"movement" in GoogleBooks suit (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Victor Steinbok]

Not quite the same thing. Righthaven was "renting" the copyright solely
for the purpose of suing the supposed infringers without regard for fair
use and without giving them an opportunity to comply. The main attack on
Righthaven is that they never actually /had/ the copyright--they
formally purchased limited rights from the copyright holder, with an
obligation to sell them back later, but they were suing as copyright
holders. This is directly contrary to statutory language and is
effectively prohibited. They also failed to follow established procedures.

They claimed to be the actual copyright holder, not someone who was
acting as an agent. It is not clear if their cases would go differently
had they relied on agency.

But in the Google suit, the problem is different. The associations hold
no copyrights at all, but claim to represent association
members--effectively as agents. But not all members agree with their
actions and claims, which goes precisely to the nature of an
association, as opposed to a plaintiff class. Associations cannot be
defined within any of the classes for the purposes of this
litigation--or so Google probably argues.

     VS-)

On 12/27/2011 10:02 AM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC wrote:
> The argument Google is making seems to be consistent with the results of
> the recent Righthaven suit.
>
> http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jun/14/judge-rules-righthaven-lacks-standing-sue-threaten/

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org