The latest amusing chapter in the popcorn-munching saga of copyright troll Righthaven is unfolding. Stephens Media, the newspaper publisher that “sells the copyrights” of infringed-upon articles to Righthaven, has attempted to come up with a new contract after multiple judges have ruled its previous one invalid.
As I’ve reported before, the judges held that Righthaven’s old contract amounted to a sham, because it was only licensing to Stephens the “right to sue” (and reaping 50% of any legal settlements) while keeping actual ownership of the articles itself. The problem with that idea is that there is no licensable “right to sue”—you can only sue with the actual ownership of the articles, which Stephens was keeping.
Now Stephens has attempted to rules-lawyer its way around the constraints, by giving Righthaven ownership but with restrictions—it has to notify Stephens if it wants to do anything else with the works, and Stephens has the right to buy the copyright back for $10. A Nevada judge has already ruled against these new contract terms, so it doesn’t look like they’re going to bite.
Righthaven’s problem is that judges tend to take a dim view of this kind of weasely attempt to turn the legal system into a profit machine, and that’s something they can’t get out of simply by rewording a contract. As long as Righthaven and Stephens’s goal is so transparent, judges are going to see right through them no matter what they do.
