Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Suit Has Been Dismissed

As I explained the reporter at the Las Vegas Sun:

We settled with Righthaven because while we believe that a trial would have given a tiny judgment (if any) against us, the costs of proceeding to trial would have been tens of thousands of dollars — with no certainty that we would ever be able to recover those legal costs. We would have needed to come up with that enormous amount of money before going to trial. The enormous costs of going to trial in a civil suit effectively mean that if you aren't a multimillionaire, you can't afford justice.

We believe that the draconian penalties of DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) were intended primarily to punish file sharing of entertainment, which has enormous economic value (unlike old news articles). To use the enormous penalties of DMCA with respect to a few newspaper articles archived for a scholarly, public purpose, arguably within fair use, does not appear to be what Congress intended. The common — and industry standard — courtesy of contacting us would have caused immediate removal of the article in question. Even a request for reasonable damages — such as the $750 at the bottom of the statutory damages scale — would have (been) paid without argument. We believe that this approach would have worked with nearly all of the defendants that Righthaven sued.
I may have some more to say on this in the future.  I'm considering writing an article about the serious holes (and there are many) in our civil litigation system that this experience has revealed to me.  I'm not sure where I could get it published, but it is probably worth a try. 

First, I need to relax my frustrations.  Now, how do I get some of Steve Gibson's hair or fingernail clippings for the voodoo doll?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Congratulations!

I hope RH got less than their lawyers cost.

I seem to remember you saying something about a "silver bullet". Can you now reveal what that was? Even if it turned out not be a silver bullet, I expect it would be useful to understand why not.

Anyway, I'm glad you have your life back, and I hope you continue to share some part of it with us. You are a formidable warrior, Clayton, never doubt it.

Alan said...

Now, how do I get some of Steve Gibson's hair or fingernail clippings for the voodoo doll?

Maybe Christine O'Donnell knows someone who can help :-)

Clayton said...

The suit was in violation of the common law champerty rule, and federal courts still use the champerty rule (if the state which they are in recognizes it, as Nevada does). Unfortunately, there seems to be some reluctance of attorneys to raise this, perhaps because so much of the legal profession relies on filing suits that are at least arguably champertous in nature.

Righthaven certainly made a profit on this.

Epsilon Given said...

I'm glad it's over. When you write that article, though, and you can't figure out where to publish it, you could always publish it on your blog. :-)

Jon said...

In the world of Civil litigation you sometimes have to step back in order to win. Kudos to you for cutting your losses.

Now that you are done licking your wounds (yea right) remember the Beatitudes and now get real MEEK.

Before you start your article you might want to find a goode olde copy of 'THE TRIAL OF MEADE AND PENN'. One of the Best is by Mr. Penn himself.

After reading the Trial, ask yourself: HOW CAN SOME STATES IN A CIVIL TRIAL ALLOW A JURY TO DECIDE WITHOUT ALL 12 JURORS IN AGREEMENT?

Remember that all TRIALS at Common Law require all Jurors to find a unanimous Verdict. Remind yourself that the Founding Fathers thought so much of the 'The Trial of Meade and Penn' that in the Bill of Rights they remember it not once but twice (hint #6 and #7).

So if you ask yourself what went wrong, then look into the subversion of Common Law by Civil Law during the time of Reformation after the Civil War. Look into the works of Christopher Columbus Langdall and his followers to supplant Civil Courts into our system of Justice and sweep away Courts of Common Law.

Clayton,the reason you could not find a CIVIL LAWYER to put forth your charge of CHAMPERTY is too simple: They are not taught Common Law in Law School. They (Lawyers) as Officers of the Court cannot plead in Court for your Rights as you cannot assign your Rights as a Citizen (your rights as a Citizen are yours).

It was YOUR RIGHT not HIS to Petition the Civil Court for your Right to Common Law. But seeing as how you did not stand up for your RIGHTS in Court (for the suit against you to Proceed under the RULES OF LAW UNDER A COURT OF COMMON LAW) now there is nothing for him to defend.

You, Clayton as a Teacher of the History of our Great Nation should have no trouble researching your forthcoming article.

Good luck and happy hunting for the TRUTH.

Jon Huettl,
Responding from Palm Springs, a City located in a Several State of the United States of America just West of Nevada.

TOTWTYTR said...

I'm glad it's over and didn't ruin you. I know it was tough on you, but I think you did the right thing at every stage of the process.

Rorschach said...

Print yourself a nice 11x17 photo of Steve Gibson and take it to your local range... that should help you vent some of your frustration, think of it as a vodoo doll with high speed pin insertion..

Bikeboy said...

I actually read something positive about the Las Vegas Review-Journal... they've endorsed Sharron Angle over Harry Reid! (I hope I haven't plagiarized too much, so they'll come after me!)