Masnick|website=Techdirt.com|date=21 June 2011 }}</ref> The next month the ''Review-Journal'' terminated its arrangement with Righthaven,<ref name=Wired>{{cite news|last=Kravets|first=David|title=Newspaper Chain Drops Righthaven — 'It Was a Dumb Idea'|url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/medianews-righthaven-dumb-idea/|access-date=9 September 2011|newspaper=Wired|date=September 8, 2011}}</ref> which was forced into receivership in November 2011 because of unpaid legal settlements.<ref name=insolvency>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/us-marshals-turned-loose-to-collect-6372080-from-righthaven.ars|title=US Marshals turned loose to collect $63,720.80 from Righthaven|last=Anderson|first=Nate|date=1 November 2011|work=
==Owners and publishers (past and present)==
| |||