DOCSLIB.ORG

Righthaven: Wrong Model Bryan M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Righthaven: Wrong Model Bryan M Against the Grain Volume 23 | Issue 3 Article 29 June 2011 Legally Speaking -- Righthaven: Wrong Model Bryan M. Carson J.D., M.I.L.S. Western Kentucky University Libraries, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Carson, Bryan M. J.D., M.I.L.S. (2011) "Legally Speaking -- Righthaven: Wrong Model," Against the Grain: Vol. 23: Iss. 3, Article 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.5907 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. LEGAL ISSUES Section Editors: Bruce Strauch (The Citadel) <[email protected]> Bryan M. Carson, J.D., M.I.L.S. (Western Kentucky University) <[email protected]> Jack Montgomery (Western Kentucky University) <[email protected]> Legally Speaking — Righthaven: Wrong Model by Bryan M. Carson, J.D., M.I.L.S. (Associate Professor, Coordinator of Reference and Instructional Services, Associated Faculty — Library Media Education Program, Western Kentucky University Libraries, 1906 College Heights Blvd. #11067, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101-1067; Phone: 270-745-5007; Fax: 270-745-2275) <[email protected]> or many years, patent “trolls” have filing suit, many of its targets have reported However, this case didn’t turn out so well bought up patents, then used this power being taken completely by surprise. Indeed, for Righthaven. During the discovery phase, Fto file lawsuits against “infringing” com- many alleged infringers have reported that they the DU requested that Stephens Media pro- panies. Officially known as “non-practicing would have voluntarily removed the newspaper duce their agreement with the Review Journal. entities” or NPEs, trolls “derive all or most articles from their Websites if they had been After examining this document, DU’s lawyers of their revenue from the enforcement of pat- asked to do so.”5 sought to unseal the agreement and release its ents. Patent trolls are clearly distinguishable The Righthaven model has resulted in contents to the public. The Electronic Free- from major research institutions, universities, many small blogs and Websites being charged dom Foundation supported this request, which and businesses that derive their revenue, re- large sums of money — but still less than it Righthaven and Stephens Media opposed. spectively, from funded research, tuition and would cost to defend a lawsuit. 120 cases (al- However, Judge Rodger Hunt (D. Nev) grants, and the sale of products and services. most half of those filed) have been settled with agreed that the document should be unsealed Some of the largest of these NPEs raise large revenue of $420,000. This provides an average and made public, stating: “consider[ing] the funds with which to purchase the patents they yield of around $3,500 per case.6 Recently multitude of cases filed by Righthaven, on seek to enforce — without any plans to turn other entities and newspapers have become the claimed basis that Righthaven owns the those patents into marketable products or involved with the Righthaven saga, including copyrights to certain Stephens Media copy, services. Instead, they then use these funds to WEHCO Media and Media News Group (the it appears to the Court that there is certainly enable — through direct or veiled threats of parent company of the Denver Post). an interest and even a right in all the other infringement — their pursuit of royalties from defendants sued by Plaintiff to have access to The backlash against Righthaven has successful businesses.”1 this material.”12 been swift and broad-based. Many attorneys Now a new variety of troll has arisen in the and journalists have opposed this practice, It turns out that the copyright “assignment” realm of copyright. The newspaper industry including the Las Vegas Sun (the other major is being made solely for the purposes of the has fallen on hard times, so Stephens Media daily newspaper). The Electronic Freedom litigation, which DU and Righthaven argue 13 LLC has come up with a new way to make Foundation has condemned this model,7 and makes it invalid and “a sham.” The agree- money. Stephens Media (the parent company several anti-Righthaven Websites have been ment reads in part as follows: of the Las Vegas Review-Journal) has joined set up.8 Several recent cases have held that the Stephens Media shall retain (and is with attorney Steven Gibson to form a joint postings are a matter of fair use. In April, the hereby granted by Righthaven) an ex- 2 venture named Righthaven. Internet registrar GoDaddy seized the Right- clusive license to Exploit the Stephens As Bruce Strauch pointed out in his ex- haven domain name after discovering incorrect Media Assigned Copyrights for any cellent April column for Against the Grain, information in their registration documents.9 lawful purpose whatsoever and Right- the business model for Righthaven is to sue Several judges have also found issues with haven shall have no right or license to Websites, user forums, and blogs whose users the company’s aggressive enforcement tech- Exploit or participate in the receipt of have posted copies of articles or photographs niques. One significant case wasRighthaven royalties from the Exploitation of the from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The v. Democratic Underground (“DU”). The DU Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights company searches the Internet for material (a major blog associated with the Democratic other than the right to proceeds in as- from