Copyright Owner Cited Non-Existent Law In LawsuitAdded: Thursday, April 28th, 2011
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
It is usually believed that people using the law to enforce copyright would examine the laws before going and threatening someone with legal action. However, in one case, a copyright owner cited a law in court documents that didn’t even exist.
There have been quite many legally questionable threats in the world of copyright, as it even happens sometimes that copyright owners use US law to threaten defendants from other countries. It also happens that people are being threatened with vague references to the law, and below is another example: a copyright owner recently tried to take a site operator to court citing the law that doesn’t even exist.
Actually, Righthaven has been in the news since last year thanks to its lawsuit against 250 sites claimed to be violating its clients’ rights. Righthaven demanded $150,000 in damages plus seizure of the domains. However, its hope to set a standard for the newspaper industry backfired, because the court decision found that the suspected online services didn’t violate copyright but claimed fair use. Moreover, the court pointed out that the whole articles being copied and re-posted also could be considered fair use.
But it turned out that Righthaven was not deterred by this legal defeat. After losing that case, it has filed one more lawsuit citing 17 U.S.C. § 505(b). Meanwhile, EFF believes that Righthaven can’t even make this demand since it simply fails as a matter of law, but that wasn’t the only reason. EFF is sure that the lawsuit is going nowhere fast because 17 U.S.C. § 505(b) simply doesn’t exist. So, the only way for Righthaven to proceed is to build a time machine and have the legislation amended first. Another piece of law Righthaven referred to was Rule 64, but this won’t help it either, as the same argument was raised in Righthaven v. DiBiase case and was flatly rejected by the court. Actually, the argument is quite irrelevant, at least because Rule 64 refers to state law remedies, while copyright is a federal law.
Despite the fact that Righthaven lawsuit sounds that ridiculous right now, it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Indeed, if the copyright holders continue filing these junk lawsuits and losing them spectacularly, the chances are everyone will be able to legally download illegal content thanks to fair use in, say, 5 years. If we have entire cited articles considered fair use, why don’t we apply that to movies?
April 28th,2011Posted by:
Thursday, April 28th, 2011
|posted by (2011-04-28 20:53:51)|
|I think the movie companies should reimburse me for time lost watching crap!|
|i agree with MegaMaxx - i pay all this money to go see CRAP movies, and purchase HORRIBLE DVD's. For what?|
Why is it not fair use? They really need to go over there Business model. This is EXTORTION.
Most Popular Stories