|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
Righthaven Lawsuit Model Revealed - Could end Copyright Troll Terrorism
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
BREAKING NEWS — Righthaven’s operating agreement revealed by Nevada District Court – Does the House of Cards Collapse?
Yesterday, the District of Nevada ordered evidence regarding Righthaven’s ownership of the copyrights it sues on to be unsealed.
Today, Docket # 79, which reveals heretofore unknown information about Righthaven’s business model, was unsealed. As of right now, I don’t believe that any other source has this information. Read the whole thing here.
For those of you lacking fluency in Copyright law, Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 402 F.3d 881 (2005), says that you need to assign a specific right under 17 U.S.C. § 106 – and not the bare right to sue – for a copyright assignment to be valid. Other courts, such as Sybersound, have held that you need an exclusive right in order to sue for infringement of your copyright rights.
The document, which Righthaven fought to keep sealed, seems to reveal what many observers suspected all along — that the Righthaven assignments may run afoul of Silvers v. Sony.
As many defendants in Righthaven actions have argued, Righthaven does not truly own the copyrights it sues over. Section 7.2 of the Agreement clearly states that “Righhaven shall have no right or license to Exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from the Exploitation of the Stephens Media Assigned Copyrights other than the right to proceeds in association with a Recovery.”
<EXCERPT and you have to read the rest!!!!>
[link to randazza.wordpress.com]
and this story too:
[link to www.vegasinc.com]
    
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