the paper. When it finds items posted, Party) was sued over a five-sentence extract sociation with a Recovery.... Stephens Righthaven purchases the rights from the from the paper.10 Righthaven alleged in its Media shall have the right at any time to Review-Journal, registers the copyright, and complaint that it would suffer irreparable harm terminate, in good faith, any Copyright files a lawsuit. Between March 2010 and because of this publication, and that: Assignment (the ‘Assignment Termi- March 2011, the company filed 254 lawsuits nation’) and enjoy a right to complete 3 • Righthaven holds the exclusive right for copyright infringement. reversion to the ownership of any copy- to reproduce the Work, pursuant to 17 right that is the subject of a Copyright Not only does Righthaven ask for money, U.S.C. § 106(1). in most cases it also requests that the courts Assignment....14 • Righthaven holds the exclusive right to transfer the domain names under the provisions This agreement makes Stephens Media the 4 prepare derivative works based upon the of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Ac- real party in interest, even though Stephens has Work, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). cording to one blogger, the Righthaven model not been filing the lawsuits. The Electronic works as follows: “Most of the lawsuits filed • Righthaven holds the exclusive right to Freedom Foundation maintains that assign- by Righthaven are based upon the display of distribute copies of the Work, pursuant ment purely for the purpose of litigation is a single Review Journal article on the offend- to 17 U.S.C. § 106(3). invalid.15 The Stephens Media agreement is ing Website. The lawsuits allege ‘willful’ • Righthaven holds the exclusive right to troublesome for another reason. It does not copyright infringement... Since Righthaven publicly display the Work, pursuant to assign all Review-Journal articles. It assigns 11 does not send cease and desist letters before 17 U.S.C. § 106(5). continued on page 57 56 Against the Grain / June 2011 <http://www.against-the-grain.com> work in a discussion forum was for educational The CIO claimed that the fair use provisions Legally Speaking purposes, namely to stimulate commentary of 17 U.S. Code § 107 allowed this article to from page 56 and criticism, and had no actual or potential be posted. Many people think of fair use as effect on the work’s potential market.... The an exception to copyright law, but in reality it only those articles that Stephens Media finds copyrighted work was an informational piece is an affirmative defense. In other words, the to have been used. The pertinent language intended to stimulate discussion, and Hoehn’s defendant tells the court that “I did violate the reads as follows: use of it furthered this goal.”20 owner’s exclusive rights, but I was entitled to Stephens Media shall assign (at the Since Wayne Hoehn and I both live in do so.” Thus in the CIO case, it made sense for times stated) to Righthaven, pursuant to Bowling Green, I naturally had to interview the defendants to claim fair use. The language the procedures set forth in Section 7: (a) him about the case. I spoke with Mr. Hoehn of § 107 reads as follows: any copyrights owned by Stephens Me- on February 23, 2011. He gave me the factual Notwithstanding the provisions of sec- dia that Stephens Media desires to be background of the case, noting that he did give tions 106 and 106A, the fair use of a the subject of Searching (the “Searching credit to the paper and the author of the article. copyrighted work, including such use Decision”), with each such respective Again, Mr. Hoehn reiterated that the purpose by reproduction in copies or phonore- assignment to occur within a reasonable of the posting was political commentary and cords or by any other means specified time after Stephens Media makes each discussion, a purpose that is supported by the by that section, for purposes such as respective Searching Decision, (b) any fair use principles (and, I would argue, the First criticism, comment, news reporting, copyrights owned by Stephens Media Amendment).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No. 11-16358 United States Court of Appeals for The
    Case: 11-16358 01/13/2012 ID: 8031869 DktEntry: 20 Page: 1 of 40 NO. 11-16358 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIGHTHAVEN LLC, APPELLANT, V. CENTER FOR INTERCULTURAL ORGANIZING, and KAYSE JAMA, APPELLEES. On Appeal From The United States District Court For The District of Nevada Case No. 2:10-cv-01322-JCM-LRL Honorable James C. Mahan, District Judge BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, DIGITAL MEDIA LAW PROJECT, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE Kurt Opsahl (SBN 191303) Corynne McSherry (SBN 221504) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae Case: 11-16358 01/13/2012 ID: 8031869 DktEntry: 20 Page: 2 of 40 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici Curiae the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Digital Media Law Project, Public Knowledge, and the professor amici (collectively, “Amici”) state that none of the Amici have any parent corporation, and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of the stock of any of the Amici. Dated: January 13, 2012 By: /s/ Kurt Opsahl Kurt Opsahl Corynne McSherry ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae i Case: 11-16358 01/13/2012 ID: 8031869 DktEntry: 20 Page: 3 of 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND CONSENT TO FILE ................................
    [Show full text]
  • The New Frontier of Activism - a Study of the Conditioning Factors for the Role of Modern Day Activists
    The new frontier of activism - a study of the conditioning factors for the role of modern day activists Master’s Thesis Andreas Holbak Espersen | MSocSc Political Communication & Management Søren Walther Bjerregård | MSc International Business & Politics Supervisor Erik Caparros Højbjerg | Departmenent of Management, Politics and Philosophy Submitted 7th November 2016 | STUs: 251.792 Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 0 - Research question and literature review ....................................................................................... 6 0.1 Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 0.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 0.2.1 Research area .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 0.3 Literature review ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 0.3.1 Activism in International
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Frivolous And/Or Pursued in Bad Faith
    Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-RJJ Document 44 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 38 1 LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CA State Bar No. 115163) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 2 CLIFFORD C. WEBB (CA State Bar No. 260885) (pro hac vice pending) [email protected] 3 FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 5 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 6 KURT OPSAHL (CA State Bar No. 191303) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 7 CORYNNE MCSHERRY (CA State Bar No. 221504) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 8 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street 9 San Francisco, California 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 10 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 11 CHAD BOWERS (NV State Bar No. 7283) [email protected] 12 CHAD A. BOWERS, LTD 3202 West Charleston Boulevard 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Telephone: (702) 457-1001 14 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, and 15 Defendant DAVID ALLEN 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, ) Case No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH 18 Plaintiff, ) (RJJ) v. ) 19 ) ) CONSOLIDATED BRIEF DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of ) IN OPPOSITION TO 20 Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN, an individual, ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 21 ) FOR VOLUNTARY Defendants. ) DISMISSAL TO THE 22 ) EXTENT IT SEEKS TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of ) FORECLOSE AWARD OF 23 Columbia limited-liability company, ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND ) IN SUPPORT OF CROSS- Counterclaimant, 24 ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY v. ) JUDGMENT 25 ) RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, ) 26 and STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, a Nevada limited-liability ) company, ) 27 ) Counterdefendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech Group Fights Lawsuits Vs. News Sharers 30 September 2010, by CRISTINA SILVA , Associated Press Writer
    Free speech group fights lawsuits vs. news sharers 30 September 2010, By CRISTINA SILVA , Associated Press Writer (AP) -- A San Francisco group that defends online "That's just ridiculous, and the reason it is ridiculous free speech is taking on a Las Vegas company it is that I don't think there has been any defendant says is shaking down news-sharing Internet users that we've called to shake them down for a through more than 140 copyright infringement settlement," he said. lawsuits filed this year. Dozens of the lawsuits have been settled privately, The Electronic Frontier Foundation's counterclaim and Righthaven and Stephens Media declined to represents the first significant challenge to disclose the terms. The EFF says the settlements Righthaven LLC's unprecedented campaign to have averaged about $5,000. police the sharing of news content on blogs, political sites and personal Web pages. Movie and music producers have previously targeted individuals who illegally share copyright At stake is what constitutes fair use - when and content. What makes Righthaven's business model how it is appropriate to share content in an age unique is that it buys copyrights from news where newsmakers increasingly encourage companies like Stephens Media and then readers to share stories on Facebook, Twitter, aggressively files lawsuits without first giving Digg and other social networking sites. defendants a chance to remove the content in question. The EFF argues that the lawsuits limit free speech and bully defendants into costly settlements by Allen Lichtenstein, a lawyer for the Nevada threatening $150,000 in damages and the transfer American Civil Liberties Union, said the lawsuits of domain names.
    [Show full text]
  • RIGHTHAVEN LLC, No
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIGHTHAVEN LLC, No. 11-16751 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:11-cv-00050- PMP-RJJ WAYNE HOEHN, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding RIGHTHAVEN LLC, No. 11-16776 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:10-cv-01343- RLH-PAL THOMAS A. DIBIASE, Defendant-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 5, 2013—Pasadena, California 2 RIGHTHAVEN LLC V. HOEHN Filed May 9, 2013 Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Stephen S. Trott, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton SUMMARY* Copyright The panel affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing of two copyright infringement suits and vacated the portion of the district court’s order granting summary judgment on fair use in one of the suits. The panel held that agreements assigning plaintiff Righthaven LLC the bare right to sue for infringement of newspaper articles, without the transfer of any associated exclusive rights in the articles, did not confer standing to sue. The panel held that the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule in the alternative on the fair use defense. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. RIGHTHAVEN LLC V. HOEHN 3 COUNSEL Erik S. Syverson (argued), Miller Barondess, LLP, Los Angeles, California, and Shawn A.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-RJJ Document 48 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 6 1 LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CA State Bar No. 115163) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 2 CLIFFORD C. WEBB (CA State Bar No. 260885) (pro hac vice pending) [email protected] 3 FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 5 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 6 KURT OPSAHL (CA State Bar No. 191303) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 7 CORYNNE MCSHERRY (CA State Bar No. 221504) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 8 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street 9 San Francisco, California 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 10 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 11 CHAD BOWERS (NV State Bar No. 7283) [email protected] 12 CHAD A. BOWERS, LTD 3202 West Charleston Boulevard 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Telephone: (702) 457-1001 14 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimant DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, and 15 Defendant DAVID ALLEN 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, ) Case No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH 18 Plaintiff, ) (RJJ) v. ) 19 ) DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of ) DECLARATION OF DAVID 20 Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN, ) ALLEN IN SUPPORT OF an individual, ) DEFENDANTS’ 21 ) CONSOLIDATED BRIEF Defendants. ) IN OPPOSITION TO 22 ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of ) FOR VOLUNTARY 23 Columbia limited-liability company, ) DISMISSAL TO THE ) EXTENT IT SEEKS TO Counterclaimant, 24 ) FORECLOSE AWARD OF v. ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND 25 ) IN SUPPORT OF CROSS- RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY 26 and STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, a Nevada limited-liability ) JUDGMENT company, ) ) 27 Counterdefendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Asserting a Redundant Counterclaim Against Righthaven
    Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH -GWF Document 58 Filed 01/08/11 Page 1 of 21 1 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6730 2 [email protected] SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 3 9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129-7701 4 (702) 304-0432 – telephone (702) 922-3851 – facsimile 5 J. CHARLES COONS, ESQ. 6 Nevada Bar No. 10553 [email protected] 7 Assistant General Counsel at Righthaven LLC Righthaven LLC 8 9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 210 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129-7701 9 (702) 527-5900 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Righthaven LLC 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 14 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited- Case No.: 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-RHH 15 liability company, RIGHTHAVEN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO 16 DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 v. 18 DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a 19 District of Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN, an individual, 20 21 Defendants. 22 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 23 24 25 Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) hereby opposes Democratic Underground, LLC’s and 26 David Allen’s (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) cross-motion for summary 27 judgment. (Doc. # 45.) This opposition is based on the pleadings and papers on file in this 28 1 Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH -GWF Document 58 Filed 01/08/11 Page 2 of 21 1 action, any oral argument this Court may allow, and any other matter upon which this Court 2 takes notice. 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 6 Righthaven regretfully is compelled to file this opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion 7 for summary judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Righthaven Affiliate Concedes That Brief Web Excerpt Is Fair Use Sheri Qualters the National Law Journal | November 23, 2011
    Righthaven Affiliate Concedes That Brief Web Excerpt is Fair Use Sheri Qualters The National Law Journal | November 23, 2011 The latest chapter in the Nevada federal court saga launched by aggressive copyright plaintiff Righthaven LLC is a concession by its affiliate, Las Vegas Review-Journal publisher Stephens Media, that a brief news article excerpt in an online forum is not copyright infringement. On Nov. 17, Stephens Media made the concession in its response to a summary judgment motion by Democratic Underground, a political Web site, in Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground the District of Nevada. Laurence Pulgram According to Democratic Underground's motion, Righthaven filed more than 200 copyright infringement cases in the District of Nevada claiming that Internet posters infringed copyrights assigned to it by Stephens Media. The cases sought statutory damages of up to $150,000, seizures of domain names and attorney fees. The case at hand began in August 2010, when Righthaven sued political discussion forum Democratic Underground and its principal, David Allen, for copyright infringement after a forum participant posted a five-sentence excerpt of a much longer news article copyrighted by Stephens Media. With pro bono help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and law firms that work on EFF cases, Democratic Underground filed counterclaims against Righthaven affiliate Stephens Media in September 2010. In June 2011, District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed Righthaven for lack of standing. Hunt found that a strategic alliance agreement between Stephens Media and Righthaven did not grant Righthaven any of the exclusive rights under the 1976 Copyright Act required for standing to sue.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Identity Signaling in Heterogeneous Networks
