Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Podcasts Blogs -> InternetCases.com
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Podcasts
: InternetCases.comRighthaven seeks domain name transfer ? relief that is not called for under the Copyright Act
Tactics suggest overreaching on more than just copyright grounds.
News broke over the Labor Day weekend that Righthaven, that enterprise set up to file copyright lawsuits over alleged infringements of articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, sued Nevada senate candidate Sharron Angle. The complaint [PDF] contains two claims for copyright infringement over allegations that Angle posted two articles on her website without authorization.
Let’s set aside for a moment any objections or snickering we might have about Righthaven’s approach, or any disdain we may feel about spamigation in general. There’s one paragraph in the Angle complaint which demonstrates a plaintiff mindset that is over the top on just about any reasonable scale.
In addition to the ususal demands for copyright infringement relief in the complaint (e.g., statutory damages, costs, attorney’s fees, injunction, etc.), Righthaven asks that the court:
[d]irect the current domain name registrar, Namesecure, and any successor domain name registrar for the Domain to lock the Domain and transfer control of the Domain to Righthaven.
Say what?
This is a copyright lawsuit, not one for trademark infringement or cybersquatting. Nothing in the Copyright Act provides the transfer of a domain name as a remedy. Such an order would be tantamount to handing the whole website over to Righthaven just because there may have been a couple of infringing items.
The Copyright Act does provide for the impounding and disposition of infringing articles (See 17 USC 503). So it’s plausible that a court would award the deletion of the actual alleged infringing articles. Or if it wanted to be weirdly and anachronistically quaint about it, could order that the infringing files on the server be removed and somehow destroyed in a way additional to just being deleted. In any event, there’s no basis for a court to order the transfer of a domain name as a result of copyright infringement.
I’ll let you, the reader, decide what you will about Righthaven. But if you decide that they’re tactics are silly, and in some cases uncalled-for, you won’t be alone.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Righthaven’s Brand of Copyright Trolling (eff.org)
- ‘Copyright troll’ seeks $150,000 from republican candidate (go.theregister.com)
- Nevada GOP Candidate Faces Copyright Lawsuit (foxnews.com)
- Second Newspaper Chain Joins Copyright Trolling Operation (wired.com)
Full post as published by InternetCases.com on September 07, 2010 (boomark / email).
Copyright Lawsuits: Critical Issues Before Filing Copyright
Federa Rule 11(b) Considerations
The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act
Phantom Income Relief on Debt Cancellation
Mylicon Baby's Gas Relief Drops
Urgently Recalled Nationwide
Brinker International
allegedly falsely advertising the nutritional information on their so-called low calorie menu selections.
Ownership Transfer
Amsol to pay $5.625 million settlement in buyout lawsuit.
Canadian Government
seeks new law enabling them to search your laptop
TVA Coal Ash
Class Action Seeks $5 Million in Damages
Spike Lee and Showtime
Settlement reached in script copyright infringement lawsuit.

"Avoiding The Wrath of Righthaven"
EFF Seeks to Help Righthaven Defendants
Australian domain name transfer made easier
Attorneys With Domain Name Transfer Experience
FRED PRUITTS RANTBURG is now being sued by Righthaven. Related: Bloggers boycotting Rightha
Righthaven's Brand of Copyright Trolling










