Garry Newman sued? Facepunch sued? Us sued? What the fuck is going on, garry?

[Eila]

[QUOTE=starpluck;25847000][url]http://twitter.com/garrynewman/status/29263810799[/url][/QUOTE]

Ah ok. Was mistaken. Thanks for being polite about it.

[Starpluck]

[url]http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/09/27[/url]
[url]http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/04/some-targets-righthaven-lawsuits-fighting-back/[/url]

Interesting

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

- The online political discussion forum Democratic Underground is fighting back against a lawsuit filed by copyright troll Righthaven LLC, arguing in court documents filed Monday that the short excerpt of a news article at issue in the suit is a clear case of fair use.

[Sn1per]

[QUOTE=garry;25846967]I got them both, thanks[/QUOTE]

/cheer

And your welcome!

[Starpluck]

Damn,

Righthaven claims damages of up to $150,000 for a five sentence expert.
[url]http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/AnswerandCounterclaim.pdf[/url]

[Sn1per]

[QUOTE=starpluck;25847039]Damn,

Righthaven claims damages of up to $150,000 for a five sentence expert.
[url]http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/righthaven_v_dem/AnswerandCounterclaim.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]

And the domain names.

[Gordy H.]

I can't believe they're demanding 150,000 USD and the domain names for all of the alleged websites that "copied" their stories.

[Sn1per]

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;25847056]I can't believe they're demanding 150,000 USD and the domain names for all of the alleged websites that "copied" their stories.[/QUOTE]

They aren't. They are expecting a quick settlement out of court.

Basically they learned how to troll RL.

[Starpluck]

They just want a nice settlement.

[url]http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/index.html[/url] (Anti-righthaven site)
Gives you all the information about them, how to stop & dismiss them etc.

Click "Lawsuits"

Garry is there: 147. [URL="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01762/76721/"]Righthaven LLC v. Garry Newman[/URL], Case No. 10-cv-01762 (October 12, 2010)

[Anubis92]

this is crap what happened to freedom of speach

[agmike]

Since none of you 13 year olds understands what this means, here's a breakdown.

Being sued doesn't mean garry is losing anything, money or otherwise. It simply means he's now in the process of being sued, which in any modern, civilized country means he gets a fair shot in court.

While I don't know UK/EU laws as extensively as US, I do know that a lot of our laws are mirrored in the UK so he might be safe on this one. What I mean by that is, in the US all internet service/content providers are protected against content that infringes on copyright that website users submit. As neither Garry nor any of his staff initiated the "infringing" material, he would not be liable for hosting the infringing content. Further, the DMCA requires a properly formatted DMCA Takedown notice to be sent to the ISP/content host explaining what content is infringing, URLs or other locations of where it exists on the host service, and asking it to be taking down. This is clearly a money play by this company, whoever they are, as they have not gone the proper route of issuing Garry a takedown notice. I have issued Garry a takedown notice in the past for some content on garrysmod.org, which he complied with but only after basically calling me an asshole for protecting myself from future litigation by having issued a proper notice.

Anyway, this is a US company trying to sue a brit without issuing a DMCA notice which is the relevant law in this case so literally Garry can have his suit thrown out pretty quickly by explaining that no notice was sent, unless one was, but I haven't seen him say that.

Butthurt company doesn't even know how to properly request takedown, so sad. GG bro, but Garry wins.

[DogGunn]

[QUOTE=Anubis92;25847101]this is crap what happened to freedom of speach[/QUOTE]

Haha, what does this have to do with freedom of speech?

[Source]

Freedom of speech mean's nothing to overly paid lawyers ( bastards )

[DogGunn]

[QUOTE=agmike;25847125]Butthurt company doesn't even know how to properly request takedown, so sad. GG bro, but Garry wins.[/QUOTE]

What? No.
They rely on peoples ignorance of correct procedure.

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

[QUOTE=Source;25847137]Freedom of speech mean's nothing to overly paid lawyers ( bastards )[/QUOTE]

It's got nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nothing.

[sir whoopsalot]

[QUOTE=Anubis92;25847101]this is crap what happened to freedom of speach[/QUOTE]

Another fine example of applying the wrong principle in the wrong situation.

[agmike]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25847140]What? No.
They rely on peoples ignorance of correct procedure.[/QUOTE]

Yea that's true, also thanks to whoever posted the docket, it says they're suing Garry Newman, but that's another fail because he registered Facepunch Ltd. in the UK which, if he did it right, is the legal entity responsible for facepunch.com and the infringing content. Garry can also have the case thrown out on this basis, supposing his company is set up right.