    Strategic Identity Signaling in Heterogeneous Networks Tamara van der Does1, Mirta Galesic1, Zackary Dunivin2,3, and Paul E. Smaldino4 1Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe NM 87501, USA. 2Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research, Luddy School of Informatics, Computer Science, and Engineering, Indiana University, 919 E 10th St, Bloomington, IN 47408 USA 3Department of Sociology, Indiana University, 1020 E Kirkwood Ave, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA 4Department of Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, 5200 Lake Rd, Merced, CA 95343 USA Abstract: Individuals often signal identity information to facilitate assortment with partners who are likely to share norms, values, and goals. However, individuals may also be incentivized to encrypt their identity signals to avoid detection by dissimilar receivers, particularly when such detection is costly. Using mathematical modeling, this idea has previously been formalized into a theory of covert signaling. In this paper, we provide the first empirical test of the theory of covert signaling in the context of political identity signaling surrounding the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. We use novel methods relying on differences in detection between ingroup and outgroup receivers to identify likely covert and overt signals on Twitter. We strengthen our experimental predictions with a new mathematical modeling and examine the usage of selected covert and overt tweets in a behavioral experiment. We find that people strategically adjust their signaling behavior in response to the political constitution of their audiences and the cost of being disliked, in accordance with the formal theory. Our results have implications for our understanding of political communication, social identity, pragmatics, hate speech, and the maintenance of cooperation in diverse populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Court File No.: T-2058-12 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN
    Court File No.: T-2058-12 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: VOLTAGE PICTURES LLC PLAINTIFF/MOVING PARTY - and - JOHN DOE and JANE DOE DEFENDANTS - and - TEKSAVVY SOLUTIONS INC. RESPONDING PARTY - and – SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC INTERVENER MOTION RECORD OF THE SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICYAND PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC (Motion for a written examination of a non-party under rule 238) Volume 4 of 4: Book of Authorities, Part 2 Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5 David Fewer Tel: (613) 562-5800 ext. 2558 Fax: (613) 562-5417 TO: THE ADMINISTRATOR Federal Court of Canada AND TO: VOLTAGE PICTURES LLC P. James Zibarras BRAUTI THORNING ZIBARRAS LLP 151 Yonge Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5C 2W7 Tel: (416) 362-4567 Fax: (416) 362-8410 AND TO: TEKSAVVY SOLUTIONS INC. Nicholas McHaffie Stikeman Elliot LLP Suite 1600, 50 O’Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2 Tel: (613) 566-0546 Fax: (613) 230-8877 Table of Contents TAB TITLE PAGE VOLUME 1 1 Affidavits And Transcripts 2 A Affidavit of Alexander M Cooke, dated 27 February 2013 2 B Affidavit of Timothy Lethbridge, dated 27 February 2013 59 Transcript of the cross-examination of Barry Logan on his C 71 affidavit of 7 December 2012, dated 5 June 2013 Exhibit 1: First nine pages of printed material from Canipre D 158 Website. (Page 8 identified as cached copy) Exhibit 2: Bundle of Documents, consisting of Media E 167 Coverage of Canipre VOLUME 2 2 Memorandum of Fact and Law 168 3 Appendix A: Statutes and Regulations Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-RJJ Document 47 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 6 1 LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CA State Bar No. 115163) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 2 CLIFFORD C. WEBB (CA State Bar No. 260885) (pro hac vice pending) [email protected] 3 FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 5 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 6 KURT OPSAHL (CA State Bar No. 191303) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 7 CORYNNE MCSHERRY (CA State Bar No. 221504) (pro hac vice) [email protected] 8 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street 9 San Francisco, California 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 10 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 11 CHAD BOWERS (NV State Bar No. 7283) [email protected] 12 CHAD A. BOWERS, LTD 3202 West Charleston Boulevard 13 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Telephone: (702) 457-1001 14 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, and 15 Defendant DAVID ALLEN 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, ) Case No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH 18 Plaintiff, ) (RJJ) v. ) 19 ) DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of ) DECLARATION OF KURT 20 Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN, ) OPSAHL ISO an individual, ) DEFENDANTS’ 21 ) CONSOLIDATED BRIEF Defendants. ) IN OPPOSITION TO 22 ) PLAINTIFF’S MTN FOR DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of ) VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 23 Columbia limited-liability company, ) TO THE EXTENT IT ) SEEKS TO FORECLOSE Counterclaimant, 24 ) AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ v. ) FEES,CROSS-MOTION 25 ) FOR SUMMARY RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, ) JUDGMENT, AND 26 and STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, a Nevada limited-liability ) OPPOSITION TO company, ) STEPHENS MEDIA’S 27 ) MOTION TO DISMISS Counterdefendants.
    [Show full text]