Prev: Gallup/USA Today: Obama sinks to 41% approval
Next: Room Prices for March Madness
From: Steve Kucera on 4 Aug 2010 19:27
On 2010-08-04, Bill in Houston <bturk(a)REMOVEpdq.net> wrote:
> Righthaven's business model must be the sleaziest ever to spring from the
> mind of man. (Actually, I consider their CEO as a low-life weasel).
>
> I do not, cannot, and will never believe that a party's right to seek legal
> recourse for a wrong (perceived or other) is a commodity that can be bought
> and sold. But as is common, I am probably wrong. To that end:
>
> For Sale: My lifetime rights to sue anyone or any entity for any past or
> future actual or perceived 'wrong'. All for the paltry sum of $2,500,000.
> I'd rather retire than fight.
>
> Bill in Houston.
>

I met recently with some ad sales reps from the RJ and will be letting
them know that I have decided to not advertise with any of their
publications as long as this practice is taking place.

From: tom ronson on 4 Aug 2010 20:05
Bill in Houston wrote:
> Righthaven's business model must be the sleaziest ever to spring from the
> mind of man. (Actually, I consider their CEO as a low-life weasel).

I know two of these guys that are getting banged by this douche and
they're going to fight Righthaven to the fullest --- one of them is
actually being supported, on the QT, by a long time enemy of the RJ.

There are substantial holes in the (cough) process that Righthaven is
taking and they'll be pointed out in all their glory come judgment day.

Righthaven also faces a problem with the courts themselves (I think it's
article 11?) about not taking steps to remedy PRIOR to filing suit.

Annnnd to top it off the jag-off that Steve mentioned, Frederick, is a
hard line right wing guy who --- are you ready for this --- writes 4 or
15 columns a year about junk litigation and tort reform.

I don't think the model will be around for long tho.

--
�We wanted them (the media) to ask the questions we want to answer so
that they report the news the way we want it reported.� -- NV senatorial
candidate, Sharon Angle.


--tr
From: tom ronson on 4 Aug 2010 20:16
Steve Kucera wrote:

> I met recently with some ad sales reps from the RJ

yeah? did they give you a circ number or a rate card? you know it's a
felony to claim larger circ than you really have... and they're really,
really stretching their number.... if they told you over 170K for the RJ
they're lying --- and that includes over-print for newsstand.

> will be letting them know that I have decided to not advertise with any of their
> publications as long as this practice is taking place.

I hope you do ---- but the "management" there is so insulated from the
paper and its workings that Mitchel and Frederick won't hear about it
simply because it's "bad news". but hit them on it.

I've called a number of their advertisers to tell them about the
Righthaven angle and how this would lead to my not considering their
good and or service. I think they're hearing more of that since you even
hardly have to go much farther than using the word "Righthaven" to get a
sigh from the other end of the line.

They've left a few "free" papers in my driveway --- you know to fluff up
their circ numbers..... and everytime I make them come get their garbage
out of my driveway.

by the way --- Sharon Angle loves the RJ --- they ask the "right" kind
of questions. grrrrrrrrrrrr.

--
�We wanted them (the media) to ask the questions we want to answer so
that they report the news the way we want it reported.� -- NV senatorial
candidate, Sharon Angle.


--tr
From: Night Wheels on 4 Aug 2010 21:09
You should all be suing one another for including excerpts of each
others articles in your responses.

A*
From: Kurt Ullman on 4 Aug 2010 21:14
In article <7xm6o.57185$lS1.53024(a)newsfe12.iad>,
"Bill in Houston" <bturk(a)REMOVEpdq.net> wrote:

> Righthaven's business model must be the sleaziest ever to spring from the
> mind of man. (Actually, I consider their CEO as a low-life weasel).
>
> I do not, cannot, and will never believe that a party's right to seek legal
> recourse for a wrong (perceived or other) is a commodity that can be bought
> and sold. But as is common, I am probably wrong. To that end:

The right to seek legal recourse can always be bought and sold. The
copyright is the right that is being infringed and they have been bought
and sold forever. Heck look at all the hooha every few years about Rock
singers and their songs.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Gallup/USA Today: Obama sinks to 41% approval
Next: Room Prices for March Madness