[Starpluck]

[QUOTE=agmike;25847125]S What I mean by that is, in the US all internet service/content providers are protected against content that infringes on copyright that website users submit. As neither Garry nor any of his staff initiated the "infringing" material, he would not be liable for hosting the infringing content. Further, the DMCA requires a properly formatted DMCA Takedown notice to be sent to the ISP/content host explaining what content is infringing, URLs or other locations of where it exists on the host service, and asking it to be taking down. This is clearly a money play by this company, whoever they are, as they have not gone the proper route of issuing Garry a takedown notice. I have issued Garry a takedown notice in the past for some content on garrysmod.org, which he complied with but only after basically calling me an asshole for protecting myself from future litigation by having issued a proper notice.

Anyway, this is a US company trying to sue a brit without issuing a DMCA notice which is the relevant law in this case so literally Garry can have his suit thrown out pretty quickly by explaining that no notice was sent, unless one was, but I haven't seen him say that.

Butthurt company doesn't even know how to properly request takedown, so sad. GG bro, but Garry wins.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily.

[URL]http://beforeitsnews.com/story/119/180/The_Righthaven_copyright_lawsuit_legal_loophole_and_how_to_protect_yourself_from_being_sued..._SPREAD_THE_WORD_TO_ALL_WEBSITES.html[/URL]

Most webmasters wish to obey copyright laws and the "norm" around the internet has been for people who have a copyright problem to first file a DMCA take down notice giving the webmaster time to remove the infringing material.

Then if the webmaster refuses they can sue them.

In fact we all thought that was a REQUIREMENT and were shocked that these guys are actually suing people with no prior notice at all..

We've been wondering how they can get away with that legally and it turns out an obscure section of the DMCA concerning the "safe harbor" noticing proceeders requires that in order for a website to qualify for "safe harbor" and thus require a copyright complainant to first give the webmaster notice and time to take down the material before suing them, requires (amongst other things) that each website register their contact information with the United States Copyright office.

AND

[URL]http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/15533611640/damn-good-reminder-if-you-run-a-blog-register-for-dmca-protections.shtml[/URL]

Now, as you know, the DMCA creates safe harbors for sites where users post content -- but it's only if you've designated an official DMCA agent with the Copyright Office. After more and more Righthaven cases started showing up, we noticed a pattern. In talking with some of the sites that were sued, as well as some of the lawyers trying to fight Righthaven, it became apparent (quickly) that Righthaven was clearly avoiding sites that had a registered DMCA agent, and basically was relying on the fact that many websites were ignorant of the need to register. So, back in September, we noted, as a bit of a [URL="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100913/00133010984.shtml"]public service announcement[/URL], that if you ran any kind of site that allows for public participation, [URL="http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/"]you should register with the copyright office[/URL]. Seriously. Do it now.

They pretty much took advantage of Garry's ignorance making the lawsuit valid.

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

Actually never mind, I'm assuming he did, hence Facepunch Studios LTD.

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

If he did properly, than yeah, he can throw it right now.

[agmike]

Thanks, that's more helpful information, but either way I don't see them getting a penny out of Garry unless whoever helped him set up his company fudged something, but either way he's UK and they're suing based on US laws which means he gets US protections, but as he can't really register with the US copyright office as a foreign entity with no US entity then it just seems moot and this stupid company is wasting their time trolling as is their history, apparently.

[JasperWB]

I think this is being a bit over analyzed. From reading a few of the linked articles this just seems like a scam company that sues anyone who comes close to infringing on their rights in the hopes that every now and then they make a bit of money on the case probably in the form of an out of court settlement just to stop their harassment. So it's just a bullshit claim by people who have nothing to defend.

[Starpluck]

[QUOTE=agmike;25847207]Thanks, that's more helpful information, but either way I don't see them getting a penny out of Garry unless whoever helped him set up his company fudged something, but either way he's UK and they're suing based on US laws which means he gets US protections, but as he can't really register with the US copyright office as a foreign entity with no US entity then it just seems moot and this stupid company is wasting their time trolling as is their history, apparently.[/QUOTE]

So his choices are informing them that he cannot be sued, or filing a motion of dismissal?

[Pretiacruento]

I guess we can say Garry is being trolled IRL :/

[Sax]

[QUOTE=garry;25846814]I still haven't been served yet[/QUOTE]

I just did a really really fast google search on the name "righthaven". And the first hit I got was "Righthaven victims". But apparently they are trying to sue bloggers, but I'm not sure why. As looking around, people think they are trying to save the newspaper industri.

[DogGunn]

[QUOTE=JasperWB;25847223]I think this is being a bit over analyzed. From reading a few of the linked articles this just seems like a scam company that sues anyone who comes close to infringing on their rights in the hopes that every now and then they make a bit of money on the case probably in the form of an out of court settlement just to stop their harassment. So it's just a bullshit claim by people who have nothing to defend.[/QUOTE]

This is a similar idea to what I think. It just seems too fishy that any law firm would actually take a case on something so similar. I think it's just preying on people that aren't sure of the correct procedure in regards to copyright / takedown notices.

