Featured Articles

AMD Never Settle Forever bundle hits 200-series cards

AMD Never Settle Forever bundle hits 200-series cards

AMD’s Never Settle bundles have been around for a while and the community response has been extremely positive. When AMD launched…

More...
AMD shipping Beema APUs

AMD shipping Beema APUs

According to Lisa Su, SVP & GM, Global Business Units at AMD, Beema notebook parts have started shipping to manufacturers last…

More...
IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

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