Defendant uploaded entire Las Vegas Review Journal editorial to website discussion. Righthaven sues. In addition to dismissing on standing (see here for similar ruling in another Righthaven case),  Court holds that while normally, ‘wholesale copying militates against fair use,’ in this case the three other factors (nature of work, purpose of copying and effect on market) favored a finding of fair use.

 Decision Right Haven Fair Use Entire Text(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

I backed out these numbers from the ICANN draft 2012 budget.  ICANN anticipates 500 applications at $185k per.  ICANN is supposed to handle them on a ‘cost neutral’ basis.  The $185k will allocated as follows:

50% ($93k) on processing the applications over two years

15% ($28k) on recapturing historical expenses in developing the new TLD program (which program has been kicking around since 2005)

35% ($65k) set aside for ‘new gTLD risk.’  I assume this means litigation and costs associated with protests (recall the lawsuits and uproar associated with ICANN’s eventual approval of .xxx).

20110621_104421(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

ICANN Trademark Protections Evidence Use 07jun11 En(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

THE GATE for Iowa public tv show v Fox show THE GATES.

 Complaint the Gate Iowa Fox(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

The Government Advisory Committee to ICANN sent a letter (below) to ICANN advising it not to approve the new TLD Application Guidebook before certain questions were answered.  Some commentators suggest that this may occur on Monday regardless while others think this might not be a good idea.

Here is a list of announced and/or expected ‘community’ and ‘keyword’ TLD applicants.

 
Fac Letter to Icann June 2011 New Gtlds(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

 

 

 

Owners of the luxury brands CHLOE, ALFRED DUNHILL, PANERAI and MONTBLANC sue Pakistani website TRADEKEY.COM and various ‘trading corporations’ in the CD Cal.  Plaintiffs allege that Tradekey, a B2B ‘marketplace, facilitated counterfeiting by managing and  ‘optimizing’ listings for goods it knew to be counterfeit.  A TradeKey representative allegedly advised plaintiffs’ investigator that ‘replicas’ and ‘mirror images’ were the main part of its business, and that less than 10% of the goods on TradeKey were genuine (see pp. 5 to 12 of Memo in support of its TRO).

 Memo Chloe Tradekey(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Complaint Chloe v Tradekey(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

. . . or other words I have to look up the definition for before I use them, but my idle thought is that it seems that Righthaven’s legal troubles, namely that it may not have the standing to sue under its agreement relating to the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s copyrights, are potentially solvable (if the problem is defined as a copyright owner wanting its content protected efficiently while also protecting its reputation).   The copyright author could deposit its copyrights in some blandly named IP holding company (this assumes that the LVRJ didn’t want to be the named plaintiff for, among other reasons, optics), and the ‘Righthaven’ role is played by a law firm working on some sort of contingency basis. Plus the law firm indemnifies the IP Holding company in the event of a Section 505 fee switch.

Now to be clear, in the Righthaven model, Righthaven is making decisions.  In the contingency model, the client is (supposed to).  As a practical matter, if the litigations are perceived to be ‘cookie-cutter,’ the client may be tempted to delegate a lot of authority to the law firm.   Which can be problematic for a variety of reason.

Thanks to Prof Goldman for chewing the fat on this.