Featured Articles

Core i5 3365M and Core i5 3325M in Q3 2012

Core i5 3365M and Core i5 3325M in Q3 2012

We wrote about the new Core i7 3525M that is supposed to arrive in Q3 2012 here, but it looks…

More...
Point of View/TGT GTX 680 Ultra Charged tested

Point of View/TGT GTX 680 Ultra Charged tested

It's a well known fact that the most popular graphics cards series usually had a few models that stood out and…

More...
Ivy Bridge Ultrabooks for Windows 7 and 8

Ivy Bridge Ultrabooks for Windows 7 and 8

All currently available Ultrabooks are based on the Huron River platform and 17W TDP dual-core 32nm Sandy Bridge processors and…

More...
Top of 17W Celeron range is 877

Top of 17W Celeron range is 877

We already mentioned upcoming Celeron 807 and Celeron 847 in the article below and these new 17W single and dual-cores are…

More...
Cooler Master HAF XM reviewed

Cooler Master HAF XM reviewed

Cooler Master introduced the new HAF XM on April 24. The company's HAF series is instantly recognizable, although the XM moniker…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 03 November 2011 16:08

Copyright troll shut down

Written by Nick Farell

y banned

A small violin for Righthaven please

 The US Marshal for the District of Nevada has just been told by federal court to use "reasonable force" to seize $63,720.80 from the Las Vegas copyright troll Righthaven.

It seems that Righthaven, which made a national name for itself by suing mostly small-time bloggers and forum posters over newspaper articles, failed to pay a court judgement from August 15.

While the campaign of legal threats started off well with some of those sued paying up, it all went pear shaped in August.

In that case, Righthaven v. Hoehn a federal judge in Nevada declared that defendant Wayne Hoehn's complete copy of a newspaper article in a sub-forum on the site "Madjack Sports" was fair use.

He awarded $34,045.50 to the Randazza Legal Group, which represented Hoehn and Righthaven, didn't pay.

Instead it filed appeals which claimed that having to pay the money would involve "the very real threat of being forced out of business or being forced to seek protection through bankruptcy.

It insisted it could win the case on appeal and thus should not be bankrupted before it had the chance to make its case. However it couldn't get its appellate filings in on time.

More here
 

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments