Newspapers vs. The Internet

Friday, April 22, 2011

Transcript

Newspapers have been teaming up with a lawfirm called Righthaven, to file lawsuits against people posting copyrighted content on the web. Righthaven's detractors call them "copyright trolls," but they say they're much needed protectors of a newspaper's intellectual property. Bob talks to Joe Mullin of Paidcontent.org who has covered Righthaven's lawsuits, and Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson.

    Music Playlist
  • Arie
    Artist: by Stateless

Comments [21]

meganke from Raleigh NC

I do not they are copyright trolls like they call them. I think to find evidence, they may need to hire some good private investigators in Raleigh NC like this one http://www.jpinvestigations.com/insurancefraud/; then we will be able to see who is wrong and who is not. Thanks for posting this.

Oct. 30 2012 02:42 PM
Connor from Raleigh

I think Righthaven is just in it for the money. the material was never theirs to begin with and they only aquired the copyright to said material in order to sue the mom and pop sites for money. If these news outlets dont want their content being used by third parties then they schould be suing for copyright infringment themselves not outsourcing it to another company.

Apr. 29 2011 11:56 PM
charles mitchell

i did not find this worth my time, very boring to me .

Apr. 29 2011 02:47 PM
erick strickland

this report was very boring , but if they tried to sue me i wouldn't pay any money .

Apr. 29 2011 02:45 PM
teyonna smith

. I thought this report was very entertaining just to figure out how many people where sued was crazy and the fact that some of them lost there websites was sad, especially when Righthaven's copyrights may not even be valid .

Apr. 29 2011 02:44 PM
teyonna smith

The title of our report is called Newspaper vs. The Internet . It aired April 22 , 2011. This report is about a lawfirm called Righthaven that sues websites for copyrighted information. The reporters main points where that Righthaven had been saying they have many important right but as it turns out they only have the right to sue and that a lot of people where wondering if the transfer of copyright was even valid.

In the report there was a big problem in whether Righthaven’s copyrights were even valid . They have sued over 250 people and they give websites there option to settle , so far there have been over 100 settlement but there all confidential . I feel like this is wrong because people are losing there eligibility and Righthaven’s copyrights may not even be valid . Some lawyers are looking for examples where Righthaven may have lied and since certain parts of there contact isn’t valid they could get in trouble .

On the other hand I see where CEO Steven Gibson is coming from, t

Apr. 29 2011 02:37 PM
Demesha Peebles, Kaleisha Moore, and Jejuan Brown from Second half

Basically you can have two points of views. You could either agree with the internet or the changes that will be made to the newspapers. There will be drastic changes in the newspaper in the years of the future. People will depend on the internet before they will read the same information in the newspapers.
My overall reaction to this article was that we should read the newspaper more instead of relying on the internet. We have rely on the internet way to much. We should be able to read the newspaper to find any information that we can. We need to make the changes today.

Apr. 29 2011 10:31 AM
Demesha Peebles, Kaleisha Moore, and Jejuan Brown from First half

The article that we read was titled, "Newspapers vs. The Internet". This article was aired on April 22, 2011. The article basically describes the differences and advantages between the newspaper and the internet. They are discussing the newspapers in the future and what would be in those newspaper. They also discussing the Righthaven company and the differences that will be made in that company in the next few years.
Both Bob Garfield and Groups sings provide argruments that would benefit the company. They discussed that in the future newspapers, they was to include a display of advertising, classified, online ads, paywalls, and even donations. There was one that they haven't thought of and that was litigation. The company Righthaven has filed more than 250 lawsuits against blogs and websites that reproduced all of a piece of newspaper content.
Basically there is two points of views. Depending on the internet or making a difference in the newspapers.

Apr. 29 2011 10:27 AM
emmanuel s. from Raleigh,NC

i don't think they should be copyrighting like derrica b. said why cant people find there own stuff. there about a billon other stories you can wright but they choose to copy . that shows how creative you are and show something about your character.

Apr. 29 2011 10:20 AM
Derrica B. from Raleigh,NC

With this article my feelings are contradicting. Though i do not think that copyright infringement is ok, news on the internet is useful especially when it comes to my generation.News on the internet is very usefull because many people are on computers most of the time. Righthaven is a very succesfull company by all the money and websites they gain when they are hired by these news people to check for copyright infringement. The downside of this is their approach. I do not agree with their method. No warning? No notice? Thats ludicrous! They shoould give a fair warning and allow the website a fair amount of time to take down the info that is not legally theirs before they take any action on the website.

