By now you may know the RJ, through its parent company and a copyright protection LLC has sued the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada for copyright infringement.

Righthaven LLC has also sued a sports booster website for Texas Christian University, a Henderson-based Realtor and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

We'll get to the RJ's new business model in a second.

But first, we have to ask why the RJ hasn't sued those on the right side of the aisle who have been just as willing to post Review-Journal articles.

First a quick refresher course in fair use. Typically, if you're commenting on an article and provide a link to it, that's fine. Typically, if you excerpt portions of the article (not surpassing 25 percent) that's fine.

Again, I say, typically.

But there's nothing typical about starting a discussion about fair use with a federal court lawsuit seeking to take away the web domain of the organization that purportedly didn't use your stuff fairly.

It would seem this is the dying newspaper's new media business model. While most newspapers are trying to adapt to the Internet, the RJ continues to view any use of its material as illegal. And in an era where advertisers aren't coming back to the RJ's detritus and where subscribers can't even get through the right-wing pablum, this appears to be the paper's new business model.

But clearly this isn't a very rigorous model. The RJ isn't really patrolling the Internets for fair use violators. Or is it?

We found five posts this morning on Danny Tarkanian's  http://www.tark2010.org website.

Here they are:

http://www.tark2010.org/news/tarkanians-run-for-senate-same-as-his-run-for-rebels

http://www.tark2010.org/articles/candidate-vows-vote-by-state-on-healthcare

http://www.tark2010.org/articles/tarkanian-leaps-into-healthcare-fray

http://www.tark2010.org/articles/tarkanian-aims-to-use-internet-for-fundraising

http://www.tark2010.org/articles/polls-show-gop-challenger-would-beat-reid

And you can argue the main function of Tark's website is to raise money.

We also happen to know that the RJ has specifically warned one local candidate to take down posts on his website. This candidate is a longtime Republican whose past libertarian streak has been very warmly received by the RJ's editorial board. No suit there.

Clearly the RJ is within its legal rights to sue PLAN and NORML and http://www.killerfrogs.com

But it also was within its legal rights to start the discussion the same way it did with the aforementioned past Republican office holder who's on the ballot this year. It's clearly normal practice to issue a "take down" letter.

But clearly since Righthaven hasn't sued Little Tark, we must wonder why.

Is it because Tarkanian is in position to be the GOP nominee to run against the paper's number one target -- Harry Reid?

Is it simply because Tarkanian is a Republican? Is it because the RJ's Editor Thomas Mitchell is always arguing the absolute extremism with respect to the First Amendment and political speech?

Or is it because Tarkanian has already won a libel suit and has shown that his past political strategy, at least, was to go to court?

Here's an independent look at RightHaven LLC.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/16/3-copyright-suits-filed-over-r-j-stories-web-sites/

So Righthaven also sued the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW, if you've just joined us, is largely responsible for the current legal mess Sen. John Ensign is in. CREW filed the complaints against Ensign that led to the sweeping investigation into the Republican senator's alleged misuse of his office.

CREW was never told to take down an RJ story. The ED Melanie Sloan said she was surprised the paper didn't notify her it had a problem with her use of their stories.

"Sloan also said it was troubling that CREW was sued by Righthaven, as opposed to being sued by the Review-Journal, because she said it appears that Righthaven was assigned copyrights by the Review-Journal so Righthaven could operate as a money-making venture suing alleged copyright infringers," according to Steve Green's story in the Sun.

Clearly this is a money-making strategy for the paper, which is still clinging to its 18th-century business model.

But how are the Review-Journal's reporters supposed to now fairly cover the groups this LLC has sued?

How can Hubble Smith quote any Realtors without first vetting the Realtors' website through his corporate attorney?

How can Steve Tetreault write any Ensign story without disclosing that his corporate-owned LLC has sued CREW?

How can any of the sports writers mention anything to do with boosterism, fans and sports without thoroughly checking the Web.

How will any of the RJ's political scribes cover the marijuana initiative this fall?

And how can Henry Brean continue his excellent chronicling of the water pipeline saga without even mentioning PLAN -- the pipeline's most pronounced critic?

The suit over the Ensign story stinks of political favoritism, just as the failure to sue Danny Tarkanian does.

But the PLAN suit is beyong the pale.

For 15 years, PLAN has been the only independent progressive voice in this state. Often PLAN's vision has come squarely at odds with that of the RJ's editorial page.

If the RJ didn't view this LLC as its dying gasp for revenue, it might have just picked up the phone and had its corporate counsel send PLAN a letter to take down the stories.

That's what major corporations that aren't biased do.

The RJ just sues, hoping maybe this can pad Sherm's CEO compensation.

Simply put, this puts the RJ's reporters and photographers in a serious conflict with just about everything they cover.

That's not fair to Brean, who's the only journalist in the state who's actually provided a chronicle of the pipeline.

If Righthaven were around in the early 1970s, it would have been illegal for anyone in this country to photocopy the Washington Post's stories about Watergate. We're not suggesting the pipeline is Watergate (although some of friends view it that way), but simply put, Brean's stories are THE public record.

And we find nothing unfair about anyone learning about the issue by reading his work.

PLAN clearly isn't making money off of the RJ's stories. PLAN is simply helping people understand the issue.

The Nevada Policy Research Institute devotes plenty of space on its website to RJ stories. Not sued.

And no summons here.

Yet.

The suit seeks unspecified damages. But in a federal court case with an LLC that's clearly designed to make money for the paper, even small damages could bankrupt a non-profit.

Maybe Sherm made a deal with Mining Inc. Something like this -- Sherm takes out PLAN and mining lobbies alongside the Nevada Press Association to try to keep the RJ's numerous sales tax deduction and the sales tax deduction on newspapers. Maybe mining throws in the opposition to the bill that will end publication of the Assessor's rolls (a lucrative business venture for the RJ at taxpayer expense).

But Righthaven must have looked at PLAN's 990s and learned there ain't much cash to grab in this suit. So Righthaven is going after PLAN's web domain.

Assume you're killerfrogs.com and you love TCU sports. You'd pay a pretty penny for that domain.

Suppose you're PLAN and you've had your site forever. You'd want to keep it.

The RJ's new business model is a disgusting affront to the public's right to know. It will have a chilling effect on newsgathering. It will further diminish the Fourth Estate's role in Nevada public policy. And it will only swiften the public's mistrust of the Review-Journal.