Featured Articles

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

We wanted to learn a bit more about Qualcomm's plans for wearables and it turns out that the company believes its…

More...
Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

We had a chance to talk to Michelle Leyden-Li, Senior Director of Marketing, QCT at Qualcomm and get an update on…

More...
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

Today we will take a look at the PowerColor TurboDuo Radeon R9 285. The card is based on AMD’s new…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 03 November 2011 16:08

Copyright troll shut down

Written by Nick Farell

y banned

A small violin for Righthaven please

 The US Marshal for the District of Nevada has just been told by federal court to use "reasonable force" to seize $63,720.80 from the Las Vegas copyright troll Righthaven.

It seems that Righthaven, which made a national name for itself by suing mostly small-time bloggers and forum posters over newspaper articles, failed to pay a court judgement from August 15.

While the campaign of legal threats started off well with some of those sued paying up, it all went pear shaped in August.

In that case, Righthaven v. Hoehn a federal judge in Nevada declared that defendant Wayne Hoehn's complete copy of a newspaper article in a sub-forum on the site "Madjack Sports" was fair use.

He awarded $34,045.50 to the Randazza Legal Group, which represented Hoehn and Righthaven, didn't pay.

Instead it filed appeals which claimed that having to pay the money would involve "the very real threat of being forced out of business or being forced to seek protection through bankruptcy.

It insisted it could win the case on appeal and thus should not be bankrupted before it had the chance to make its case. However it couldn't get its appellate filings in on time.

More here
 

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments