List of Gannett publications that cannot be posted to Free Republic per their copyright complaint

To: Jim Robinson

Damn, I'm going to miss having the Weekly Reader articles to discuss.

301 posted on 05/09/2004 8:49:05 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (How can they call it a "Peace March" when they unconditionally support those who kill our soldiers?)

To: texasbluebell

But really paraphrase or people will get harrassed over it.

I can distill everything they print in their paper down to two words:

Bush sux.

302 posted on 05/09/2004 8:59:02 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")

To: FreedomCalls

LOL! Well, that certainly does simplify things!

303 posted on 05/09/2004 9:16:28 PM PDT by texasbluebell

And that's part of the problem - by failing to spell out significant "safe zones" for fair use (other than narrow categories such as performing songs in a religious service) the Congress gives the copyright battle to those who have the biggest legal war chests. Them who has, keeps, whether or not a theoretical Supreme Court decision would come down on their side.

Would it make sense for a FR committee to propose an amendment to the US copyright law to carve out a specific fair use safe zone for the kind of commentary that FR does. If there could be united lobbying of Congress about this matter, perhaps progress could be made.

304 posted on 05/09/2004 10:48:38 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck

I am totally confused about all of this..I guess if one might have a team of 600 money hungry folks working for him/her, he could probably get anything he/she wants.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

305 posted on 05/10/2004 7:28:06 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~; Jim Robinson

While I'm not trying to create work for those of you who devote your time and efforts to keep FR going, it would be edifying, to say the least, to know just how many of these Gannet publications endorsed Gore in 2000...

306 posted on 05/10/2004 9:51:19 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to propagate her genes.....any volunteers?)

To: Jim Robinson

If you had a Freepathon for just a new legal defense of the "fail use" clause of the copyright act, I would gladly contribute as much as I do to a regular Freepathon. I'm sure others would, too.

307 posted on 05/10/2004 10:25:59 AM PDT by CedarDave (May God bless our brave sailors & all who have died serving our country, and comfort their families)

Oh that is another great question! My problem is I have no idea how to find out something like that in the least amount of time..yet. The list of publications that have had complaints about FR has increased since the beginning..or so it appears. Did you see the article about hillary?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1131180/posts

Hillary's Secret War (FPM--FreeRepublic Prominently Mentioned)

"...According to the Washington Weekly, the attack on FreeRepublic was coordinated by Debevoise & Plimpton – a law firm used by the Clintons and the Democratic National Committee...."

308 posted on 05/10/2004 10:35:39 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~

It'd be a big, and tedious research project..Mybe when folks get suspend, they can get re-instated faster if they helped wih the research..and it IS a fascinating question, eh?

309 posted on 05/10/2004 10:41:56 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to propagate her genes.....any volunteers?)

Indeed it is fascinating! Can you imagine how the information can utilized!? Oh it would be awesome... I love the idea of making those of us who get banned for suspended do a little work... although some don't deserve to get banned or suspended. So....

310 posted on 05/10/2004 10:47:10 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)

Another thing to think about....for those of us who can't make regular donations....like me. We can definitely make donations of our time in someway.

Many of us don't want to reveal personal info..but researching wouldn't reveal that.

311 posted on 05/10/2004 10:51:06 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8 (Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)

I never have figured out where the rules are posted. I know there was another prohibited list posted a while back but it seems to have disappeared.

When you find one of these posts, select "Bookmark" just below the article and it will lead you through prompts to place the thread's link on your Free Republic home page under "Links." Then you can find it whenever you like. You can also rename the thread before it's saved if it will help you ID it later.

312 posted on 05/10/2004 12:35:33 PM PDT by GretchenM ("The democrats would rather win the White House than the war." - Tom DeLay)

To: Jim Robinson

How can we find out what publications must be excerpted? I just posted an item from the NYSE broadtape and it was pulled.

313 posted on 05/10/2004 12:53:21 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (Must get moose and squirrel ... B. Badanov)

To: texasbluebell

If we don't link to them, honestly how are they ever going to know? Just paraphrase their stupid stories, and don't attribute.

Obviously they have had an eye on FR. Can't see why they wouldn't check back from time to time. JimRob should be free of legal hassles over this. The moderators are going to have their hands full trying to keep Gannett's alligators in their swamps.

314 posted on 05/10/2004 12:59:02 PM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)

To: Sir Gawain; kjam22

Yep. Cite source as "email" and author "unknown". What can they do about it?

One of the most attractive elements of FR is being able to go to the source and get the "news" verbatim. When we lose that, we deteriorate into a malapropos, chimeric state with hazy, invalid recollections, followed by FR deteriorating into a rumor mill whose main purpose is utterly defeated.

315 posted on 05/10/2004 1:05:22 PM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)

I've seen the term "blog", but in all seriousness...what is it?

In case not yet answered: it's a contraction for "web log" and includes one person's ideas / commentary / opinion and others can reply / interact.

316 posted on 05/10/2004 1:13:53 PM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)

To: singlemomofone; Jim Robinson

I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't compile a list of as many conservative news outlets/personalities as we can, and let them know about this. They love to let the world know about liberal media bias...