[QUOTE=starpluck;25847228]So his choices are informing them that he cannot be sued, or filing a motion of dismissal?[/QUOTE]

Why spend money filing documents, when they'll most likely drop the claims if the defendant decides to fight the claims?

[Starpluck]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25847251]
Why spend money filing documents, when they'll most likely drop the claims if the defendant decides to fight the claims?[/QUOTE]
1. Read up on RightHaven
2. Realize they don't.

[DogGunn]

[QUOTE=starpluck;25847268]1. Read up on RightHaven
2. Realize they don't.[/QUOTE]

In the last month, I see articles stating that they've lost claims when suing for the same reason. I don't think they'd waste more money going to court over the same issue.

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

[url]http://www.out-law.com/page-11483[/url]

[Starpluck]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25847284]In the last month, I see articles stating that they've lost claims when suing for the same reason. I don't think they'd waste more money going to court over the same issue.

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

[URL]http://www.out-law.com/page-11483[/URL][/QUOTE]
Right, and all the other cases are pending/closed due to a settlement.

They aren't just going to give up because one case got dismissed, looking at their nature, they'll just keep trying.

[B][U]Number of copyright Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Righthaven[/U][/B]:
[B]167
[/B][I](as of October 29, 2010)[/I]

[B]Estimated Total Money Settlements Righthaven's Efforts Have Earned to Date: [/B]
$227,500

[I](based on 65 cases closed as of November 2, 2010 and an educated guesstimate of an average of $3,500 settled per case)[/I]

[Jsm]

[QUOTE=agmike;25847125]Since none of you 13 year olds understands what this means, here's a breakdown.

Being sued doesn't mean garry is losing anything, money or otherwise. It simply means he's now in the process of being sued, which in any modern, civilized country means he gets a fair shot in court.

While I don't know UK/EU laws as extensively as US, I do know that a lot of our laws are mirrored in the UK so he might be safe on this one. What I mean by that is, in the US all internet service/content providers are protected against content that infringes on copyright that website users submit. As neither Garry nor any of his staff initiated the "infringing" material, he would not be liable for hosting the infringing content. Further, the DMCA requires a properly formatted DMCA Takedown notice to be sent to the ISP/content host explaining what content is infringing, URLs or other locations of where it exists on the host service, and asking it to be taking down. This is clearly a money play by this company, whoever they are, as they have not gone the proper route of issuing Garry a takedown notice. I have issued Garry a takedown notice in the past for some content on garrysmod.org, which he complied with but only after basically calling me an asshole for protecting myself from future litigation by having issued a proper notice.

Anyway, this is a US company trying to sue a brit without issuing a DMCA notice which is the relevant law in this case so literally Garry can have his suit thrown out pretty quickly by explaining that no notice was sent, unless one was, but I haven't seen him say that.

Butthurt company doesn't even know how to properly request takedown, so sad. GG bro, but Garry wins.[/QUOTE]

Issuing a DMCA notice against a site hosted outside of the US is pointless apparently (as far as my understanding of the DMCA goes anyway).

(Although this is assuming that Facepunch is (or was not at the time) not hosted in the US)

[Starpluck]

Right here, it shows most if them filing a counter notice/
[URL]http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/index.html[/URL]

Most recent motion to dismiss it has failed (Oct. 28, 2010)

[URL]http://www.scribd.com/doc/40381829/Court-Order-Denying-Major-Wager-Motion-to-Dismiss-Righthaven-Copyright-Lawsuit[/URL]

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

[QUOTE=Jsm;25847341]Issuing a DMCA notice against a site hosted outside of the US is pointless apparently (as far as my understanding of the DMCA goes anyway).

(Although this is assuming that Facepunch is (or was not at the time) not hosted in the US)[/QUOTE]

Oh shit, it all makes sense now.

[B]Facepunch is hosted on Amazon, which is in the U.S[/B], not U.K! It was only recently when he changed servers, and the lawsuit was filed AFTER he did.

So that means if he did not register a DMCA agent at the U.S Copyright office, than the lawsuit is valid and Garry has some paperwork to do.

[Jsm]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;25847284]In the last month, I see articles stating that they've lost claims when suing for the same reason. I don't think they'd waste more money going to court over the same issue.

[editline]4th November 2010[/editline]

[url]http://www.out-law.com/page-11483[/url][/QUOTE]

They are copyright trolls, they will file hundreds of law suits in the hope that a few people settle out of court. Its similar to a legal company in the UK which sent threatening letters to thousands of people accusing them of piracy in the hope that most would pay their usual out of court settlement.

Also a complete list: [url]http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Righthaven+LLC[/url]

[swebonny]

There has to be a way to sue them back. Nah, but doesn't this apply in the states?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act[/url]

[poopsicle]

[QUOTE=Dragon;25844327]just gonna put this here in advance if anyone tries to 'raid' or post shit on their website you're going to be ban on sight

spread the word[/QUOTE]

what? Why would anyone be stupid enough to make their facepunch name the same as their "raid" name.