Apr. 29 2011 09:58 AM
Anita Schnee from Fayetteville, AR

As a person with a law degree, and a hobby-blogger, I appreciate @Sporos' comments very much. I'm astonished @Surkamp has the credentials he claims, yet responded as he did. Maybe he's indignant about he and his colleagues being potentially burned by theft? I can certainly empathize with that. But to make such a howler about copyright law damages his credibility with me.

On a lighter note, I am a huge fan of Garth Barfield. More please!

On a more serious note, I rely on OTM for my news. Please keep doing what you do!

Apr. 27 2011 11:51 AM
TNN

Yes; I would greatly appreciate a transcript as well. Thanks!

Apr. 26 2011 04:10 PM
CTM

No transcript for this segment?

Apr. 26 2011 03:05 PM
AJDO from Texas

To hear Gibson's righteous indignation about those who would infringe on his supposed copyrighted material makes me want to gag. Again, Gibson ejaculates his nonesense about how he's out to protect the world from those who would infringe protected literary works. That he claims to have these altruistic motives, making a buck or two from defendants is an added benefit. In reality, his business model is only about making money.

Apr. 26 2011 02:23 PM
Meg from New York, NY

I wish Bob had consulted with an attorney regarding the technicalities of the assignment between Righthaven and Stevens Media. It sounds like they had a routine assignment of all rights with a license-back of the rights to copy and disseminate. That is not unusual in the IP world, and Bob's implication that there is something nefarious about such an arrangement shows that he did not take the time to fully understand the legal aspects of the document.

(Whether Righthaven is operating ethically in pursuing litigation with the purpose of obtaining settlements...obviously that remains an open question. And although it may be an unfair or unethical use of the federal court system, it may not be illegal as the law currently stands.)

Apr. 26 2011 12:13 PM
Mike White from Westland, MI

This piece could be expanded beyond the boundaries of newspapers. This practice is also being conducted by several other media industries including movies.

Here's a link to a story in Wired all about a company that sues downloaders.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/nude-nuns-judge/

Apr. 26 2011 08:54 AM
Clarence Wuesten from Ponte Vedra, FL

Mr. Gibson's assertion that his firm has no idea of a potential copyright infringer's wealth is most probably false. Attorney's hire private investigators all the time to determine whether litigation targets have the assets to defend themselves legally or have sufficient funds to to extract large fees in a court battle.

Apr. 25 2011 10:23 AM
R. Jacobs from Santa Rosa, CA

Gibson failed to convince me that he and the company he works for are anything but scum. If protection of original internet material is truly the company's purpose Righthaven could market it's services to internet copy originators as any ethical law firm would do.

It appears to me, and I'm sure to many others, that this company's real purpose is simply to profit by the failure of some writers to copyright their material. Of course copyrighting their material might not have been necessary until now. Righthaven has created a whole new reason to be fearful. I pray that a court of law will soon rule against such greedy practices and prohibit Righthaven and its legal imitators from continuing to wage these dastardly lawsuits.

Apr. 25 2011 03:26 AM
Spiro Bolos from Carol Stream, IL

@Jim: "Violating copyright is" anything BUT "so cut and dried". Even the Righthaven lawyer admitted that fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis, using the standard "four factors".

People settle because they are terrified by the pages of intimidating legalese they receive from the copyright trolls, not necessarily because "they knew they were guilty". Most people beyond lawyers and judges have no idea of what they can do under fair use doctrine, which is an integral part of the Copyright Act of 1976 (section 107).

Apr. 23 2011 11:48 PM
Matthew from Kalamazoo, MI

Righthaven on one hand seems like a patent troll, simply looking for a payday with the threat of lawsuits. However, I wonder if newspapers had employed this tactic from the start, their situation (and journalism's) would be much better off.

Apr. 23 2011 07:39 AM
Jim Surkamp from Shepherdstown, WV

With a background as a successful investigative reporter in metro NYC and in NYC etc., I thought the tone of your questioning of the Righthaven guy ("Don't you feel bad picking on little people?") sounded like the swarmy green reporter in the mainstream infotainment media. Violating copyright is so cut and dried. They settled because they knew they were guilty. It was cheesy.

Apr. 23 2011 06:37 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.