Remember Righthaven? On appeal, copyright troll looks just as bad

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

There are second chances in life, though; and Righthaven got one yesterday. The company's new lawyer, Erik Syverson, argued that the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit should overturn Righthaven's losses in two cases: the DiBiase case, defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Hoehn case, defended by Las Vegas attorney Marc Randazza. Yesterday's case is the first Righthaven case to be argued at the appellate level.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/remember-righthaven-on-appeal-copyright-troll-looks-just-as-bad/

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks for the update..!
I was checking on this periodically, also...

It's rather odd that a bankrupt company that owes thousands to defendants in court judgements can still hire lawyers and litigate.
It begs the question as to whether Gibson should be held responsible for any losses instead of the insolvent Righthaven.
"Righthaven" continues to litigate, but is essentially judgement-proof.  This sort of thing has to stop.

Too bad that the judges in the original cases didn't deem their decisions "with prejudice", so that Righthaven couldn't give it another go.
After all, the material facts of Righthaven's "legal standing" wouldn't change after the fact.

I wish that Hoehn and DiBiase would have bought the rights to the news articles that they were being sued over.
Sure, Righthaven/Gibson could make the argument that they didn't own the copyrighted materials at the time of the alleged infringement.
But, Hoehn and DiBiase could say the same about Righthaven.  That would have been funny.

S.G.