[kjam22]

So you cut and paste one of their articles into an email. You email it to someone you know (can you say 2nd screen name). Who posts it as an email that they received over the net. No link, nada. How could any court expect Jim or any any other similar operator to know that this article came from a Gannett web site?

[Cold Heat]

I do see how they could do it. Law suits are expensive to defend against.

They just file them and Jim has to defend.

What I think they cannot do is sue if someone paraphrases the article in a reply and gives no title or attribution.

Since no names are mentioned, a judge is not likely to accept a case that someone read a article and then talked to someone else about it via cut and paste.

We do this all the time, but it sure would complicate matters as far as search and duplicates.

This prohibition on excerpts needs to go to federal court for a judgment.

Perhaps we can begin a special legal fund and build it up over time to bring this to court.

The prohibition basically turns us into a chat room, and they know it.

[Quix]

I think we have to be scrupulously careful.

These kommie idiots are rabid.

And I wouldn't want to even accidentally bring

ANY

hassle down on Jim.

--or FR.

[Sir Gawain]

So you cut and paste one of their articles into an email. You email it to someone you know (can you say 2nd screen name). Who posts it as an email that they received over the net. No link, nada. How could any court expect Jim or any any other similar operator to know that this article came from a Gannett web site?

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