The Las Vegas Sun, which has developed a weird preoccupation with following the Las Vegas Review-Journal's attempts to protect its copyrighted news content, writes this in a recent story:
"The plaintiff's conduct the judge referred to, according to the Lewis and Roca attorneys, is that: 'The Las Vegas Review-Journal offered the allegedly infringed work (story) to the world for free when it was originally published. It encouraged people to save links to the work or to send links to the work to others anywhere in the world at no cost and without restriction. The Las Vegas Review-Journal website also enables third parties to 'right click' and copy the text of articles on the site. Accordingly, based on this implied license, the allegedly infringing copy was, in fact, authorized by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and therefore, is not an infringement.'"
If copyright means anything in this country (and it does as it is in our Constitution) it's an argument that won't hold water, if I do say so myself. But that's not my point.
My point, which goes oddly undisclosed in the Sun stories, is that Lewis and Roca is the Sun's attorney. The Sun also offers it's copyrighted work "to the world for free" and encourages readers save or send the work. Yet, the Sun says it protects its copyrighted material by sending letters to people who infringe upon their copyright and if the infringement doesn't stop, they sue the copyright violator.
So here's my little question: Do they use Lewis and Roca?