Why is Righthaven Wrong With New Remedies Request?
I know that less than a week ago we published a blog on Righthaven, doers of good and purgers of copyright-infringing internet scum, but things with them are just getting so absurd that I simply couldn’t resist a quick bit on the most recent news. What is so absurd you may wonder? Why, the courts repeatedly ruling against them and their noble cause, of course.
I’m not going to go into another explanation of what Righthaven is and does. For more info on that point, feel free to read my first post on them, or any other IPB blogs about them (although my compatriots may have decidedly different views on Righthaven’s practices). From here, I’ll just assume you’re not only intimately familiar with their copyright protection tactics, but you’ve also taken a side on whether you agree with their righteous ways, and are probably sick of hearing about them.
I for one commend Righthaven for their steadfast protection of copyrights they’ve purchased from their original owners. One of my fellow bloggers recently told you about how Righthaven may not have standing to sue, but they will not let that stop them. Now comes news that they won’t let the law as it’s written stop them either! Think a previous judicial ruling against them will stop them from trying the same exact tactic? Think again! A week or so ago, reports hit the tubes of Righthaven valiantly demanding the courts hand over a domain name that hosted infringing content. Never mind that seizure of a domain name is not, and never has been, a remedy for copyright infringement. When Righthaven knows what’s right, it isn’t afraid to demand it (that must be where the “right” in the name comes from).
Unfortunately, Chief Judge Hunt dismissed the aforementioned suit. This doesn’t bode well for Righthaven, seeing as Chief Judge Hunt is overseeing about 200 Righthaven lawsuits in Nevada Federal Court. Just to show that Righthaven isn’t afraid to challenge a “not Right” ruling, they recently decided to try for the same domain seizure remedy. Actually, this time they decided to not just go to the domain name, but also to demand the surrender of “all hardware, software, electronic media and domains, including the Domain used to store, disseminate and display the unauthorized versions of any and all copyrighted works . . . .” Righthaven even cited 17 U.S.C. § 505(b) in support of this. I, for one, can’t agree with this strategy more. Never mind that section 505 doesn’t have a subsection (b). If you ask once and don’t receive, ask again for much more. No matter you were previously dismissed for failure to state a claim. How will this most recent tactic pan out? Will the court finally get it Right? I think I know how most of us want it to come out, but regardless, stay tuned.