Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

Note: Don't post anything at all from the Las Vegas Review Journal or anything from organizations run by Stevens Media, LLC or RightHaven, LLC until the lawsuit brought against us by them is resolved.

Here's an updated alphabetical list of the sites that have complained about copyright violations thus far. The posting program will only allow excerpts and or deny posting where designated from the following sites:

These sites must be excerpted and linked only [300 words or less, 1/2 the words or less for short articles]:

These publishers have asked us not to allow any material at all to be posted to FR:

Received another letter from Gannett Publications, publisher of USAToday, and several other newspapers. Due to contractual arrangements they have with third-party content providers, they have denied our request to allow posting of excerpts. They will only allow the posting of titles and links.

Please do not post full text or even excerpts from the following Gannett Web sites:

All material from the Associated Press must be excerpted regardless of source (very brief excerpts). AP photos are not allowed.

Photographs, pictures, images, graphs etc may not be posted if the websites are on the lists or added in any of the posts below.

Oh I am so sure none of this is personal! Nope, no politics involved at all! I canceled Vanity Fair magazine! I don't want their trash if this is the way they feel. I heard one of their main "journalists" Gail Sheehy on that antiwar radio station we have here bashing the war and the President last week!

And before everyone rushes off to check it out, studlife.com is a website about student life at Washington University in St Louis.

Of course I had to check:
Husband is a graduate of their medical school;
not that 'stud' and 'husband' can't compute.

I couldn't agree with you more. If they refuse us on copyright grounds, then every other discussion site should be held to the same standard.

It might also be a great argument for our side - if we do have to go back to court - which I'm sure will happen as long as we "draw breath" as a conservative website. Sorry Jim, but you have to admit FR is in their cross hairs.

They can't very well limit us without limiting all, can they?

There is something spooky about not being able to post the articles or even post links to some of the articles.

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing a link to their articles, even if they complain. To even suggest that, and I don't think any of them have, is legally absurd. Link all you want.

Well, what would happen if we linked to a liberal forum that had the article in question posted in its entirety? That would be amusing.

If I'm not mistaken, I think they're part of the LAT/WP empire.

A good amount of URLs on that list are under the LAT/WP umbrella. Newsday is one that I can remember as LAT owned.

I said it before, I'll go them one better and never go to their websites at all.

I know this is the hard way, but if I saw an important article at one of these places, I did a search and tried to find that article at it's original non banned source. It works sometimes as those people at the LAT/WP don't write everything.

You cannot prevent anyone from discussing articles by anyone.

There ARE legal definitions & restrictions for "Fair Use" and if those are followed, those "useful idiots" have no recourse in law - unless they have the ear of the 9th Circus Court, but who gives a damned about their opinions?

So someone doesn't like Freepers discussing their PUBLIC articles? Too ****** bad! We can, AND SHOULD, bring stupidity, immorality, and treasonous behaviors to light. We may not be allowed to quote extensively an article, but there is NO LEGAL BASIS to prevent a discussion - THAT is call our FIRST AMENDMENT!

Yeah, sometimes that works.
But ya gotta watch-out for the other way around as well.
As an example, just a week or two ago I excerpted an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (not normally required) because they had picked it up from the Washington Post (where it had originated).

Well, what would happen if we linked to a liberal forum that had the article in question posted in its entirety? That would be amusing.

IFRAMES!!

Things may get to the point where all that's practical is the link itself and a short precis of what's there. I don't think anyone could object to that!

Jim Rob's point is that even if we are still in the right, that won't stop them from constantly dragging him to court anyway. It's better just to avoid these people so they don't even have a basis for a legal complaint.

I'm wondering about how we can "blog" some of these articles where we don't link but retell and analyze what the person wrote, only in our own words. It will take some work, but I'm sure we would be kind to them. ( Ha Ha )

These publishers have asked us not to allow any material at all to be posted to FR:

americanpolitics.com
antiwar.com
eweek.com
extremetech.com
independent.co.uk
newyorker.com
pcmag.com
studlife.com
theonion.com
thetowntalk.com
universitystar.com
vanityfair.com
washingtondispatch.com

I will refer to this one as the Whaaaaa! List!

Sounds more like Cockroaches objecting to the light being turned on than anything else ---- but as you ask I'll try and follow. Bookmarked. Keep us informed when the next cockroach complains.

Ummmmm, ... wonder if Hannity, Rush, Laura Ingram, etc.... would like to know about this little bit and ask why other than "Copyright" reasons the cockroaches object?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.