Righthaven whacked again -- another day, another $32K

Ars Technica: Judge scolds Righthaven lawyer, adds another $32,000 judgment

Sweet justice -- this time it was specifically in regard to the Denver gropedown photo!!!

BRAVO!!

I don't know what it takes to toss these lawyers in jail for contempt but seems like the right thing to do since none, as far as I know, of the court awarded settlements have been satisfied.

As they say on the internets these days...

Pwnd.

At last some sound decisions from the courts!!!

Seriously, reading about Righthaven getting whacked just never gets old.

Wow this horse must be pulp by now with as much as its been beaten (sort of lizzy bordenesqe), but good riddance to bad garbage.

Yes, but are they actually paying?

Do they actually have the resource to pay?

Or, after screwing people over for several years & hundreds of suits by shaking them down for money to which they're not entitled, are they going to screw everyone over one last time by filing for bankruptcy?

The latest -- after US Marshals found only $1K in their bank account, Righthaven's been ordered to turn over their intellectual property, i.e. the copyrights they sue over (but are getting whacked because their transfers of the copyrights didn't give them control over the material) to a receiver so they can be auctioned to pay a judgment.

PBS (1 Dec 2011): Copyright Infringement Defendants Turn the Table on Righthaven

Las Vegas Sun (13 Dec 2011): Can Righthaven survive latest legal blow?

Vegas, Inc.: (16 Dec 2011): Righthaven plans appeal to block auction of copyrights

Vegas, Inc.: (19 Dec 2011): Court asked to step in after Righthaven refuses to comply with auction

So my question: If Righthaven doesn't own enough of a copyright to sue over it, why wouldn't anyone else pay for that copyright? Righthaven (or the court-appointed receiver) can't convey any greater interest in something than what Righthaven legitimately has. What am I missing here?

everyone connected with NoRightHaven is hating life right about now.

... but it might be hard to express that with their email accounts gone, as Wronghaven bites the dust of the Nevada desert:

Vegas, Inc. (22Dec 2011): Dismantling of Righthaven appears under way with loss of website

It seemed the doman is now parked at GoDaddy, about to be auctioned.

From a story I read earlier, a lawyer has to defend a client's constitutional rights in a bail hearing.

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/12/09/judge-kenneth-post-outed-dangerous.aspx

Some piles of just can't be kicked enough when they're down, and so it goes with the trolls at Righthaven ....

Wired / Threat Level (13 Jan 2012): Nevada State Bar Investigating Copyright-Troll Righthaven

It seems they are now at risk of some well-deserved disciplinary action at the hands of Nevada's bar association & supreme court.

If anyone deserves to get beat up by the state bar, it's those guys.

A lot of these sharks have been jailed in the past few years, especially the sort that loved to file shareholder lawsuits against companies. They would pay employees and family members to buy small lots of corporate IPO shares then just wait for an opening. See http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?msgid=16959555 and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ill-lerach-builds-aviary-regrets-nothing.html

Kicking them around the block one more time ....

Wired / ThreatLevel: Judge Orders Failed Copyright Troll to Forfeit ‘All’ Copyrights

& dig this ...

This is so great!!

Does this mean we can post pics (I use Photobucket) that are from sources other than what we took ourselves, or came from a .gov site, versus just a text hyperlink?

They're dead, Jim.

No and yes. The problem with copyright material is that it has to be "fair use", which generally means < 100%. It's hard to do < 100% of a photo.

On a another site, when I can't find a mugshot, I occasionally crop the head out of a news photo & use only the head, but I try really hard to avoid just wantonly copying images.