[Dominic Harr]

To the best of my knowledge, FR's use of copyrighted material falls under "fair use", and is generally only excerpted when copyright issues are involved and links to the source are provided.

I believe 90% of material posted here is copyrighted -- and we need to 'excerpt' because FR has already been sued under the basis that this is not 'fair use'.

I don't know the whole ruling, but this does sound like exactly the same thing. They swap music files, we swap news stories.

The whole question now will be what 'evidence' does the court consider proof of 'intent'.

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[CedarDave]

"Fair use" with regard to print media involves commenting, including political commentary, on the content of an article, even one copyrighted. The copyright act allows use of articles for that purpose. The problem FR had was posting articles in their entirety for this purpose. Jim solved that by requiring excerpts only be posted for publications that complained to him, and the court approved that to settle the Washington Post/LA times lawsuit.

This use is completely different than downloading music or videos without paying for it. I'd be hard pressed to defend that practice under any reading of "fair use".

However, the problem with excerpts is that the entirety of the original article can later be removed or altered by the originating publication and you can't prove otherwise without some reference to the orginal, though Lexus-Nexius (sp) may provide the orginal with a fee.

[SOSCEO]

They swap music files, we swap news stories

Yes, I agree that in theory the two are similar but only in that they are machine readable "files". Music files however, are created from something that was initially purchased legally in some way pursuant to basic "shrink wrap" licensing restrictions.

Now if FR scanned entire newspaper or magazine articles and posted the actual scans on line, the intent would be to deny the newspaper sales of physical units because you could get them for free. The courts ruling focuses on intent, and if anything FR, Drudge and others respect this already. For example, if the NYT wants you to register to see the content, FR does not provide a way around this. It may show an excerpt of a headline or paragraph from the NYT, but if you want to read the whole story, you have to register.