However, should the defendant agree to pay a one-time fee of around $3,000 (by credit card, to make things extra convenient), the trolls will go away and keep your filthy little secret safe. They’ll even call you at home right before the settlement offer expires, just to give you every opportunity to, er, come quietly.
But what if you’re a 70-something widow from San Francisco that has never heard of BitTorrent, thinks Long Dong Silver is a chain of seafood restaurants, and who never quite figured out how to encrypt her WiFi connection? Well, tough titty, Granny. According to the law firm’s John Steele, an unsecured internet connection is no defense. The trolls are also undeterred by the staggeringly obvious conclusion that Granny’s no porn connoisseur. Pay up, you old bitty, or we’ll tell the girls down at the bridge club about your peculiar fascination with a tender interracial love story entitled Whoreo.
However, courts have not looked favorably on Righthaven’s heavy handed and legally dubious tactics. Earlier this year, US District Court Judge James Mahan ruled that Righthaven’s use of copyright for the sole purpose of suing strips that copyright of much of its traditional protection. In April, a judge unsealed the agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media, which revealed that Stephens hadn’t actually assigned any of the rights related to copyright except the right to sue, which may render Righthaven’s tactics legally moot.
In June, US District Judge Roger Hunt ruled that this sham contract meant Righthaven lacked the standing to sue, and that Righthaven had been “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful” in its attempt to “manufacture standing.” (Less than a week later, a different US District Judge dismissed a separate Righthaven case on similar grounds.) But Hunt went further, giving Righthaven a couple weeks to manufacture some reason why he shouldn’t give them a good spanking. Time ran out this week, so Hunt fined Righthaven $5k for their “intentional” misrepresentations, calling them “a law firm with a contingent fee agreement masquerading as a company.”
Righthaven’s woes are far from over. Some of the defendants have since filed claims against Righthaven for reimbursement of legal fees, which in some cases amount to over $100k. Righthaven has since claimed that the failure to cite Stephens Media as an ‘interested party’ in the suits was the fault of three Righthaven underlings, two of which are no longer with the company. Gibson is not identified as one of the three, even though he was an attorney of record in some of these specific suits. True to form, Righthaven is considering appeals of all these rulings. Seriously, trolls… Righthaven’t you learned your lesson yet?