And that is the problem in a nutshell- it takes a lot of money to even try to stop this sort of thing. I do hope someone, somewhere does put up the money to take this issue all the way- I do think it could be stopped.
I am not a Supreme Court justice- but I see posting articles on the internet for discussion as no different than folks sharing the morning paper and discussing articles in a coffee shop. I also do not see why any news organization would not want their work distributed. In the real world, not everyone that reads a paper or magazine paid to read it, and certainly not everyone that discusses an article pays for the right. It doesn't make sense to me at all.
I can see a ban on full articles. It negates the reason for a reader to go to their site and them getting paid by the ads. That impacts the market for the articles, so is probably infringement.
But if fair use were respected, FR simply requring that all non-free sources be excerpted (say max 25% of the article, 200 or so words) should be protection enough. We’d actually be a traffic driver, so infringement cases (could FR afford them) would probably go in our favor.
I see posting articles on the internet for discussion as no different than folks sharing the morning paper and discussing articles in a coffee shop. I also do not see why any news organization would not want their work distributed.
Exactly!
Desperate people do desperate things, and indications are that AP is getting desperate.