RIGHTHAVEN DEAD: Judge orders failed copyright troll to forfeit “all” copyrights. “The irony of this? Perhaps those who buy the copyrights could issue DMCA notices to the Review-Journal stopping them from redistributing them?”

Make the rubble bounce.

MAKE THE RUBBLE BOUNCE: Righthaven’s lawyers now targets of State Bar investigation.

SWEET IRONY: Righthaven complains about ‘scorched-earth’ efforts to enforce judgments. Make the rubble bounce.

I HOPE THE DEATH IS PAINFUL AND PROTRACTED: Copyright troll Righthaven in its death throes, domain going up for auction. And I hope the principals wind up broke and in jail.

RIGHTHAVEN UPDATE: Judge scolds Righthaven lawyer, adds another $32,000 judgment. Good. Add a few more zeroes.

AND I’M LOVING IT: US Marshals turned loose to collect $63,720.80 from Righthaven.

COPYRIGHT TROLL RIGHTHAVEN pleading for mercy.

RIGHTHAVEN UPDATE: Copyright Troll’s Assets Targeted for Seizure. I hope they end up broke and in jail. Which is how things seem to be going . . .

WHERE’S KEVORKIAN WHEN YOU NEED HIM? Copyright Troll Righthaven Goes On Life Support.

IT JUST GETS BETTER: Righthaven Fined $5000 For Misleading Court.

NOW THAT’S JUST SAD: RightHaven Lawyer Says Browser Ate His Homework.

I KEEP WARNING PEOPLE NOT TO PICK ON BLOGGERS: Righthaven Loses As Federal Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article is “Fair Use.”

The lawsuit decided Monday targeted Wayne Hoehn, a Vietnam veteran who posted all 19 paragraphs of November editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media. Hoehn posted the article, and its headline, “Public Employee Pensions: We Can’t Afford Them” on medjacksports.com to prompt discussion about the financial affairs of the nation’s states. Hoehn was a user of the site, not an employee.

Righthaven sought up to $150,000, the maximum in damages allowed under the Copyright Act. Righthaven argued that the November posting reduced the number of eyeballs that would have visited the Review-Journal site to read the editorial.

“Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate,” Judge Pro ruled.

The judge also said he took into consideration that only five of the editorial’s paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author. . . . Pro’s decision came a week after a different Las Vegas federal judge threatened to sanction Righthaven, calling its litigation efforts “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful” when it came to standing. Standing is a legal concept that has enabled Righthaven to bring lawsuits on behalf of the copyrights owned by Stephens Media.

That blistering decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt, the chief judge in Nevada, places into doubt Righthaven’s year-old business model, which is also under a Colorado federal judge’s microscope.

Hunt gave Righthaven two weeks to explain why he should not sanction it for trying to “manufacture standing.”

I hope these guys wind up broke and in jail. And that’s looking likelier all the time . . . .

RIGHTHAVEN’S CASE COLLAPSES: “Judge Hunt did not just dismiss Righthaven’s suit; he gave them two weeks to respond as to why they should not be sanctioned by the court and held liable for the legal fees of Democratic Underground. My hope is that once this is settled, there will be a massive dogpile of all the people that were intimidated into settling out of court with Righthaven, and the net effect will be both immediate bankruptcy for Righthaven, and perhaps the destruction of Stephens Media as well.”

LOOKS KIND OF SHADY: Judge Unseals RightHaven Contract.

RIGHTHAVEN’S BACKFIRE: “Some 250 Righthaven lawsuits later, Righthaven’s startling achievement is that newspapers now have less — not more — protection from copyright infringers.”

CALL THE WAHMBULANCE! Righthaven accuses defendant of running up legal fees in copyright case. “Righthaven’s entire business strategy was built around using absurd legal fees to terrify Mom and Pop bloggers into coughing up thousands of dollars out of fear that Righthaven’s legal fees would bankrupt the defendants. Now Righthaven is getting a taste of their own medicine, and not liking it. If there is any justice in our courts (and I doubt that there is), Righthaven will be driven into bankruptcy and Steve Gibson will have to get a real job.” Don’t give up yet. And this is the first time I’ve found myself admiring Democratic Underground, but this is precisely how to respond to legal bullying.

RIGHTHAVEN UPDATE: National bloggers’ group intervenes in copyright lawsuit campaign.

BLOGGERS: Protecting yourself from the Righthaven copyright trolls.

WHEN I SAW THE HEADLINE, I THOUGHT IT WAS RIGHTHAVEN: Hackers exact revenge on hated law firm that prosecutes copyright infringement claims.

RIGHTHAVEN UPDATE: A Firefox plugin that will block Stephens Media sites. (Bumped). If this spreads it could have a lasting impact. Usually, with boycotts, people forget after a while. With this plugin, the boycott stays until you affirmatively decide to stop.

UPDATE: A reader emails:

Glenn, I’m taking my Righthaven Response to the next level: I’ve asked my IT dept. to block all of the Stephens Media sites at our firewall. This will protect not just me, but my four thousand coworkers as well. Considering the danger of these frivolous and harmful law suits, it seems the only prudent thing to do.

Yes, you can’t be too careful about these things.

FRED PRUITT’S RANTBURG is now being sued by “Righthaven.”

Related: Bloggers boycotting Righthaven client?

SUING BLOGGERS: This seems like a poor business plan to me. On the other hand, if your real goal is to silence the blogosphere . . . .

UPDATE: Reader Joseph Dorsett writes:

The main way that Righthaven can be finding these blogs is through analyzing traffic sources. The solution for that is to not use any media generated by Stephens Media. No links at all. No links to AP generated content either. There is so much material on the web that there is no need to link (and send traffic) to any organization inimical to the blogosphere.

Clearly these people have no idea on how consumers find their website and how traffic affects their ad revenue. As circulation of Dead Tree News declines it will be interesting to see if rags like The Review-Journal survive by biting the hand that feeds it.

Yeah, don’t look for me to send ‘em much traffic in the future.

UPDATE: Some thoughts from copyright lawyer Ron Coleman.