Leif Reid Affidavit
Sun Publisher and Editor Brian Greenspun today sued Stephens Media, owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, in an effort to derail Stephens’ proposal to dissolve a long-standing business agreement in which it prints and distributes the Sun and shares advertising revenues with the Sun. The agreement, known as a Joint Operating Agreement, was sanctioned by the Justice Department in 1989 to ensure that Las Vegas would have two independent newspapers with differing editorial points of view. In a deal reached in recent weeks between Stephens Media and three of the four Greenspun siblings, the family would agree to terminate the JOA agreement — unburdening Stephens from printing and distributing the Sun — in exchange for Stephens giving the family ownership of the URL lasvegas.com, according to court papers filed in support of Brian Greenspun’s lawsuit. The Sun was founded in 1950 by Hank and Barbara Greenspun, the parents of Brian Greenspun. Brian Greenspun said the Joint Operating Agreement ensures a mix of editorial voices in a community that demands it. Brian Greenspun’s lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order and an injunction to halt the severing of the business agreement. "The marketplace of ideas is as important to the United States as the marketplace of business," Leif Reid, one of Brian Greenspun's attorneys, said in a statement. "This is an effort to suppress both by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Review-Journal is attempting to eliminate the Las Vegas Sun's alternative editorial voice — not just in print, but also on the Internet. Paying to eliminate a competitor is clearly monopolistic and illegal. "
Brian Greenspun also is represented by San Francisco attorney Joseph Alioto, who specializes in antitrust and JOA issues. "We consider there to be a substantial likelihood of success in light of the law, the facts of this case and the efforts of the Review-Journal to establish a monopoly in Las Vegas," Alioto said in a phone interview with the Sun. Review-Journal Publisher Bob Brown, reached this afternoon, declined to comment. The Sun signed the Joint Operating Agreement with Donrey of Nevada, Inc., then owner of the Review-Journal, "because the Las Vegas Sun was routinely unprofitable and operated at a substantial loss," the complaint says. The agreement required the Review-Journal to print the Sun and handle all advertising operation for both publications, eliminating all of the Sun's significant expenses. The Sun has not been in control of its print revenues since 1989. In 2005, Brian Greenspun renegotiated the 1989 agreement, making the paper more profitable. The Sun receives an annual profits payment of $1.3 million. The current agreement is set to expire Dec. 31, 2040, renewing itself for succeeding periods of 10 years. On June 23, 2013, Stephens Media said it would transfer the URL lasvegas.com to the Greenspun family in exchange for the family agreeing to dissolve the joint operating pact and relinquishing to Stephens Media the URL of the Las Vegas Sun's website (lasvegassun.com), effective Sept. 1, 2013. The Greenspun family had been paying an average annual fee of $2.5 million to Stephens Media for the use of the lasvegas.com URL. Stephens Media also requested that Susan Fine, Janie Gale, Danny Greenspun and Brian Greenspun enter into a five-year noncompete agreement, in which every sibling would be paid $25,000 for staying out of the news business. Fine, Danny Greenspun and Gale said they would be interested in terminating the agreement. In court documents, Brian Greenspun said ending the business agreement would violate state and federal antitrust laws and threaten the Sun's existence. "The termination of the 2005 JOA will substantially lessen competition in the local newspaper market in the Las Vegas area by giving the LVRJ a monopoly in the Las Vegas local newspaper and newspaper website market," the complaint says. "The termination of the 2005 JOA, and impending closure of the Las Vegas Sun and its website, will have adverse effects on competition by, among other things, reducing output (both quantity and quality) of newspapers, increasing subscribers' costs to purchase a newspaper, and reducing the opportunities available for online advertisers. "


