Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> LawPundit

Legal Commentary

: LawPundit

Copyright Trolling is a New Intellectual Property Business as Company Sues Multiple Websites and Blogs for Posting Copyrighted Materials from a Newspaper

By Andis Kaulins

David Kravets of Wired.com at Threat Level writes in Newspaper Chain?s New Business Plan that a Las-Vegas based company named Righthaven has purchased copyrights to newspaper content solely for the purpose of bringing lawsuits against websites and blogs who repost copyrighted materials.

The company thus far has targeted those who have published materials from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, but there are plans to purchase more newspaper copyrights, since Stephens Media in Las Vegas not only owns the Review-Journal but over 70 newspapers in nine States (Melissa Clouthier has a full list at Right Wing News), and beyond that of course, there are thousands of other newspapers and news sources whose materials are cited online.

Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson is quoted as saying that:

"We perceive there to be millions, if not billions, of infringements out there."

It is a potentially lucrative business. Indeed, the Copyright Act provides penalties of up to $150,000 for a single infringement. As an example, the University Copyright Office at Purdue University writes:

"The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

1. Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits.
2. The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed.
3. Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.
4. The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts.
5. The Court can impound the illegal works.
6. The infringer can go to jail.

Faced with those legal dangers, most thus far sued parties choose to settle, rather than run greater risks in litigation. Of course, that is the entire business method of the trolls, cashing in through settlements.

In a black humor sort of way perhaps this development is a good thing because it may be the only way to wake up the slumbering folks in the U.S. Congress and in places like the U.S. Supreme Court, where (as the Bilski case shows) there is apparently -- and surprisingly -- little understanding of what is going on in the intellectual property law world as the result of the digital revolution and the rise of the Internet.

Of course, to be fair, one has to understand the economic dilemma that newspapers face. A print issue could be easily charged for, but how do you charge for online content? When Rupert Murdoch put up a paywall for The Times in the UK, they lost 90% of their readership. The New York Times plans to put up a paywall in 2011 but estimates are that they will lose over 80% of their online readers. The Associated Press has long threatened to charge bloggers "per word" cited. See also Protecting AP's Intellectual Property.

The world being as it is, we do not doubt that in the future, users will probably be paying for nearly everything, so enjoy the present while you can.

Full post as published by LawPundit on August 26, 2010 (boomark / email).