Seems like the Media Research Center might be interested in how the dice is being rolled.

317 posted on 05/10/2004 1:15:49 PM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)

Many articles have on them a direction to "e-mail this article to a friend." I suggest we e-mail ourselves important articles and store them in separate files.
In addition, we can paraphrase articles, keeping downloaded articles as proof if needed.

My thoughts precisely. If we don't keep these source materials (for the big stories) ourselves (unpublished online) for reference, the truth will never be provable in a clinch, or when memories fade. This site has some awfully decent, integral FReepers who are filled with integrity, and upon whom a lot of the work falls to find and post. It seems they will be called upon even more now.

318 posted on 05/10/2004 1:22:09 PM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)

Well, that's why I said to paraphrase.

We're all (even bad republicans) allowed to paraphrase anything our hearts' desire!

There's no need for a link, but yes, we should attribute it, if it's something that is unique to whatever site we're looking at. I shouldn't have said don't attribute.

But no need to link if it's a paraphrase.

I'm just pretty steamed about this. Especially since I found 2 articles posted _in full_ from sites we're not allowed to do the same from, the WaPo, and the LAT. One was at that chimp site, and the other at DUH. One didn't even have a link!

319 posted on 05/10/2004 1:24:11 PM PDT by texasbluebell

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~

I hadn't heard of googlecache. Looked it up and found this relevant 2003 tidbit.

http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html

Google cache raises copyright concerns

By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 9, 2003, 1:28 PM PT

Like other online publishers, The New York Times charges readers to access articles on its Web site. But why pay when you can use Google instead?

Through a caching feature on the popular Google search site, people can sometimes call up snapshots of archived stories at NYTimes.com and other registration-only sites. The practice has proved a boon for readers hoping to track down Web pages that are no longer accessible at the original source, for whatever reason. But the feature has recently been putting Google at odds with some unhappy publishers. ...

Google offers publishers a simple way to opt out of its temporary archive, and scuffles have yet to erupt into open warfare or lawsuits. Still, Google's cache links illustrate a slippery side of innovation on the Web, where cool new features that seem benign on the surface often carry unintended consequences. ...
At the heart of Google's caching dilemma lies a thorny legal problem involving a core Web technology: When is it acceptable to copy someone else's Web page, even temporarily? ...

Google's cache, a feature introduced in 1997, is unique among commercial search engines, but it's not unlike other archival sites on the Web that keep digital copies of Web pages. Google's relatively little-known feature lets people access a copy of almost any Web page, within Google's own site, in the form it was in whenever last indexed by the search giant. ...

Unlike formal Web archive projects, Google says its cache feature does not attempt to create a permanent historical record of the Web. ...

Still, Google's cached pages have proven to be a treasure trove for investigators seeking to recover data pulled from public Web sites. In one high-profile example, security and privacy expert Richard Smith copied Web pages detailing the backgrounds of Dr. John Poindexter, head of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office (IAO), and other officials, from the Google cache days after they were removed from the IAO Web site. The pages were deleted after public reports surfaced on the office's development of a massive computer system to spy on Americans and potential terrorists.

Lawyers, start your search engines

As seemingly benign and beneficial as it is, some Web site operators take issue with the feature and digitally prevent Google from recording their pages in full by adding special code to their sites. Among other arguments, they say that cached pages at Google have the potential to detour traffic from their own site, or, at worst, constitute trademark or copyright violations. In the case of an out-of-date news page in Google's cache, a Web publisher could even face legal troubles because of false data remaining on the Web but corrected at its own site.

For this reason, search experts and copyright lawyers expect the issue to come up in a court of law, joining the leagues of copyright disputes that have surfaced because of technology innovation.

"It's very much an issue that has yet to be tested, and I fully expect that it will be," said Danny Sullivan, industry pundit and editor of Search Engine Watch. ...

The average lifespan of a Web site is 100 days, according to estimates by the Internet Archive.

Still, copyright lawyers and industry experts say that there are legally uncharted waters around a commercial caching service.

"Many of us copyright lawyers have been waiting for this issue to come up: Google is making copies of all the Web sites they index and they're not asking permission," said Fred Lohman, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "From a strict copyright standpoint, it violates copyright." ...

Even Google says people only "occasionally" click its cached links. If more people did, Web publishers might lose visitors--and potentially advertising dollars, which no one can afford to lose as Web publishing gets back on its feet. ...

Web sites can "opt out," or include code in their pages that bars Google from caching the page. A tag to exclude "robots" such as "www.nytimes.com/robots.txt" or "NOARCHIVE" typically does the job. And that's largely what's kept the cache feature from being controversial.

... other lawyers argue that Google's practice would be protected by fair-use laws. A judge might look at the market impact of Google's caching and find that it's valuable, given that it could ultimately drive traffic to the cached site. Or the reverse could be true, depending on the nature of the page. ...

In contrast with the priorities of some news publishers, Web archivists say preserving pages as they first appeared can offer important documentary records for historians and others. ...

/ snip -- see link for further discussion of legal issues and courtroom drama

320 posted on 05/10/2004 2:06:07 PM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794