Sun Publisher Greenspun sues to block R-J from gaining newspaper monopoly

Arkansas Politics Pssst ... Arkansas has a new voter ID law
Posted          By Max Brantley on Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:17 AM
NO BUDGET FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION; Secretary of State Mark Martin will make do with existing staff to inform public about Voter ID law. John Lyon at Stephens Media assesses preparation by the secretary of state's office to get the word out about the Republican Voter ID law, a cookie cutter version of a national Republican initiative aimed at depressing voting among traditional Democratic constituencies. Bottom line: Not a single dollar was appropriated for a public education campaign on the new law. Mark Martin's office will get the word out through its existing crack staff and budget (surely already working at peak efficiency, right? ) by speaking to Kiwanis Clubs and using social media and stuff. By contrast, Missouri spent $2.2 million and Minnesota $2.7 million on public education about the new mandatory requirement of formal photo ID to vote, the article says. Sen. Bryan King, the sponsor of this vote suppression legislation, thinks it's enough to say someone without ID can still file a challenged ballot. But that ballot won't be counted unless the voter can get the time off work, muster carfare and obtain an ID they may not possess because they don't have a driver's license — and then present the ID to election officials before votes are certified. It's a real impediment and studies elsewhere have found it has meaningful impact, not to mention adding an unconstitutional requirement and cost to cast a ballot in Arkansas. Older, poorer voters will be primary victims. ( Checkout the cumbersome new process here. )
The ACLU says a lawsuit is still planned. The plain language of the Arkansas Constitution demands it. Qualifications of electors
Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any person may vote in an election in this state who is:
(1) A citizen of the United States;
(2) A resident of the State of Arkansas;
(3) At least eighteen (18) years of age; and (4) Lawfully registered to vote in the election. Right of suffrage. Elections shall be free and equal. No power, civil or military, shall ever interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage; nor shall any law be enacted whereby such right shall be impaired or forfeited, except for the commission of a felony, upon lawful conviction thereof. What part of "free" and no right "shall be impaired" don't the Republicans understand? RELATED: The New York Times today examine s at some length the major equal rights cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, including the fate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The voting rights case isn't directly relevant to the Arkansas Voter ID law, but a graphic with the article illustrates how it is only the latest example of Arkansas's generally sorry record on protecting and encouraging voting. Arkansas: 1) Has low voter turnout relative to the rest of the country; 2) is one of the five worst states in the country when it comes to the registration gap between white and black voters; 3) is one of the eight worst states in terms of the number of cases the state has lost when suits were brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; 4) is among the 12 states with the worst record on voter discrimination suits; 5) in a national survey ranked among the 11 "most prejudiced' states. Republicans only enhance this record by making it harder for poor people (with their disproportionate racial makeup) to vote. NY Times
REGISTRATION DISPARITY: Arkansas is among a handful of states with at least a 5 percentage point gap in white and black voter registration.


Pssst ... Arkansas has a new voter ID law

from the good-and-bad dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but in Righthaven's big appeal concerning the key issue over which it lost all of its cases -- whether or not it had standing -- has resulted in yet another huge loss for Righthaven . The court basically agreed with every single other court that has ruled on this matter, noting that when Stephens Media "assigned" the copyrights to Righthaven, it really did no such thing. Instead, it merely assigned the bare right to sue, which you can't do under copyright law. Considering how some of our critics insisted that Righthaven would win this point on appeal, I'm curious to see how they respond. The court basically agreed with all of the points that a bunch of district court judges had all pointed out: the Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA) left all the power in the hands of Stephens, including ultimate control over every single one of the official rights associated with copyright law under section 106. Thus, it did not, in fact, assign the copyright, and Righthaven had no standing to sue. The SAA provided that Stephens Media automaticallyreceived an exclusive license in any copyrighted work itassigned to Righthaven, so that Stephens Media retained “theunfettered and exclusive ability” to exploit the copyrights.Righthaven, on the other hand, had “no right or license” toexploit the work or participate in any royalties associatedwith the exploitation of the work. The contracts leftRighthaven without any ability to reproduce the works,distribute them, or exploit any other exclusive right under theCopyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. Without any of thoserights, Righthaven was left only with the bare right to sue,which is insufficient for standing under the Copyright Actand Silvers. The appeals court walks through each one of Righthaven's attempts to get around this basic fact and shows how none are even remotely persuasive, because all ultimately show the same basic argument, which is that the copyright was assigned to Righthaven who then handed back an exclusive license to Stephens. The fact that Righthaven retained none of the key copyright rights shows that this was all a sham. Or, as the court notes, it "emphasizes form over substance. " The court also rejects Righthaven's claim that the agreement was later fixed, by pointing out that what matters is the standing at the time of the lawsuit. The ruling isn't all great, however. The court did overturn the part of the Hoehn ruling in which the court had said that his use of the Las Vegas Review-Journal article (even the entire article) was fair use. Basically, this is a bit of a procedural thing. Effectively, the court is saying that once the district court ruled that Righthaven had no standing, there are no other issues to rule on, so the fair use ruling is inappropriate. This was the part of the case that the RIAA, in particular, wanted thrown out, because it doesn't want any ruling on the books saying that using an entire work might be fair use. And, on this front, the RIAA got its wish. While the court doesn't say that the use was not fair use -- and in fact notes that "we understand why the district court reached the fair useissue" -- it also notes that, legally, the court really has no right to delve into that issue after it's decided that Righthaven has no standing. because we agree that Righthaven did nothave standing, it is not appropriate for us to go further or forthe district court’s alternative ruling to stand. We thereforevacate the portion of the district court’s order that analyzedthe merits of the fair use defense and granted the motion forsummary judgment. This is not a huge surprise, but it is unfortunate, because the original Hoehn ruling on fair use was a great example of how using an entire work can be fair use. There are other such cases, but losing one of those rulings is unfortunate. Either way, this should confirm that Righthaven is officially dead and buried. I can't see them appealing to the Supreme Court, though stranger things have happened (just like Prenda took over the mantle of absolutely crazy copyright trolling from Righthaven a long time ago).


