 DMCA takedown notices, no C and D letters) have nothing to do with it. Instead Righthaven and Stephens Media have set up what seems like a sham that is engaged in illegal and dishonest barratry and champerty.
IMO--as are all of my posts.
You're absolutely right on all charges, IMHO.
Part of the point of this arrangement is that it supposedly shelters Stephens from any legal backlash (like the counter-suit in this case), meaning they don't risk e.g. legal fees.
Also, I'm not entirely sure the barratry charge would go away. It is Righthaven that seeks out "infringers," after all. I'm guessing that avoiding those charges (by claiming they're not a law firm, but a "holding company") is also part of the reason Righthaven is set up this way.
I'm actually a bit concerned for Gibson's wellbeing. Someone should keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't try to commit suicide. He's going to wake up from his delusion eventually, and when your whole world collapses like that, it puts you in a dangerous state of mind...
No copyright trolls?
Where are the copyright maximalists on this one to defend everything Righthaven does as just and holy?
They are oddly absent from this thread.

Re: No copyright trolls?
Righthaven plays hardball. The problem for them is that so does the other side.
"Righthaven plays hardball. "
More like Righthaven throws chairs at the fans.
The the Stephens Media newspaper tells people to "ShareThis" with Friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, Google Buzz, Blogger, MySpace, Digg, AIM Share, StumbleUpon, or Print or Save the article--all with no notice of copyright limitations. Then if someone does "ShareThis" on their blogg or in a web comment, Stephens Media files suit via Righthaven with no notice, no attempt to mitigate, no C and D--and the demand the statutory maximum and forfeiture of the entire domain even for what could be de minimus use! That that ain't "hard ball" that's just vicious, exploitative and dishonest IMO.
Why does he look and sound like....
Stephen Colbert.....no... really...it's almost like a character he's playing....
Re: Why does he look and sound like....
Re: Re: Why does he look and sound like....
Yes. It is 100+ F in Las Vegas, so he is not only in defiance of Righthaven's troubles, but also defies the weather...
Re: Re: Re: Why does he look and sound like....
Ralston comes across as an idiot, but maybe that's what his public likes.
If I knew nothing about this case, I'd see an interviewer who can't keep his mouth shut, constantly interrupting his guest without ever really cornering him, screwing up the metaphors and missing point after point, while the guest blew clouds of weasel-language which the host made no real effort to dispel. What was the "dishonest" behavior about? Are Gibson's counterarguments valid? Did Righthaven go after people who were small, or people who were innocent? How much trouble is Righthaven really in, and does it have a snowball's chance of making further profit by these suits? All I would know at the end of the interview was that Gibson was unwise to go on the show (and that the show isn't worth watching).
Crucifying a visitor on camera is an art, it requires real debate skill and a quick mind, not just a loud voice and a friend in the control booth.
He reminds me of Jim Cramer on CNBC. I used to watch that show religiously, but now I can't change the channel fast enough when it comes on because he's so obnoxious. That and the fact he badmouthed a stock one day that I was into very deep... That hurt. Bad.
I just checked the docket in the Democratic Underground case, and they have until Tuesday the 28th to turn in their brief showing cause why they shouldn't be sanctioned.
Even more interesting, Judge Hunt signed an order today allowing the "bad ass litigatrix" Dale Cendali to appear in the case as attorney for Righthaven and Stephens Media.
Guess they called in the heavy-hitters for support.
Wow. I thought Kirkland had better clients with whom to make pro-copyright precedent than Righthaven. This is a firm in trouble, needing a buck. Sad to see.
I'm surprised that no one has pick up yet on his justification for the existence of his company, namely "send[ing] out a thousand or a million cease and desist letters"
I'd argue that if millions of people are behaving in a manner that goes against current civil law, it is time to change that law as it is no longer a reflection of the current social norms and ethic.
"They teach us not to lie to the courts in law school since attorneys are "officers of the court." ;)"
As to lying, I guess that means you aren't supposed to make misstatements of fact. But you are, it seems, allowed to make misleading by deliberate omission, as, for example, Gibson does several times in the interview. Kind of like the Fairy race in some tales, where the Fey are know for being unable to ought right lie but are experts in the practice of deceit.
A badge would be awesome. "Stop, in the name of the law! I'm a lawyer!" All we get is a membership card to the bar.
I do have an ABA membership card. I don't think that gets me very much though other than lots of junk mail.
Material omissions are forbidden by every bar's rules of ethics. Every. Single. One. 
And the hits just keep on comin'. In South Carolina, the lawyers for Dana Eiser filed an amended answer and counterclaim. It is 119 pages long and includes 56 separate defenses, 23 of which are causes of action, including a civil RICO charge.
Defendant Eiser apologizes for the length and complexity of this pleading, but given the procedural rules regarding compulsory counterclaims, has no choice but to assert all good-faith claims it has against Righthaven. Further, Righthaven�s previously-filed motion to dismiss repeatedly attacked Eiser�s counterclaims as factually insufficient. Eiser hopes to have addressed Righthaven�s concern with this pleading.
I heard about it from Righthaven Victims, which has the defenses as a bullet list. If you really want to, though, you can read the whole thing on Scribd.
Well, I just read the whole thing. That is a nicely written answer. It is clear, well argued and is readable by ordinary lay folks like myself. And the plausibility of the defenses and counter-claims makes you wonder if Gibson is checking out one-way flights to the Caribbean.
One of the most important aspects of the answer and counterclaim is that the defendant requests that the court order the corporate veil--the double layer of LLCs--pierced so that the owners of Righthaven will be personally responsible for the liabilities of the company should Righthaven loose court cases and have to pay damages and attorney's fees, something that seems likely in the near future. The defendant alleges that one of the prime purposes of Righthaven's structure was to insulate Righthaven clients from such liability through an under funded company, one the key players could just walk away from should it be sued into bankrupts. Piercing the corporate veil is just what is needed to inspire Gibson into some ethics and personal responsibility--he should be scared of what could happen if he is held personally liable.
Re: The whole thing...
Well, not to burst your bubble, but that's because it appears to be written by people whose understanding of the law is no greater than lay folks like ourselves.
I mean, half of it is pure fantasy. Some of it is outright wrong: for example, a "work for hire" is not the same as a work done by an employee, and freelancers often use "work for hire" contracts.
Still, that's the nature of defense filings: throw law against the wall, and see what sticks.
Interestingly enough, the RICO charge is actually not completely far-fetched. If Righthaven sent out "settlement" letters, when it knowingly did not have the copyright, then it could be considered fraud, and RICO charges might apply.
I doubt it'll actually hold up in court, but that would certainly make things interesting. Especially to other cases - I doubt the Hurt Locker guys would go ahead with threatening lawsuits (25,000!) if they thought there was even a tiny chance they'd face RICO charges.
And the veil-piercing demand seems spot on to me. I have no idea if the court will allow it, though.
At this point, I'm reading it more like a Jackie Collins novel than an actual legal filing: entertaining and sordid, but not entirely believable.
Work for hire isn't what people think it is.
I can't speak to how knowledgeable the attorneys in this filing are but IIRC work for hire as it pertains to copyright is generally presumptively applicable to employees and not independent contractors. I think people often confuse "work for hire" with "work for pay", but as copyright is concerned the two are not synonymous. The work of an independent contractor is copyright by that contractor--he or she is employed by his or her self--not by the company that contracted them absent a specific written contract that assigns copyright to that company. Heck, by copyright standards, when you are on vacation and