A company has sued Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle, claiming she reprinted two Las Vegas Review-Journal articles on her campaign website without permission.

Las Vegas-based Righthaven is seeking unspecified damages in its complaint filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas.

The suit alleges Angle neither sought nor received permission to display a Review-Journal article and editorial on her website this summer.

An Angle spokesman says he would not comment until the campaign's lawyers have reviewed the suit.

Righthaven tracks Internet traffic for copyright infringements of Review-Journal stories. It then buys the copyright for a story from the newspaper's owner, Stephens Media LLC, and sues the alleged infringer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/04/nevada-gop-candidate-faces-copyright-lawsuit/

Talk about a political hit job if i've ever seen one! This company has donated quite a bit of money to Harry Reid over the years and their whole purpose is really a scam to sue people.

Guys, do not cut and past articles from the Las Vegas Review Journal or Las Vegas Sun or Pahrump Vally Times, you will get Mingle2 sued.

Look at my next post. I have more examples too.

Copyright trolls are nothing new, and Righthaven is just the latest group of lawyers to try to turn copyright litigation into a business model. What these lawyers have in common is that they seek to take advantage of copyright's draconian damages in order to bully Internet users into forking over money. To anyone who has watched the file-sharing lawsuits of the last few years or the current BitTorrent cases brought by a DC law firm, the Righthaven saga is developing into a familiar, unfortunate story. It also has some especially troubling twists.

The basic pattern: Righthaven has brought over a hundred lawsuits in Nevada federal court claiming copyright infringement. They find cases by (a) scouring the Internet for parts of newspaper stories posted online by individuals, nonprofits, and others, (b) buying the copyright to that particular newspaper story, and then (c) proceeding to sue the poster for copyright infringement. Like the RIAA and USCG before them, Righthaven is relying on the fact that their victims may face huge legal bills through crippling statutory damages and the prospect of paying Righthaven's legal fees if they lose the case. Consequently, many victims will settle with Righthaven for a few thousand dollars regardless of their innocence, their right to fair use, or other potential legal defenses.

However, Righthaven is unlike other copyright trolls in some key ways:

•Righthaven is going after bloggers using text news stories for comment or discussion. Many lawsuit targets are using the newspaper articles to augment discussions about current events. Reposting all or part of news stories is part and parcel of digital commentary and discussion and usually the goal of the reposting is to share the uncopyrightable facts included in the article, not the copyrighted expression, like the specific turns of phrase used by the author. By targeting news, Righthaven's lawsuits could have a chilling effect on individuals' attempts to engage their communities in free and open discussion.
•Righthaven is fighting the basic mode of Internet debate. Other copyright trolls have involved controversy over file-sharing programs and encoded digital media, like music and movies. But Righthaven is taking aim at folks who are using elementary "copy & paste" functionalities. Online discussion survives and thrives on showing others the original text before adding a commentary or response. Accurate quoting is a virtue of Internet discussion that can minimize mischarcterization and support progress in a debate.
•Righthaven lawsuits are demanding that courts freeze and transfer the defendants' domain names. Imagine if a single copyright infringement on Huffingtonpost.com or Redstate.com could result in forfeiture of the entire domain. Effectively asking for control of all of a website's existing and future content -- instead of only targeting the allegedly infringing material -- is an overreaching remedy for a single copyright infringement not validated by copyright law or any legal precedent. This also indicates that the attorneys are willing to make overreaching claims in order to scare defendants into a fast settlement.
•Righthaven goes straight for litigation. Righthaven isn't sending cease and desist letters or DMCA takedown notices that would allow the targeted bloggers or website operators to remove or amend only the news articles owned by Righthaven. Instead, Righthaven starts with a full-fledged lawsuit in federal court with no warning. It's sue first and ask questions later, which smacks of a strategy designed to churn up legal costs and intimidate defendants into paying up immediately, rather than a strategy aimed at remedying specific copyright infringements.
Righthaven is claiming that its activities are intended to have a "deterrent effect" on the reposting of news stories online, but it's hard to resist viewing Righthaven's actions as purely business-related. In addition to the sharp legal tactics discussed above, Righthaven appears to only buy copyrights that it believes can be used for lawsuits and otherwise has no involvement in the practice of journalism.

Righthaven also appears to be soliciting other newspapers to sign on with it. But newspaper publishers who think that suing bloggers a story at a time will save journalism are sorely mistaken. Newspaper publishers have actually been having meaningful discussions about innovative business models to support real journalism. Sadly, Righthaven -- if it continues to attract clients -- threatens to derail those conversations with a sideshow proven to distract from progress.

But no matter where a newspaper may stand on the debate about journalism's future, we think it is abundantly clear that a "sue the audience" tactic is nowhere near worth considering. Newspapers should resist the temptation to put themselves into the same position as the music industry circa 2004, where futile lawsuits distracted them from the incorporating new technology and creating new ways to market product to fans.

EFF is watching Righthaven and other copyright trolls closely for overbroad tactics that hurt free speech and fair use, and abuse the legal system. We're looking for good cases to defend and will deliver more news and analysis as the issue develops.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/righthavens-own-brand-copyright-trolling

Yeah, and Harry Reid also told her to say stupid things...that woman is an idiot...lol.

I looked all over the F.E.C. (Federal Elections Commission) and the Open Secrets website for evidence of your allegation and found nothing for the Review Journal or Stephens Medis. Do you have proof?

No, im trying to make a point to people. I don't wanna see websites like this get sued for something stupid like copyright trolling by this Firm. I know people who have had to deal with them and currently are dealing with them.

I am making a point to let everyone know not to post from those three newspapers.

Just Google or Yahoo Righthaven Llc and read more about them. They are violating laws, but since people don't have the funds to defent themselves they settle out of court for a couple thousand dollars and forriture of the Domain to them.

Look up the individual attorneys who run Righthaven. Also the Corporation that owns papers is a donor for Harry Reid.

Harry "ball sac" Reid is a dirtbag, and a crook!! He's trying to get the left wing media to save his cowardly azz because he knows that he's going down in flames in November.

Nazi Pelosi is going to be in the pit with him!!

You should look up what with Righthaven Llc. Does.I just spent an hour going through things about them and I can't believe it.

Bump

Harry Reid has several articles from that company on his website, but he isn't being sued. By the way, that have never given permission to anyone in the past to copy their articles. So there's some proof.

Then look up the attorney's that are a part of this and you will see all of them have contributed to Democratic Party Candidates.

respectfully, shouldnt the thread be called 'RIGHTHAVEN sure plays dirty" ??

You can legally quote any published material you wish, as long as you cite the source you got it from.

Copyright infringement happens when you claim something as your own when it isn't.

lol, you beat me to the punch

did she cite the work or post it as her own,,,,I mean we even get hassled in this little forum when we copy and paste without citing,,,

Not when Harry Reid gives the orders. Just like when he told his former Chief of Staff and current Attorney General of Nevada Catherine Cortez Masto to file charges against Lt. Governor Krolicki a week after he announced he was planning on running against him.

By the way, charges were dropped because there was no case.

Exactly, but this company is hoping you decide to settle and make it go away hoping you can't afford an attorney. What they are doing is not right and will be put in check once it goes in front of a Judge or Jury.

No, she always quotes the source. Read the other posts i've made about the company. Hell I can bring up the list if you really want of all the people they sued, all of them but 3 or 4 quoted the source.

Maybe all these "legal eagles" slept through copyright law class, along with ethics class, and reasoned thinking studies.

It appears that they have, since they have been getting away with this for a while now.