Righthaven Loses Again, Has To Pay More Attorneys Fees… And Has Lawyer Scolded By The Court
from the schadenfreude dept
The hits just keep on coming for Righthaven. Having already lost in Colorado, in its case against Leland Wolf (though, likely in all of its cases, since the same judge is handling them all), Righthaven has been told that it needs to pay Wolf’s legal fees as well, to the tune of $32,147.50 along with additional costs of $1,000.85. Plus, Wolf and his lawyers have been told they can add on some more legal fees for the costs of the hearing in question. But, really, the best part of the minutes from the 13 minute hearing are that immediately after Righthaven’s lawyer, Shawn Mangano, makes his argument, the minutes note:
The Court admonishes Mr. Mangano regarding his lack of civility.
Perhaps he’s too busy trying to protect Righthaven assets from the US Marshals service to be civil these days.
Filed Under: attorney's fees, colorado, copyright troll, shawn mangano
Companies: righthaven
Comments on “Righthaven Loses Again, Has To Pay More Attorneys Fees… And Has Lawyer Scolded By The Court”
Business plan
Righthaven is losing money on every case, but they hope to make it up on volume.
Another day...
Another day, another of Righthaven frolics for our amusement.
The bright side is that their blunders are paving the wall/shield against ‘legal blackmailing’ in the US.
Anyone know...?
Anyone know if RH’s assets have actually been seized yet or when it is set to happen? I’d be interested to see an account of how it goes…
Re: Anyone know...?
Sort of:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×5056151
Less than $1000 in the account, according to Mangano.
At least one bank account has been seized but Shawn Mangano said it was no big deal because it had less that $1000. Mangano’s cavalier attitude towards the seizures is very shocking for a lawyer.
It is possible Righthaven is moving money around to hide it from the US Marshals. If that is the case they may be committing felonies.
http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/nov/10/marshals-execute-against-righthaven-bank-account/
Re: Righthaven's true business model
I dearly hope Righthaven is moving money around trying to hide it from the US marshals, which is a felony.
That will ensure that we get more free entertainment in the future.
Only freetards want free entertainment.
I seem to have uncovered Righthaven’s true business model.
They will be knocking on our doors later asking payment for the great comedy entertainment they have been providing.
Farcical
I really have to hand it to the copyfighters this time. Righthaven is a stroke of genius. I could not conceivably have thought of a better move myself; it’s that brilliant.
First, this ?ber-aggressive straw copyright-Doberman does more than anything else to help bring the whole notion of copyright into disrepute.
And then it causes all kinds of favorable rulings to become precedent via its litigation, such as the one that says a judge can find that something is obvious fair use and throw a lawsuit out before it gets really expensive for the defendants.
By bringing ridiculous cases and being as unsympathetic a plaintiff as possible, the clever folks behind the farce that is Righthaven ensured a wealth of useful pro-everyman anti-big-entertainment-business rulings to do at least a little bit to level the playing field.
And the best part is, the real pro-copyright forces are stuck on the horns of a dilemma: either back Righthaven and suffer more disrepute themselves, or actually do some work for the forces of good by opposing it, or at least distancing themselves from it!
Re: Farcical
It’s almost like someone turned Fawlty Towers into a law firm.
Could Righthaven rulings be a defense against SOPA and ProIP?
Mike, I know you are not a lawyer but, in your opinion, couldn’t these rulings be used as a defense against SOPA and ProIP and possibly various three strikes laws by removing the intermediaries due to a lack of standing? Seems to me these rulings are saying that a third party cannot act on behalf of a copyright holder to initiate copyright based legal actions. Would this include PayPal attempting to void a contract based on alleged copyright infringement? Would any of the lawyers who frequently post please weigh in on this as well?
I find it hopeful that the courts are enforcing jurisprudence issues and expect there to be a serious backlash against third parties attempting to bypass the court by attempting to be a court themselves.