Rock is right for once. You know the easiest way to lose a juisdiction fight: go to the jurisdiction to fight it. If you admit the court has jurisdiction for a motion hearing, you basically admit it has it for the trial. You have a much better chance of winning by not answering the suit, then filing against personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff goes to your jurisdition to have the default judgment enforced.

Sgt. Rock, why do you think it is wrong for anyone but Righthaven to stand up for a principle? If copyright is a sacred trust that must be defended to the utmost on every occasion, isn't fair use also a legal principle to be defended with equal vigor?

In 11 years of media law, I have never seen the type of arrogance coupled with incompetence that Gibson and Margano have shown. In order to lose these cases on summary judgment, the facts were viewed in the light most favorable to Righthaven and it was still found to be fair use. Unlike Mr. Green, I don't think this erodes copyright protection very much given the narrow window of Non-Profit web use but this still is an overwhelming loss for Righthaven given their litigation strategy.

Your little litigation factory should be glad Mr. Hill's lawyers show the restraint they do, because they are definitely working Pro Bono. A good attorney represents his cases Pro Bono with MORE vigor than his paid clients because these cases tend to be issues he really believes in. Pro Bono attorneys tend to use a carpet bomb approach because they need to build up service hours. You keep spouting they filed an overly long 52 page motion, whereas any attorney worth a damn is wondering why they only produced 52 pages when they could have produced five times that and gotten ahead on next year's PB hours as well.

Offer Righthaven $1200? I'd offer to settle for $25K cash from Litigation, LLC or treat Righthaven to a level of personal and professional discovery guaranteed to make the Exxon Valdez hearings seem like traffic court. When you make quick settlements your business, you make prolonging litigation the best possible defense.

I am surprised this attorney has not tried to pierce the corporate veil of Righthaven and sued Gibson personnally. If he can get a ruling that Righthaven exists solely to file lawsuits and not to collect royalties then it is champertous and doesn't serve a lawful purpose. As such, Righthaven would not serve to limit the liabilities of its owners. As long as Brian Hill's attorneys are making the champerty argument, they should take it all the way to its full, most expensive conclusion.

Cignettis, Good to know you aren't so overcome by politics that you talk about things you know nothing about. Li-anode batteries are non-toxic and nearly completely recyclable (some of the plastics are left over). They are, however, so flammable that they are not allowed in the cargo hold of commercial ariliners. You can eat one, just don't let it short circuit or you will die a horrible flaming death.

Iamwinkler, You are right about the necessity of filing an adversary proceding but you forget that outside Nevada, credits extended for gambling are not considered to be valid and markers are not negotiable instuments until presentment when they are treated as bank drafts. So while Caesars clearly has a criminal case in NV, under CA bankruptcy law, they probably do not a valid claim.

You think that there isn't a casino host at the Bellagio who didn't spend all day today on the phone. "Hey, do you have any of those 25k chips? Well, you're going to need to cash them by April 22nd. When can you fly in, we'll comp your room." Then when they get here, it's, "You're already here, rather than head to the cage why not just play with those chips, we'll give you good chips back." This isn't a response to a crime; it's a marketing bonanza.

NVFisherman, it's UNLV, not Yale. It's the 78th best law school in the country. At that level, you're talking warm bodies not bright lights of Jurisprudence. At least this guy has some practical engineering skills. I'm wondering why he's slumming it at Boyd instead of going someplace better.

Sarge, My FL Bar # is 68749. Once you pass the bar, come back and explain the law to me. If the use was non-commercial and properly attributed, fair use is a rebuttable presumption. However, that's not what you said. You said the Sun "has no claim of copyright for its own articles." Fair use does not address the right, it is a defense against damages for violating the right. And now, I am telling you your opinion, Sargeant.

Sgt. Rock, you need to stick to things you actually know about like, well I'm sure there is something. All this case says is that the right to reproduce in limited distribution for educational or informational purposes is protected. It has nothing to do with ownership of a copyright. I'm sure you have heard this before, but the next time I want to hear the opinion of a know-nothing NCO, I'll tell it to him.

Patrick, you obviously have never studied statistics or even basic math. If we attribute a 95% confidence interval, there is a 1 in 160,000 chance that 4 of 12 results fell outside that confidence interval without bias just from multiplying .05^4. The actual probability is lower for a number of reasons, but it is a good starting point. You are 25.6 times more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime than that happening, and you think that there is nothing wrong with those results. That's some Lloyd Christmas "So you're saying I have a chance" positivity there, Patrick.