Paul shows he's only real GOP choice

[low preference guy]

Really good article. I don't quote anything because if I recall correctly, they sue bloggers who quote them (correct me if I'm wrong).

Link (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/paul-shows-he-s-only-real-gop-choice-123899759.html?ref=759)

[flightlesskiwi]

just curious, how can one be successfully sued by quoting and citing a source?? especially a public source??

[low preference guy]

just curious, how can one be successfully sued by quoting and citing a source?? especially a public source??

i think they lost in court today.

Copyright Vigilante Righthaven Will Fight On After Ruling
(http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/2011/06/15/copyright-vigilante-righthaven-will-fight-on-after-ruling/)

[flightlesskiwi]

wow. this whole issue seems extremely deceitful (and all about benjamins).

now my question: in a free market society, would this happen?

[specsaregood]

just curious, how can one be successfully sued by quoting and citing a source?? especially a public source??

quite often it costs more to defend yourself than settling.

[sailingaway]

i think they lost in court today.

Copyright Vigilante Righthaven Will Fight On After Ruling
(http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/2011/06/15/copyright-vigilante-righthaven-will-fight-on-after-ruling/)

I'm not sure it ended the ability to sue, just the business model they used.

--
and it was in fact this very paper, I'm pretty sure, that sold its rights to the lawfirm that then looked up those linking to it and pasting text and sued people like Michael Nystrom at the Daily Paul.

--
but dang, that's one good article.

And they sue because the copyright is owned to the story and maintained even if shared on their site. They get revenue if you visit their site and not if you visit some other site that quotes it. so the question is whether it is fair use, a quote 'from it' or whether you are essentially trading off their work. My understanding from some stuff people said at the Daily Paul when Michael was sued is that there is an unconfirmed rule of thumb that 4 paragraphs or less is ok (murky if that's the whole thing they wrote) but more has depending on circumstances, led to lawsuits. Whether the link being there cures it is the question this law firm wanted to litigate but really went around shutting down little blogs that couldnt afford the attorney's fees and paid something and ended their blogs to settle the case. At least that is how it was described to me.

And someone could pass that on to Bruno who shows his distaste for my posting bare links by mining the story and posting the entire thing in his post....

[heavenlyboy34]

i think they lost in court today.

Copyright Vigilante Righthaven Will Fight On After Ruling
(http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/2011/06/15/copyright-vigilante-righthaven-will-fight-on-after-ruling/)
:eek: madness! :eek:

[flightlesskiwi]

apologies for hijacking the thread lpg!

it was an excellent article. except:

did you catch that the author's premise for encouraging the election of Paul for the GOP candidate is because none of them (Paul included) will beat obama??? thought that little line was odd.

[low preference guy]

^ the "hijacking" is fine. people should know about righthaven's antics.

[Thomas]

great article

[UK4Paul]

If they're going to sue bloggers, why not DE-LINK them. Post their links in a format that doesn't turn into a clickable link, so they don't get any Google link juice. That's one free market way of responding.

[flightlesskiwi]

I'm not sure it ended the ability to sue, just the business model they used.


And they sue because the copyright is owned to the story and maintained even if shared on their site. They get revenue if you visit their site and not if you visit some other site that quotes it. so the question is whether it is fair use, a quote 'from it' or whether you are essentially trading off their work. My understanding from some stuff people said at the Daily Paul when Michael was sued is that there is an unconfirmed rule of thumb that 4 paragraphs or less is ok (murky if that's the whole thing they wrote) but more has depending on circumstances, led to lawsuits. Whether the link being there cures it is the question this law firm wanted to litigate but really went around shutting down little blogs that couldnt afford the attorney's fees and paid something and ended their blogs to settle the case. At least that is how it was described to me.


i had a thought this morning: i get the whole "lost revenue" thing. but, humor me, if you will. let's take it to the actual printed newspaper pieces. what about places such as coffee shops, doctor's offices and libraries that purchase the newspaper and allow patrons to read the newspaper and gather information without having to purchase the newspaper for themselves? couldn't that be a loss of revenue issue? couldn't it be turned into a copyright infringement (distributing information without written consent) if someone was full of sh*t enough to attempt to sue on those grounds? i realize i'm off the deep end here... i'm just trying to wrap my mind around this whole absurdity.

[Anti Federalist]

RightHaven loses, may end up getting fined.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298810-Federal-judge-demolishes-RightHaven-s-copyright-lawsuit-scheme.

[roho76]

i had a thought this morning: i get the whole "lost revenue" thing. but, humor me, if you will. let's take it to the actual printed newspaper pieces. what about places such as coffee shops, doctor's offices and libraries that purchase the newspaper and allow patrons to read the newspaper and gather information without having to purchase the newspaper for themselves? couldn't that be a loss of revenue issue? couldn't it be turned into a copyright infringement (distributing information without written consent) if someone was full of sh*t enough to attempt to sue on those grounds? i realize i'm off the deep end here... i'm just trying to wrap my mind around this whole absurdity.

This is not far fetched and is exactly the same thing. It doesn't matter the medium used. The only reason they are going after bloggers instead of coffee shop left over newspaper readers is there is less foot work from them. Internet leaves a trail that is easily available through filing a couple pieces of paper work with the court and then they can sue you for Thousands/Millions.

[angelatc]

And someone could pass that on to Bruno who shows his distaste for my posting bare links by mining the story and posting the entire thing in his post....

I am 1000% in agreement with you, but that's an issue that Josh and Bryan need to address. They're the ones who will eventually get sued over that. I'm not a laywer, but posting an excerpt looks acceptable provided you add an editorial along with it. I suspect even something as innocuous as "this is stupid" would suffice to satisfy the standard.

But posting the whole thing? No way that would ever fly.