MNGunTalk.com

GeekyGunman wrote:The issue at hand is the verbatim copy and paste re-posting of articles, which is basically full on copyright infringement.
The only truly scary/unfair part of this, is that DMCA safe harbor laws don't apply unless you have specifically designated and registered a contact...It's at least an unintended side-effect, because usually it's not worth suing the small fry.

gyrfalcon wrote:It's too simple to suggest that the only issue at hand is copyright infringement. Copyright law has failed to keep up with technology and is now stifling the sharing of information to the detriment of society. Whatever stance you take there is a war going on regarding copyright and intellectual property.

xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL

Pitel wrote:

xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL

I agree. It would be interesting to see what the "damages" are and besides, if the article in on line and does not cost a fee to view it, isn't it then considered in the public domain? Seems to me they have a tough case however, they probably don't care about a trial, just the fear tactic and lesser of the financial evil.

Pitel wrote:For extortionist's like that, I would just continue to let them pursue. If none have gone to trial (and that can be verified) then any effort you put towards it would be a waste of time any money. It costs them a fair amount of dough to go to trial also. If their "model" is to threaten into a settlement, I would just send them the "FU" letter (and I have before) and see them at trial.

But that's me............

RobD wrote:I agree with your spirit, but most forum/blog owners do not have the capital to miss work for an indeterminate amount of time, travel to vegas (with or without a lawyer) to defend charges, no matter how frivolous. And unfortunately, Righthaven is banking on that.

Pitel wrote:

xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL

I agree. It would be interesting to see what the "damages" are and besides, if the article in on line and does not cost a fee to view it, isn't it then considered in the public domain? Seems to me they have a tough case however, they probably don't care about a trial, just the fear tactic and lesser of the financial evil.

R.E.T. wrote:

Pitel wrote:

xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL

I agree. It would be interesting to see what the "damages" are and besides, if the article in on line and does not cost a fee to view it, isn't it then considered in the public domain? Seems to me they have a tough case however, they probably don't care about a trial, just the fear tactic and lesser of the financial evil.

I agree. They are not seeking "damages", but running up lawyer fees and asking for a penalty payment. If they so not want the material copied they should make that known in their presentation. It seems to me its like some one walking through a park spreading money around and if someone picks it up, charging them with robbery.

ArsTechnica wrote:Righthaven, the company that scours the Web for copies of Las Vegas Review Journal stories and then sues the posters for mad cash and their domain names, has hit a small bump on the copyright lawsuit superhighway. A federal judge has just tossed one of its many cases because the posting was a "fair use."