Thread: Righthaven Blocker
#1 Righthaven Blocker09-01-2010, 10:31 PM
Righthaven is back in the news strong-arming Sweetness And Light. We need to make sure they don't develop an interest in us.
The easiest way to prevent that is for everybody here to block all Righthaven publications so they don't accidentally post any excerpts on CU.
If you use Firefox, here's how:
Download the Add-On called Site Blocker for Firefox (kick the dude a couple of bucks since he's a major Internet Warrior).
Copy this list to your notepad:
Go back to Site Block and Import the list. Make sure everything is enabled and make sure the Blacklist radio button is ON.
Do Okay and restart Firefox. You should get a notice that these sites are blocked when you try to enter the site.
There are other solutions for other browsers but you need to research that yourself.
If anybody runs across any new Righthaven publications, PM me and I'll add it to the list along with an "updated" message in this post. ;)
Last edited by Gingersnap; 09-01-2010 at 11:56 PM.
09-01-2010, 11:01 PM
I did not know what Righthaven was, so googled it.
Here's a link I saw, where it was being discussed in another forum.
Aparently the guy that runs Righthaven has ties to Obama sounds like.
09-01-2010, 11:54 PM
Righthaven’s Business Model
They pretty much admit it. Here’s the Wired article speaking about how they are pretty much buying up newspaper content in order to sue bloggers:
Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to compel quick settlements. Since Righthaven’s formation in March, the company has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers who’ve re-posted articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, his first client.
Wired notes that the Recording Industry Association of America tried a similar tactic, and did not reap the rewards they had hoped. If you look at their business model, it breaks down if people stand up to them. The amounts they can reasonably claim are much smaller than what RIAA or the MPAA could claim. If 1000 people download a movie from you, that’s 20,000 dollars in damages. But what is the amount of money a paper makes off a single article in advertising? The amount for a few months can’t be more than a couple of hundred bucks for a really popular article.
Any newspaper adopting this tactic is going to lose out. If Stevens Media is really serious about cozying up to Righthaven, then fine — I already have Bitter searching through my archives to ensure that any links to their papers are removed, and I will blacklist them for the future. The Internet doesn’t work this way, guys. You have a right to protect your copyrights, and to prevent verbatim reproduction of your work, but one should do that with an strong eye toward fair-use, toward treating bloggers as reasonable people who don’t want to abuse someone’s copyright, and with an even stronger eye toward the PR implications of being bozos. In most cases, the minor amount you’re losing from advertising isn’t worth destroying good will among a community that’s capable of sending significant traffic, and thus advertising revenue, your way."What this country needs are more unemployed politicians."
"Liberals are the type of people who go on safari and wonder why they can't get out and pet the lions..."- warpig
09-02-2010, 12:18 AM
It's blocksite - here's the link - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...rc=addondetailStand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
09-02-2010, 12:28 AM
OK - I did it. It works.Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|