Replies

It isn't the non-profit status that would be lost by charging fees or accepting ad revenue; it's the fair use claim under which full text articles from other sites are posted here. We cannot use those articles as a lure to a site which is charging fees or bringing in ad revenue.

I wasn't aware of that restriction and it does throw a wrench into my thought processes re: subscriptions. Look, I think people will step up to the plate with the donations. That's not the issue. The larger problem remains, that continuing down the current path is IMHO (and I'm not a lawyer, just a pretty savvy guy who's been around) an invitation for trouble. And on that point, I think I'm gonna cease my thinking out loud here in public, lest I give ideas to the enemies that they don't already have.

MM

"[I]t's the fair use claim under which full text articles from other sites are posted here. We cannot use those articles as a lure to a site which is charging fees or bringing in ad revenue."

First, profit motive is just part of the "purpose" factor from the four-point fair use checklist. It's important, yes, but it is by no means the be-all and end-all you make it out to be.

Second, the lack of a payment enforcement mechanism is not the same thing as the lack of a profit motive. Consider a busker standing on a street corner playing Britney Spears songs in front of an open guitar case: Just because he can't force his audience to pay doesn't mean he lacks a profit motive, and he can most definitely be sued for copyright violation. The current FR business model is identical to busking, and enjoys no special copyright exemption.

Third, to whatever extent this concern is valid, it can be handled easily: Charge for the right to post, not the right to view. Then the articles cannot be considered a "lure" for anything.