A quick search of Google News reveals multiple news sources covering the story, and the Righthaven trolls even made the front page of Law.com in an article entitled Is This the Birth of the Copyright Troll? (The article notes that the parent company of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Stephens Media LLC, owns “a small stake” in Righthaven. Perhaps this explains why a start-up company can afford to pay $35,000 in filing costs plus thousands in copyright registration fees while having ten employees on the payroll?)

Steve Green at the Las Vegas Sun is doing a superb job of chronicling Righthaven’s exploitation of the legal system. Green’s latest offering points out that since none of the cases have yet arrived before a judge, it is unknown whether a judge will agree with the harsh assessments of Righthaven and impose stiff penalties, or take a pragmatic approach and assess minimal damages, or even dismiss the case.

The article also notes some of the response filings, especially that the Review-Journal specifically built mechanisms into place to encourage sharing of the article. You know how you visit some websites and right-click on a picture and receive a notice that the image is a copyright of that website and cannot be copied? The Review-Journal seems to have made no provision for that. Instead, they provide RSS feeds, an “E-mail This” link, and a bevy of social networking utilities to share the article, including Digg, Fark, Newsvine, Technorati, reddit, StumbledUpon, del.ico.us, SlashDot, Propeller, Mixx, Furl, Myspace, Twitter, Facebook and several “Add to Favorites” icons.

Indeed, it’s common to find copyright notices on websites stating the content may not be redistributed, rebroadcast or republished without consent. On the article The Armed Citizen was “caught” rebroadcasting, there is only a standard website copyright at the bottom of the page.

One alert reader wrote telling us he e-mailed the editor of the Review-Journal, stating that lawsuits were a poor response to financial woes. The editor responded and denied the lawsuits had anything to do with finances. However, in an article by TechDirt, Gibson is quoted as stating his lawsuits were devised as a solution to newspaper financial difficulties.

The same article also reports that the spokesman for Stephens Media entertains delusional hopes the sue-first-ask-questions-later approach will cause more people to link to the Review-Journal content. Obviously, some of these aging tycoons don’t understand how the internet works. A story is written and posted online. Smalltime bloggers often wind up reposting (arguably disseminating and therefore increasing the exposure of) these articles. If it is particularly newsworthy, it spreads rapidly via social networking utilities. The number of reposts and track-backs then bumps the article to a higher ranking on Google and other search engines, thereby assigning it greater visibility.

Suing not just sources or customers, but the very engines of the internet sharing network, is hardly the way to encourage linking. Most people are now avoiding Stephens Media-owned publications entirely. In fact, here is a link and directions to a Firefox plugin which will block any Stephens Media Company website.

So where do WE stand? Well, here’s where we are today. We are speaking with as many of the victims as we can and encouraging them to join with us. (The Las Vegas Sun even reported on our efforts to unite Righthaven victims and recognized us as an emerging leader.)

If you know any victims, we strongly encourage you to contact us, as this can only make us stronger as a group.

We can’t reveal our legal proceedings right now, but we are moving forward and hope to find some sort of resolution very soon. We especially want to offer our heartfelt gratitude to so many of our supporters who have offered donations to help us cover legal expenses. Your generosity has proved to be a positive counterweight almost equal to the negative weight from the lawsuit, and we are eternally grateful to our fans and friends who have stepped up to help us in our hour of need. We once again pledge that once this lawsuit is past, we will reenergize this website into a fantastic resource and (dare we say) “haven” for armed citizens.

Lawyers are still expensive, so if you haven’t donated yet, please use this link and donate now:

If you prefer to send a check by mail, please send it to:

The Armed Citizen
36 Sunburst Road
Horseshoe Bend, ID 83629

And here are some great resources for keeping track of the latest news:

http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/

http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/

http://www.scribd.com/righthavenlawsuits

Righthaven LLC Opposition Organizing

God bless, stay strong, and stay tuned!

Please: not only for the gun rights community, but for the future of scholarly research, for the future of the Internet, and to prevent this outrageous abuse of the legal process, click the button above (or on the righthand side of the website) to help us with our legal defense fund.

First things first. Lots of people want to know what’s going to happen, whether we will settle or fight.

We don’t know.

To be honest, neither of us have firmly decided one way or the other. When people start using the law in unorthodox ways to bully or extort from small nonprofit blogs, you don’t want to cave to them. Then you find out just how much it costs to stand on principle. Righthaven knows the breaking point for most people, hence the multiple low-key settlements.

Rest assured, Clayton, David and TheArmedCitizen will cooperate with the law to the fullest extent required. It was never our intent to infringe, and if such an infringement occurred, we will do our best to correct the error.

To clarify from the earlier post, Righthaven’s claim is based on just one article from May 2010. (The filing lists previous articles copied or excerpted from the Review-Journal in the past 7 years of website archives.)

In Our Favor…
For a company that goes around slapping bloggers with lawsuits, Righthaven’s decision to put The Armed Citizen in its sights may be imprudent. The owners hardly get rich off this site, and when the main contributor is a young kid fresh out of college, the financial returns aren’t going to be very handsome.

In short, these are the wrong pockets to pick.

That being said, while The Armed Citizen doesn’t have money, we do have friends. Lots of them. We’ve already received multiple encouraging e-mails and support from loyal readers. We hear you’ve been contacting the Journal-Review, and other allies like the NRA, for which we are extremely grateful. Please, don’t stop.

The publicity of this may be another factor Righthaven neglected. Already, the Review-Journal’s rival paper, the Las Vegas Sun, is running stories on these lawsuits. Wired.com ran a story which was then linked to on the Drudge Report. Reason magazine and World Net Daily are among other popular sources that have run with this story, along with countless bloggers.

More About Righthaven
Righthaven actually secured the copyright in July…or, nearly two months after the article appeared on the website. In other words, Righthaven attorneys preparing their litigious blitzkrieg found the article (likely because we linked back to their website), and in order to pursue statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages, which would be little to none), secured a copyright to the article after the fact.

Wired.com described the dozens of lawsuits as a business plan for gleaning copyright profits. This is hardly unfair, given the number of lawsuits filed.

Click here to read a list of the lawsuits filed by Righthaven since March 2010 (PDF)

This list itself is incomplete because Righthaven files new lawsuits constantly. On July 21, suits were filed against Free Speech Systems LLC and Americans for Democratic Action, Inc. More recently (July 26) suits were filed against Paula Bliss and former mob enforcer Anthony Fiato, both private bloggers. This brings the number of lawsuits from Righthaven to 81.

Click here to track ongoing lawsuits from Righthaven.

In Our Defense
There are several dubious claims made in the lawsuit, among which that we targeted advertising to the residents of Nevada, which is wholly false.

There is also a powerful argument in favor of fair use. According to copyright.gov, “The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.”

Given the noncommercial and scholarly nature of the website, and the fact that we were collecting thousands of stories for the purposes of a silent-but-deafening commentary on armed self-defense – which recent events prove to be a pivotal issue of debate from both a Constitutional and a societal point of view – may contribute to a strong case for fair use.

Neither Clayton nor David have been served yet, and the case can’t proceed until we have received formal notice.

What Can You Do?

Pay – Every little bit helps. If we wind up having to settle, it will help offset those expenses. If not, then we promise we’ll use it to make the blog bigger and better than ever.

Pray – Most armed citizens know that life is governed by a higher power. We could certainly use your prayers for wisdom, and against the adversaries that have arisen.

Talk – Keep spreading the word about this lawsuit. Blog about it. (Yes, you can reproduce material here, including the image!) Tell your friends. Post it on Facebook. Help guarantee the full story about Righthaven is told on Wikipedia. Tip the news services about it, even the big ones. If you know copyright attorneys (especially in Nevada), send them our way.

Many of you have contacted the Review-Journal and reported back to us. The paper has asked you to direct your inquiries to two people, the managing editor and the chief counsel. Here is their information:

Managing Editor:
Charlie Zobell
czobell@reviewjournal.com.

Corporate Counsel:
Mark Hieneber
702-477-3830

We ask that you be polite, but we do ask you to contact them.

We thank you for your support and assistance. We trust that this matter will be resolved, and The Armed Citizen can return to providing you the content you’ve come to expect.

Sincerely,
David and Clayton

Further links
List of Righthaven-owned or affiliated newspapers to avoid
Does Righthaven’s Founder Have Ties to Obama?

The suit, reportedly filed in US District Court on July 20th, alleges that The Armed Citizen and its owners “willfully copied” and infringed on original source content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

According to news reports, Righthaven LLC has filed lawsuits against no less than 80 other political websites and individual blogs for “infringement.”

Righthaven has offered no prior contact, cease-and-desist warnings or any attempt at good-faith resolution whatsoever.

Other defendants include FreeRepublic.com, the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Democrat National Committee of Nevada.

The “offending” entries reprinted on The Armed Citizen consist of six stories originating from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. There are several mitigating factors to consider:

• The Armed Citizen has posted nearly 4,700 such stories from a plethora of sources.
• Some of the stories were short enough to qualify under the Fair Use Rule, even disregarding that the goal of this website is academic, informational and in the public interest, not commercial.
• The stories – which were also properly cited and attributed – are still publicly available on the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s website.
• Some of these stories were posted on the website as far back as six years ago.

To the best of our knowledge, statutory damages can only be awarded if the plaintiff owns copyright on the articles in question. Righthaven sought and received a copyright on at least one of the articles in question on July 6…several months after the alleged offense. Clearly, this group is interested in money, not resolution.

The Armed Citizen has been excerpting articles from newspaper, TV station, and radio station websites for a number of years without a single complaint or infringement notice. If any copyright holders decided that The Armed Citizen had exceeded fair use, they only needed to send us an email. (Indeed, on the YouTube channel for The Armed Citizen, multiple news outlets have acknowledged copyright, yet chosen to let the content stay active for mutual benefit.) 

Instead, in an apparent eagerness to intimidate small websites, Righthaven has chosen to pursue legal action.

Until this matter can be resolved, and a thorough review of Armed Citizen content can be made, all updates and archives at The Armed Citizen are hereby suspended.

At this time, the future of The Armed Citizen is uncertain, and possibly in jeopardy, thanks to Righthaven LLC and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

We recognize that our readers will be shocked and disappointed. If you wish to help, please contact the Review-Journal and their advertisers to express your dismay at this unprecedented harshness. Your voice may be the only thing left that can save this website. (The Armed Citizen encourages such contact only on the condition that you say nothing that would reflect poorly on the website or its readership.)

Las Vegas Review-Journal
1111 W. Bonanza Road
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125

Las Vegas Review-Journal main phone number:
702-383-0211
Newspaper office number:
702-383-0264

Click here to read a copy of the lawsuit (as forwarded by a reporter…The Armed Citizen has received no official notice of pending litigation.)

Please consider donating using the link on your right to help offset the legal costs of this lawsuit.

To e-mail David and Clayton, write to Tips@thearmedcitizen.com

Further information:

Las Vegas newspaper sues websites over use of content
Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights
LV Review-Journal may be violating law with selective copyright suits
REVIEW-JOURNAL SUES ITS OWN SOURCE
Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits