Righthaven LLC -- a bottom feeding legal outfit -- has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post to sue mom and pop websites, advocacy and public interest groups and forum board operators for copyright infringement. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue thousands of these website owners, who are primarily unfunded and will be forced to settle out of court.
Righthaven lawsuitsTo date Righthaven has been ordered to pay $323,138 in legal fees and sanctions.Righthaven lawsuits

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Another Attorney Defending a Righthaven Victim on a Pro Bono basis Seeks Attorney Fees

UPDATE 05/14/11: The affidavit of DeVoy in support of the motion for attorney's fees contains email exchanges with Shawn Mangano, who represents Righthaven. Mangano states in one letter that Ganim "is awaiting his bar examination results from the State Bar of Nevada." This explains why Ganim is not currently listed at nvbar.org. But it's perplexing that his name is not listed in the Unofficial February 2011 Nevada Bar Pass List either, which posted May 12.

In late April, defendant Michael Leon's case was dismissed without prejudice by the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro. The defendant was also allowed to seek attorney's fees. Attorneys who represented Leon on a pro bono basis in the April 20 hearing, Randazza Legal Group and J. Malcome DeVoy, later filed a motion asking for attorney's fees against Righthaven LLC because negotiating with Righthaven on the matter had proven fruitless.

This brings the total to at least three law groups -- the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), attorney Michael Kerr of the Santangelo Law Offices and the Randazza Legal Group and J. Malcome DeVoy and possibly other individual attorneys and law firms -- who are seeking fees after defending a Righthaven victim on a pro bono basis. (The related memorandum on the Leon case is an interesting read about the pro bono/attorney's fees issue.)


  1. Wait a minute. Mark Randazza? Are you serious?

    Randazza is a copyright troll himself. Look at the file-sharing suit he filed against an individual on behalf of notorious troll D Gill Sperlein of San Francisco (in-house lawyer of gay porn studio IO Group): http://ia600403.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.378393/gov.uscourts.flsd.378393.1.0.pdf.

    This is the first suit of this kind against an individual, and therefore very important: trolls randomly picked a little guy to scare everyone from fighting back.

    Prior to that they subpoenaed contact info based on IP addresses and used this information to coerce settlements.

    Read more at http://www.scribd.com/doc/55048420/310-Cv-03647-WHA-Docket-38-Motion-to-Dismiss
    about the troll Sperlein and his tactics.

    Beware a wolf in a rabbit mask.

  2. Personally I am far wearier of the ancient shark whale beast masquerading as a benevolent blue whale.

  3. While you are free to snipe from the comfort of your pseudonym, good lawyers both defend and prosecute copyright infringement cases. In the "sham copyright assignment" Righthaven lawsuits, Randazza has been instrumental -- and continues to play an instrumental role -- in the outcome of this saga. Randazza has also defended Righthaven victims on a pro bono basis. Perhaps you have not seen the beautifully crafted Amicus Brief written on behalf of the Media Bloggers Association and defendant Bill Hyatt? Nor have you reviewed Randazza's track record when defending Righthaven victims? Given his many priorities right now, I doubt Randazza has time to respond to your cowardly remarks. But I do. You seem to have a problem with him taking a Torrent case, which is very different from a Righthaven case. Righthaven sues people who are engaged in Fair Use. A Torrent case hardly touches Fair Use. You seem more like a thief who is angry that he got caught. Your comment comes off as petty (and brutish) as does your website.


Comments that persecute Righthaven victims will be deleted.