Comment: Standing

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Standing (see in situ)

Michael Nystrom's picture


If they had 'exclusive rights' to the content, there is precedent that they would have standing.

Going back to the analogy of the car, the owner of the car has a right for it to be 'dent free.' If the original owner didn't do anything about the person who dented the car, the entity that acquires the car also acquires the right to a 'dent free' car, and therefore can go after whoever dented it.

At least that is how things have been adjudicated so far in this realm, as far as my understanding goes.

In this case, Righthaven is in big trouble because 1) They never bought the car, and 2) They lied about it. They told the Court that they did.

In truth, they never had any exclusive rights over the content they were suing over. They didn't have the right to republish it, to sell it, to licence it - nothing. They had no way to monetize the content other than to sue, and recover damages, and those damages had to be split with Stephens media 50/50.

The courth has given them 2 weeks to explain themselves.

I foresee a class action countersuit in Righthaven's future. However, considering it is an LLC, it can just declare bankruptcy and say, "No harm, no foul, no money, sorry," and try to walk away. HOWEVER - If the LLC knowingly committed fraud, then we (meaning those of us in the class action) can go after the personal assets of the officers / controllers of the LLC, which in this case would be Steve Gibson and Stephens Media.

Payback is a b!tch. Things are going to get more interesting as time goes by.