[Dominic Harr]

for those unfamilar with "fair use", do a Google search.

I don't understand something, apparently -- I thought that the Times case settlement was because it was clear that 'fair use' was not a defense in our case, hence the need to excerpt?

And that still doesn't address all the other entities we post from who haven't gotten around to suing us yet . . .

It seems this decision means we better start excerpting *everything*, or else. Am I wrong?

[CedarDave]

There were a couple of reasons FR did not prevail in the lawsuit, including one that FR was perceived (or was) a commercial for-profit entity at the time. Also, the court did not buy the argument that full-text copying was necessary for posterity. FR puts a magazine/newspaper on its excerpt only list if requested by them.

I just read the whole FR decision again. Give the tenor of the current court decision, I don't have a clue if we would win if we tried to fight excerpt prohibition. But the settlement with the LA Times is a good starting point that 300 words does not financially harm them.