Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

www.wired.com

Bill Irvine of Phoenix says he is fighting infringement allegations targeting AboveTopSecret.com, the site he controls under The Above Network. The site is accused of infringing a Review-Journal article on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Read More www.wired.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.wired.com
www.the-numbers.com
www.mail.com

It seems that there is a new breed of ambulance chaser. The lawyers that go for innocent bloggers and websites that discuss the news. I was surprised to see our very own ATS mentioned as I have not seen anything about it on here.

My thoughts are as follows:-

Music. Should be free as it is advertising for the brand and is the artist. The smart artists now are making more from merchandising and touring according to anecdotal evidence.

Books. It seems that eBooks are selling more than the paper variety.

Film. Movie producers claim that piracy is killing Hollywood, but I tend to disagree. the-numbers.com shows that ticket sales have been pretty much the same since 2002 and this year looks as though it will be a record breaker.

News. NYT posts first revenue growth in years on the back of online advertising.

So all in all, it seems that the evil Internet isn't making things go as pear shaped as the media have us believe and the ambulance chasers going after the little people because they probably don't have the funds to fight it is, well, obscene to me.

What do others think?


www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 22-7-2010 by darkmaninperth]

[edit on 22-7-2010 by darkmaninperth]

Righthaven look like another bunch of greasy slip and fall types.

It is this sort of greasy opportunism that is ripping apart the economy. Derivatives of derivatives and intellectual non property.

Slay him with the legal sword BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems that after a little more digging, Righthaven have made some really stupid lawsuits.

Here si one example.

the LVJR published an article based on research -- which it got for free -- from Curtis, and when he then tries to highlight that article, the LVJR sues him.

Linkypoo

The philosophy here kids is, free information is bad. You must pay for your information, can't afford it? Oh well no information for you.

Righthaven have definitely annoyed quite a few people, here is a link to a blog that details a lot of their more, er, interesting lawsuits.

linkmiester


I wonder of I could file a suit claiming that they use words on their website that I use on my blog and that they copied those words intentionally to make a profit. Well, can't be any worse than some of their lawsuits.

I want to reassure everyone that our long-standing law firm is highly competent in these matters, and we are initiating a response. We have every confidence that we will prevail.

Until the matter is settled, unfortunately, that is about all you'll hear from us officially on the matter.


A couple other threads have popped up on this issue, and we'd prefer to keep this -- the first one -- the only open thread on the matter. Any new threads will most likely be removed.

Thanks.




As a side note, the Wired reporter who interviewed me is a really nice guy, and turns out he runs a parody site I've visited often: www.yellowdailynews.com...

Other conspiracy sites are having legal issues come up concerning copyright infringements. Some are even offering an alliance with ATS.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Good luck ,as a graphic designer I will be following this closely,again good luck.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by gambon]

There was a thread up about an aliance with that 'other' web site. The moderator of a thread that spawned from it said that thread would be put back up, it has been almost 30 minutes if not more since then.

Is said thread coming back up, or did the moderator assume too much?

Righthaven, the plaintiff in the suits, apparently finds Review Journal stories reposted elsewhere on the web, acquires the copyrights from the Review Journal, and then files suit against the reposters.

bloglawblog.com...

Interesting trick but how can he sue for copyright infringement on something he did not own at the time.


Or if i am interviewed by a reporter that quotes me and i also post it on my blog can he still sue me for posting it in my blog.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by ANNED]

I for one hope he slips and falls. Permanently. This is exactly why our country has been run into the ground. He's using the law solely as a money-making scheme - in no way did the clients care before he convinced em to be greedy. Links are more hits to their pages, and subsequently more hits to their adverts as well.
A well orchestrated campaign to boycott his clients' sites is in order!

The conspiracist in me wonders if this guy is working for TPTB in some fashion, because if this becomes the norm it will squelch the dissemination of news and info on the web.

Whatta Douche!

Please accept that peace proposal from the other forum.

Only united we stand.

That 'other' site has offered a real alliance, both in spirit and in legal terms. They have also stopped banning people or posts that mention ats, you can now link stories from here to there.

I think the site owner is disheartened tonight by the cold reception of that truce, but it is still on the plate, I think.

reply to post by Nyhee


Well, GLP again hides ATS links... Looks like Trinity is a bit pissed by the answer he received.

What´s the point in being childish?

edit: btw, people never were banned for mentioning or linking ATS, links were "only" masked like this: www.no link.com/forum...

Imagine if you lose, ATS admins. Precedence case for all forums...

[edit on 23-7-2010 by euleberlin]

Originally posted by euleberlin
reply to post by Nyhee

 

Well, GLP again hides ATS links... Looks like Trinity is a bit pissed by the answer he received.

What´s the point in being childish?

edit: btw, people never were banned for mentioning or linking ATS, links were "only" masked like this: www.no link.com/forum...

Imagine if you lose, ATS admins. Precedence case for all forums...

[edit on 23-7-2010 by euleberlin]

Well, I don't blame him, and maybe it wasn't childish. We don't know all the factors involved in this.

Okay, why did I just get a wave of deja vu?

It's hitting the fan, isn't it?

Pretty cool time to be alive!

Originally posted by darkmaninperth
Music. Should be free as it is advertising for the brand and is the artist. The smart artists now are making more from merchandising and touring according to anecdotal evidence.

No it shouldn't, that's not for you to decide.
2nd line

I'll tell you despite what they'd have you believe, piracy is NO danger to any of these mediums! What is a danger to them is their bloated giant unchanging business model. The movie industryy has turned record profits over the last 10+ YEARS DESPITE RISING PIRACY. The reason industries such as the record industry are dying is because they haven't adapted their business model! The reason newspapers are dying is the same reason! They haven't changed with the times nor taken advantage of new revenue instead allowing themselves to wither and die with paper print because the insiders in the business are unimaginative and inflexible.

These guys are just parasitic lawyer scuzz!

I want to add that, while we, obviously, disagree with the actions taken by the RJ and their partners in this suit, we would like the members to refrain from using this forum to badmouth the folks suing us. The last thing we need is to add to the suit.

The idea that these guys are using software to troll the internet, seeking out links to their own site and then suing anyone who is attempting to drive traffic back to their site is odd, given that linking from a site with higher traffic should result in an increase in traffic on their site. This is made all the more odd when you actually go to their site and see that they offer you tips on posting links to facebook. I guess Facebook's users posting links and snippets is cool but ours isn't.

This is, in a sense, an attempt at stifling freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by darkmaninperth
Music. Should be free as it is advertising for the brand and is the artist. The smart artists now are making more from merchandising and touring according to anecdotal evidence.

No it shouldn't, that's not for you to decide.
2nd line

If not me, then whom?

I'm sure the owners of old time music halls never thought that their business model would die the same way that recording labels business models are dying.

It is simply evolution. You either adapt or die out.