Featured Articles

AMD SVP John Byrne named turnaround exec of the year

AMD SVP John Byrne named turnaround exec of the year

Director of AMD’s PR Chris Hook has tweeted and confirmed later in a conversation with Fudzilla that John Byrne, Senior Vice…

More...
Shield Tablet 8 launching on Tuesday July 22nd

Shield Tablet 8 launching on Tuesday July 22nd

We knew the date for a while but as of right now we can confirm that Nvidia’s new Shield Tablet 8,…

More...
AMD confirms 20nm in 2015

AMD confirms 20nm in 2015

Lisa Su, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, AMD, has confirmed what we told you back in May 2014 – …

More...
AMD reports loss, shares tumble

AMD reports loss, shares tumble

AMD’s debt load is causing huge problems for the chipmaker -- this quarter it had another substantial loss. The tame Apple Press…

More...
AMD A8-7600 Kaveri APU reviewed

AMD A8-7600 Kaveri APU reviewed

Today we'll take a closer look at AMD's A8-7600 APU Kaveri APU, more specifically we'll examine the GPU performance you can…

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

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments