Things aren't looking good for the man who makes Nevada's lowest bottom-feeding attorneys look like crusaders of justice.First, the Electronic Frontier Foundation joined the fight, signing on to represent the Democratic Underground LLC in one of the high-profile Righthaven lawsuits.
Then, newly-appointed U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro set aside one of Gibson's many default judgments, finding that the "implied license" defense may have some merit:
"The defendant has reasonably asserted that the plaintiff’s conduct may have constituted an implied license and that the defendant may have properly inferred that the (copyright) owner consented to the use, especially in light of the established and accepted custom of users freely and openly sharing certain information posted on the Internet."Not a good week to be sporting a gigantic bluetooth headset.
(LV Sun)
Looks like he is grabbing his crotch in that photo
ReplyDeleteOMG, is he doing the crotch grab? As in, hey baby, check ou the package! It ain't just all da' good looks, I got sometin' special right here, for you.
ReplyDeleteLOL
Douchetasticular!
ReplyDeleteHappiness is being a solo practitioner, helping the wife get the rugrats off to school, sex in an empty, paid off house and heading to work at 9, wearing jeans and flip flops.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, and being MORMON.
Religion is a drug. Free your mind.
ReplyDelete@8:56
ReplyDeleteRock on, Clay!!!!
I hope he gets no where with these law suits. People should not have to live in fear of being sued for quoting the RJ.
ReplyDeleteI do like the crotch grab though.
Can somebody please explain to me, in a legally intelligent manner, why it is so awful for the Review Journal to protect its copyrights? Doesn't the RJ have copyrights for its material, and doesn't that bundle of rights include the ability to determine who, if anyone, reprints the protected information and also to assert a cause of action for infringement, whether by Steven Gibson, Brin Gibson, Fred "Pete" Gibson, or even Kirk Gibson (assuming he was licensed attorney)?
ReplyDeleteIt does seem odd that everyone ignores the legal aspect. have fun with the douchery of the attorney, but get real about the law. Or was I under the mistaken impression this site was about the law and not mormons.
ReplyDeleteIs anybody else having problems getting on the court's website? Frustrating! Another perfect example of just how great our technology team is over there. Maybe they should spend their money on hiring a halfway decent IT team instead of a lobbyist.
ReplyDeleteThese pretzels are making me thirsty.
9:31 It's wouldn't be so awful if the RJ were protecting its' copyrights, but that is not what is happening. The be-bluetoothed crotch-grabber's henchman are scouring in the internet looking for copyright violations, then buying the copyright from the RJ to perform a shakedown on someone who is probably protected by fair use, but doesn't know better or can't afford to hire an attorney. Righthaven is not giving the alleged offenders any notice to cease and desist and is instead just going right for the money. It's kinda like Righthaven is constantly filing discovery motions without having an EDCR 2.34 conference first. It's in poor taste, it doesn't comport with standard practices of copyright enforcement, and it is likely an abuse of process.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see Navarro's stepping up.
@8:56,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with the sentiment of your post, it strikes me that if the rugrats get off to school at 8:30, and you head to work at 9, you're not using that big, empty, paid-off house right.
"The courts of this country should not be the places where resolution of disputes begins. They should be the places where the disputes end after alternative methods of resolving disputes have been considered and tried."
ReplyDelete-- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
I'm so happy the "Banquet Bartender" look is coming back into style.
ReplyDeleteI think this is douchetastic what Gibson is doing...
ReplyDeletehowever, having done a few copyright cases it sounds like Navarro is wrong.
10:08am - ?? Kids gone at 8:30am means you could leave happy probably by about 8:33am. :D
ReplyDeleteI fully support the enforcement of the RJ’s property. It’s the manner of enforcement that rubs people the wrong way. 99.5% of violators would instantly and permanently comply with a take-down order. The remaining 0.5% should be sued into bankruptcy then paddled in the public square. However, it wouldn’t be PROFITABLE to do so. The model used by Righthaven is the only way the RJ can put coin in their pocket for the violations, while having no expensive attorney fees up front. Essentially, Righthaven is the contingency personal injury attorney of copyright. And, he’s a grade-A douche bag.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also simply a short-sighted PR catastrophe.
Yep, Odyssey is down and it pisses me off. Where did my $6 go?
ReplyDeleteGibson finally put the bluetooth somewhere useful...
ReplyDeleteIts a shame that he only has 1 desklamp in this photo. I have come to expect at least three (3) of them portrayed near and around Mr. Douche. He's no longer the inspiration I once sought.
Maybe he should just return to his roots...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.careerstr8talk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/revenge_of_the_nerds_2.jpg
is that a glass of milk on the window ledge behind him?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/index.html
ReplyDeleteGlass of milk? Come on. Let me help you out with some hints. What would a douche put in a glass? Why is he grabbing his crotch in such close proximity to the glass?
ReplyDeleteBTW who the fuck is dressing this guy in the am? Black vest, pink tie, and off-white slacks, Jesus get a clue.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think with all the money he is scamming he could afford a mirror.
ReplyDeleteWhat's amazing is that I could have authored 8:56 a.m.'s comments today - except I am Catholic and don't wear flip flops since they are ultra-gay.
ReplyDeleteOh, she made me bratwurst and eggs after entertaining my bratwurst and eggs. lol
10:03 is right. Doesn't Righthaven's acts constitute champerty and maintenance?
ReplyDelete@418.
ReplyDeleteRock on Clay.
one word: tool
ReplyDeleteI am beginning to like Gibson. He is so over-the-top douchtacular. I bet Steve Martin could do a real good Gibson skit.
ReplyDeleteThe vest with what look like high end Khakis just kills me! Who is this f*cking guy. Not sure if he is one of the "two wild and crazy guys," but does pull off the doucher image quite well.
ReplyDeleteYeah. Gibson is cool in that he's a colossal douche AND he pisses everyone off. Something charming in his success in those two areas.
ReplyDelete@ 11:33 the fee was lowered to $3.50
ReplyDelete"Who dresses you? Don't you think this is a little excessive for the Carolina League?"
ReplyDeleteI support any writer, composer, or other artist who pursues those who rip off their works. I agree that the heavy handed approach taken by Gibson through Righthaven is distasteful, but that is the breaks when you use someone else's work for your own purposes. As for Gibson it is obviously a money making gig, but then so is my office although I handle civil cases that are not as controversial.
ReplyDelete@10:15 Could not disagree with the allusion you have made between "writer, composer, or other artist" to the R/J. The bloggers are not stealing artistic expression, turns of phrases or literary art-- they are referencing citations to supporting authority, which is much the same way that in your civil practice for money you likewise indubitably cite to supporting authority and give the citation.
ReplyDeleteIn most of the cases that I have seen referenced, they provided a link and credited the R/J as the source for the information. These people are not ripping off the information or plagiarizing it as being their own--those people will get socked. The issue here is not stealing of other people's work.
@10:51,
ReplyDeleteThe bloggers are stealing the intellectual property of the RJ. Whether or not they attribute, they have posted, or have allowed to be posted, the whole text of the articles. I don't know about you, but when I reference an article discussing an untested point of law, I don't copy the whole thing into the motion. I summarize, cite, argue, and move on.
References are fine. Wholesale copying (even with attribution) is not.
Gibson looks as happy as a faggot in a barrel full of dicks.
ReplyDeleteNice try, Mr Gibson. Here, let me re-post your whole little conclusory ditty:
ReplyDelete@10:51,
The bloggers are stealing the intellectual property of the RJ. Whether or not they attribute, they have posted, or have allowed to be posted, the whole text of the articles. I don't know about you, but when I reference an article discussing an untested point of law, I don't copy the whole thing into the motion. I summarize, cite, argue, and move on.
References are fine. Wholesale copying (even with attribution) is not.
@10:51/8:08,
ReplyDeleteLet me spell it out for you. If you reproduce someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, that infringes their copyright. It doesn't matter if you link to the original. It doesn't matter if you give full attribution. If you posted the full text of Harry Potter, telling people who the author was and where they could buy the book, that's still infringement. If you posted the full text of Will & Ariel Durant's Story of Civilization, even as "supporting authority," that's still infringement.
If you make an argument and cite to anything, that's not infringement, and noone has claimed that it is. I'll say it again because it seems to have gone over your head:
References are fine. Copying is not.
And no, I'm not Gibson.
8:59 AM - You seem like a sincere fellow. Let me refer you to this short book. It has changed my way of thinking about IP. Maybe it will challenge your thinking, as well.
ReplyDelete@9:29,
ReplyDeleteI'm quite familiar with the Mises Institute, Austrian economics, and the IP paper you referred to. Before going to law school, I had the chance to study under Hoppe, which definitely spiced up my worldview.
We can talk all day about what the law should be, but regardless of what my personal beliefs towards IP are, as the law stands, copying the entire article from the RJ is infringement.
Poin. . .dexters!!!!!
ReplyDelete@9:03am and @7:43pm
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the WWL love, but those aren't my posts. I would've added that I went to Boyd.
Clay