Appeals Court Agrees That Righthaven's Copyright Assignment Was A Sham, But Tosses Key Fair Use Ruling

Posted          By Max Brantley on Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:01 AM
The news is slow today, but what bubbles up is mostly more potentially alarming legislative news. * SHYLOCKERY: Stephens Media reports that a Springdale Republican hasn't given up on a long quest to provide a renewed foothold for payday lenders in the state. * AIR AND WATER IN PERIL: I got a long and informed plea this morning from an environmental steward about HB 1929, which would gut water quality law in Arkansas, and SB 796, which would similarly wreck the state's efforts to regulate clean air. Both are technical issues, but both bills are primarily the work of the industrial polluters' lobby, the laughingly named Arkansas Environmental Federation. That the industry lobby is pushing these is all you need to know about whether they advance the cause of clean air and water. It's not like Arkansas is a zealous regulator in the first place. The judicial arm of environmental efforts, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, is packed with industry-friendly members, including a board member and legislative issues chairman of, who else, the Arkansas Environmental Federation. These issues are expected to come to a head Wednesday before the Senate Public Health Committee. Care about clean air and water? Join the meeting. Or get in touch with a committee member, shown here in a map provided by the Citizens First Congress. * RELIGION ESTABLISHMENT: Pending, along with dozens of other bits of wing nuttery this session, is a bill to prohibit the state from enforcing any rule that "burdens" the free exercise of religion. In short, if you declare that a state rule or law is a matter of religious faith to you, you need not comply. The hypotheticals are limitless, from condom and birth control sale to use of illicit drugs in religious ritual, with many more in between. (There seem to be some religions in Arkansas in which guns are near Holy Trinity stature. ) This is cookie cutter legislation from religion extremists. Happily, some politicians exist who won't be steamrollered. The Kentucky governor has vetoed similar legislation there because, among others, of fears that it would provide an opening for abridgement of civil rights. Equal rights for women and sexual minorities? That is contrary to some so-called religious teaching held dear in these parts. This roundup is, of course, merely stuff on the margins of greater debates with profound long-term consequences. Outlook: Gloomy.


Good morning — what's good about it?

Tweet on Twitter
REPORT FROM PACIFIC MEDIA WORKERS GUILD – The Hawaii Tribune-Herald announced on Wednesday that, starting in August, the Hilo newspaper will be printed by West Hawaii Today, a sister paper in Kailua-Kona, which will cause several layoffs. The Aug. 18 edition of the newspaper will be the last printed in Hilo, according to the company. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald and West Hawaii Today are owned by Stephens Media, a Las Vegas, Nev., based chain that operates newspapers in 10 states. 413N was informed on Wednesday that members will be laid off. The company explained that the decision to subcontract printing to West Hawaii Today was based on an assessment that the Hilo printing press is old and in need of repair. The company also cited the consolidation of printing operations as an industry trend nationally. Workers at West Hawaii Today are not represented by labor unions. In a staff memo on Wednesday, West Hawaii Today said the Hawaii Tribune-Herald would be printed at its plant and then transported back to Hilo for packaging and delivery. West Hawaii Today said it did not expect to hire additional press employees. At this time, the pressmens’ union said it is working out the details with Stephens Media and had no public comment. The Pacific Media Workers Guild, which represents truck drivers and support staff at the Hawaii Tribune-Herald who could be impacted by the company’s decision to subcontract printing, is closely monitoring negotiations between the company and the pressmens’ union. “We understand that our industry is facing financial pressure, but we believe the company owes its workers and the Hilo community a full explanation for this decision,” the guild said in a statement.


Pacific Media Workers Guild Comments on Hawaii Tribune-Herald&amp;#039;s Decision to Shut Down Its Printing Operations

Adicio develops interactive classified advertising software solutions for job boards, real estate, and automotive markets. It is based in Carlsbad, California.

Adicio

`` We are very pleased to continue our partnership with Stephens Media LLC and help them realize their strategic vision in digital publishing through our one-solution approach to simplifying classified advertising , '' said Rick Miller , CEO of Adicio Inc. .

Adicio - Stephens Media LLC Chooses Classifieds Software Leader Adicio to Power 10 Newspapers

Gannett (NYSE: GCI) is an international news and information company that publishes daily newspapers in the USA, including USA TODAY. The company also owns non-daily publications in the USA and USA WEEKEND, a weekly newspaper magazine. Gannett subsidiary Newsquest is a regional newspaper company in the United Kingdom. Newsquest publishes daily newspapers and a network of websites. Gannett also operates television stations in the United States and has sites sponsored by its TV stations and newspapers including USATODAY.com.

Gannett

Funding Date

Pre-Money Valuation

Post-Money Valuation

Amount Raised

Shares Authorized

Issuance Price

Dividend Rate

Liquidation Preferences

Liquidation Price

Participation

Conversion Price

Anti Dilution

General Voting

Board Voting

Par Value

@Ventures

BancBoston Capital

CIT Venture Capital

Cowen

Encompass Ventures

North Jersey Media Group

Pulitzer

Southeast Interactive Technology Funds

Stephens Media Group

Acquired

Stephens Media is a publisher of newspapers, magazines, specialty publications, websites and weeklies.

Name	Sherman Frederick
Work History
Title	Chief Executive Officer
Status	Current

Wells Fargo Success Story

Professional Services

Platform Overview

Stephens Media Group

Executives

Stephens Media Group Management Team

1 Team Member

This profile has not been claimed.

Discover the right solution for your team