Attorney Uses Copyright To Attack Unflattering Web Post

The site in question, Ripoff Report (www.ripoffreport.com), touts itself as a venue for consumer advocacy ' “a nationwide consumer reporting news agency.” It posts reports about businesses, government agencies and individuals. Goren's lawsuit claims that Xcentric encourages targets of negative postings to pay money to join a “corporate advocacy program” to restore their reputations.

Goren first filed a Massachusetts Superior court case, Goren v. Doe, last November against a defendant who posted a negative report about him on the Ripoff Report. The defendant was identified by various names ' John Doe dba Arabianights-Boston, Mass., and Steven DuPont.

Goren obtained a series of orders from three state Superior Court judges, including a default judgment and permanent injunction in March. He then asked to be assigned the copyright “to achieve the purpose of the default judgment” ' that is, to stop the republishing of the negative posting.

Justice Garry Inge wrote in May that he was satisfied that continued republication of the material “presents a continuing threat of irreparable harm.” He named Goren attorney-in-fact and copyright owner with the power “to take all steps and action necessary or appropriate in the name and place” of the defendant to get the report taken down.

Thus armed, he went into federal court. “In violation of plaintiffs' copyright defendant has engaged in intentional conduct in Massachusetts calculated to cause harm to the Massachusetts plaintiffs by continuing to publish via its website to Massachusetts residents materials adjudged libelous to the individual plaintiff,” his federal complaint alleges.

He seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and attorneys fees.

The Ripoff Report did not respond to requests for comment.

Sheri Qualters writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Federal law grants website operators immunity from defamation claims for third-party posts, so Boston lawyer Richard Goren used copyright law to go after a site's parent company over a negative posting.

It worked. Goren has persuaded the Massachusetts trial courts to assign him the copyright to the disputed material.And on July 16, he went to federal court accusing the website of violating his copyright. The case is Small Justice LLC v. Xcentric Ventures (see the complaint at http://bit.ly/17pRDjP).

He says it was the only way he could win recourse in light of the Communications Decency Act's (CDA), 47 U.S.C. '230, grant of immunity for website operators: “I now own the publication that defamed me. I won a court order that they take it down. Nobody that I have ever heard of or read about has done this before, but I think it will work.”

The site in question, Ripoff Report (www.ripoffreport.com), touts itself as a venue for consumer advocacy ' “a nationwide consumer reporting news agency.” It posts reports about businesses, government agencies and individuals. Goren's lawsuit claims that Xcentric encourages targets of negative postings to pay money to join a “corporate advocacy program” to restore their reputations.

Goren first filed a Massachusetts Superior court case, Goren v. Doe, last November against a defendant who posted a negative report about him on the Ripoff Report. The defendant was identified by various names ' John Doe dba Arabianights-Boston, Mass., and Steven DuPont.

Goren obtained a series of orders from three state Superior Court judges, including a default judgment and permanent injunction in March. He then asked to be assigned the copyright “to achieve the purpose of the default judgment” ' that is, to stop the republishing of the negative posting.

Justice Garry Inge wrote in May that he was satisfied that continued republication of the material “presents a continuing threat of irreparable harm.” He named Goren attorney-in-fact and copyright owner with the power “to take all steps and action necessary or appropriate in the name and place” of the defendant to get the report taken down.

Thus armed, he went into federal court. “In violation of plaintiffs' copyright defendant has engaged in intentional conduct in Massachusetts calculated to cause harm to the Massachusetts plaintiffs by continuing to publish via its website to Massachusetts residents materials adjudged libelous to the individual plaintiff,” his federal complaint alleges.

He seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and attorneys fees.

The Ripoff Report did not respond to requests for comment.

Sheri Qualters writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM affiliate of Internet Law & Strategy. She can be contacted at [email protected].