Its been that way for years. The only thing I can surmise is that they don't generate enough traffic and they aren't a 'threat', whatever that may mean.
What I'd like to know is how they get away with nit picking who they go after. Shouldn't all sites have to follow the same laws if there is a violation involved. Some shouldn't be allowed to get away with something that others can't. Equal protection and all that.
My other question is, how is posting articles and or excerpts for others to see/read any different than the person that buys a newspaper, then leaves it in a restaurant for other customers to see/read the rest of the day?
A link to their site certainly should not be any type of violation, so I'm not sure what their problem is.
Drudge is a major internet site, and he does nothing BUT link published articles, while displaying ads to pay the bills.
As far as I know, you can do the same on Facebook, and those pages all have advertising embedded.
Sites like CoastToCoastAM embed linked articles on their site, and they have banner advertising on every page.
These are all huge sites on the internet, and somehow, they seem to be getting along just fine with that combination.
Call me dense, but I just don't see what makes FR so different, that it couldn't use the same business model (aside from Jim Rob's stated reasons for not doing so).
...how is posting articles and or excerpts for others to see/read any different than the person that buys a newspaper, then leaves it in a restaurant for other customers to see/read?
It's not.
It's also struck me as odd that anyone would take issue with others posting links back to the original source page of a published work. Most points of origin on the net are commercial in nature, and host advertisers. One would think that those sites that host these articles would be thrilled with the increased viewership.