Anyone who has followed the Las Vegas newspaper battle knows the Las Vegas Sun has kept a close eye on the Las Vegas Review-Journal, notably the latter's hard-line search for alleged copyright scofflaws.

Utilizing its partner Righthaven LLC, the Review-Journal has made a side business out of going after the smallest websites that repurpose R-J material and slapping them with lawsuits, often without preliminary requests to remove items.

Sun Scribe Steve Green lays out some explanation as to why the story is getting heavy attention, noting some of the feedback it has sparked from fans and foes alike:

Some commentators are wondering why the Las Vegas Sun, and our sister publication In Business Las Vegas, have published so many stories about the Las Vegas Review-Journal/Righthaven LLC copyright infringement lawsuit campaign.

Are we covering the R-J/Righthaven lawsuits, which through Monday totaled 107 complaints against defendants throughout the United States and Canada, because they involve our competitor?

Because we've reported criticism of Righthaven by defense attorneys and others, do the Sun and In Business condone and encourage copyright infringement?

And as I've been the writer of most of these stories, one reader said it appears I'm “outraged” by Righthaven and asked me if that was the case.

These are legitimate questions and we're happy to address them.

He then takes clear aim at the Review-Journal, noting that his company does not need to offer such heavy legal action to protect its material:

It doesn't require an army of attorneys, editors or even secretaries to enforce our policy. When we learn of an infringement, an editor usually takes care of it with a quick e-mail. Of course, we sometimes send a stern warning from our attorney. Simply put, we don't condone copyright infringement and our method of dealing with it has worked fine for us.

Granted, we're not out aggressively searching for past copyright infringements and if we did, no doubt we'd find thousands. Frankly, we're too busy with other things, like covering the news.

I can't speak for the Review-Journal and its efforts prior to March to deal with unauthorized use of its material online. Several people have told us that since they re-posted R-J material online for years without hearing objections from the R-J, they felt the R-J must have been OK with it. This is an argument frequently made by longtime news sources that provide information to the R-J, which results in R-J stories about themselves or their clients.