Lawsuits
Righthaven initially entered agreements concerning old news articles from Stephens Media, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, based on a business model of suing bloggers, other Internet authors, and Internet site operators for statutory damages for having reproduced the articles on their sites without permission.[6] An affiliate of Stephens Media owned half of Righthaven.[7] By March 24, 2011, 255 cases had been filed.[8][9] Typically, Righthaven has demanded $75,000 and surrender of the domain name from each alleged infringer, but accepted out of court settlements of several thousand dollars per defendant. As of December 2010 approximately 70 cases had settled.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) soon took up the case on behalf of several defendants.[10] Kurt Opsahl, an EFF attorney, said, "Despite what Righthaven claims, it's hard to interpret these lawsuits as anything else besides a way to bully Internet users into paying unnecessary settlements."[11]
In August 2010, the company entered an agreement with WEHCO Media in Arkansas to pursue similar actions.[12] Later, it made a similar arrangement with Media News Group, publisher of the San Jose Mercury News.
In December 2010, Righthaven began to sue website operators over republished graphics and photographs, and also expanded its scope to material originally published by the Denver Post and other newspapers.[13] That month it filed more than a dozen lawsuits over a graphic illustration of the "Vdara death ray" that had gone viral.[14]
In April 2011, a federal judge unsealed the agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media, revealing that Stephens Media receives 50% of the proceeds of lawsuits (after deducting costs). In addition, an attorney for one of the defendants claims that the agreement provides only limited rights to the copyrights of Stephens Media, specifically, only the right to sue. Some defense attorneys argue that one must have complete ownership in order to have standing to sue, which may undermine the lawsuits related to the Review-Journal material.[15]
On June 14, 2011, Federal District Court Judge Roger L. Hunt ruled that Righthaven had no standing to sue for copyright infringement, on the grounds that the original parties retain the actual copyrights. Hunt also dressed down Righthaven for misrepresenting its financial connections to Stephens Media.[16] Among other sanctions imposed by Hunt, Righthaven was fined US$5,000 for the misrepresentation.[17]
On August 15, 2011, after losing a case handled by Marc Randazza Righthaven was ordered to pay $34,045.50 in attorney's fees and court costs in its unsuccessful lawsuit against Wayne Hoehn.[18] Righthaven had sued Hoehn for copying a Review-Journal editorial to a blog. Federal judge Philip Pro found that Righthaven had no standing to sue, and in any case Hoehn's posting was protected by fair use.[19] The matter was then brought to an appeal at the 9th Circuit court of appeals in California, which upheld the dismissal and the attorneys fees judgment.[20]
Insolvency
On September 7, 2011, Legal Wings Inc., a process server used by Righthaven between May and October 2010, filed a lawsuit against Righthaven in Las Vegas Township Justice Court for unpaid bills valued at $5,670.[21]
On September 8, 2011, the MediaNews Group announced it was terminating its deal with Righthaven at the end of the month. The new CEO of the company, John Paton, called the Righthaven deal "a dumb idea from the start" and further said that had he been CEO at the time of the decision, he would have never signed it.[22]
On October 26, 2011, Righthaven was ordered to pay $119,488 in attorney's fees and court costs in its lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase. Righthaven had sued DiBiase for posting a Review-Journal story about a murder case without permission. Hunt, who had also presided over the Democratic Underground case, threw out Righthaven's suit that summer after finding Righthaven lacked standing.[23]
On October 29, 2011, Wayne Hoehn asked Pro to seize Righthaven's assets, including its bank accounts and property, to provide for the payment of Hoehn's legal fees from the August 2011 ruling. The company had previously delayed the payment to avoid bankruptcy.
