Regarding the LAT/WP settlement negotiations

Joe, sometimes I wonder if actually try to understand what people mean when they reply to you, or, whether you just stick them in your back pocket and then whip the horse.

Of course somebody will sue FreeRepublic if they think they can get a few bucks out of it...

Allow me to repeat. Nobody is going to sue FR because they think they'll get a few bucks out of it. Any attorney will do his DD and find out it has little assets, no insurance and an unreliable income stream. They might sue, but it won't be for money.

BTW - If you're going to play the anal spell check monitor, I suggest doing your own DD, or maybe you can tell me what is wrong with my spelling of "because".

...or if they think they can get a little payback for some of the juvenile activities that have been borne of the forum.

Possible, but very unlikely. Once again, there is the spectre of not being able to collect on fines, much less attorneys fees. The win will be an expensive pyrrhic victory. Since there is no money to be had and FR is already excerpting and linking, what exactly would a "win" look like for them?

Hell, I recall back in December of 2000 that Al Gore actually called the Teamsters to show up and counter the demonstration out in front of his residence. Remember that? Do you think all is forgotten? Do you think that William Pitt monkey wouldn’t just love to sue FreeRepublic for “one-upsmanship” on his equally deficient counterparts who seem to get their rocks off antagonizing him? There are hundreds of potential plaintiffs out there that have been accumulated with each posted copyrighted article. Behind those hundreds of potential plaintiffs, there are thousands of potential plaintiffs in the form of journalists. Adam Clymer is going to be retiring soon.

So why hasn't anyone sued to date? It would seem the best time would have been BEFORE the Post so they wouldn't have to stand in line (I guess they could go after the leftover bics and #2's). Once FR links and excerpts, there is no reason to go after it. No money, no full page articles, no likelihood of winning a lawsuit. This is a quite a stretch you got going here. Limber up.

Are you aware that Yale University is using the FreeRepublic case as part of their curriculum. This ought to scare you...So is Berkley...So is Cornell.

I'm sure they are, it is a very intructional case of copyrite vs. fair use. However, I'm not sure what else you are inferring here. Are you saying hundreds, maybe thousands of law students are going to graduate and their first cause of action will be to sue FR because they studied it in a law class?

Realistically, there are a number of folks out there drooling at the bit should FreeRepublic decide to settle. Because it, very clearly, opens the door to all those who feel they have been wronged in the guise of the 1st Amd. and Fair Use.

The door is open now and has been for some time. Losing sets a precedent, settling does not. Anyone who stupidly wishes to take up this battle after FR agrees to excerpt and link will have to legally start back at square one and they might not get assigned as supple a Judge as Morrow. One would have to be, quite literally insane.

BTW - It's "chomping", not "drooling" at the bit. Any lawyer who drools in court is not going to get much sympathy from the judge. Your welcome.

It opens the door to those who could care less about the 1st Amd. and Fair Use and are intrigued by the US Greenback...

And where, exactly, will all these greenbacks will come from?

And, it opens the door (to?) those who don’t care about the 1st Amd. or Fair Use, or money, but Liberal Partisan Politics.

That could be an expensive windmill with which to joust. FR has just settled a lawsuit over copyrite infringement, a case in which the plaintiff was unable to convincingly establish damages other than the potential long term effect on the industry. FR has paid a small fine, agreed to excerpt and link, and now hundreds of libs are going to flood out of the closet, to do exactly what? File lawsuits? To harass FR (they could have done that anytime during the last four years)? The defendants have ceased the activities that precipitated the first suit and there is no money. Sounds like one for the dream team...make that the pie in the sky team.

If I was Lytle over at Democrats.com (or whatever he owns) I would be lining up the lawsuits, just like they did down in Florida during the General Election.

That kind of harassment may end up as a windfall for FR.

Ok, let’s suppose that FreeRepublic has no assets, and more importantly, when they go to court and are asked to document that, they are successful…guess what one asset they possess will be on the market? How about this one (www.freerepublic.com)? The web address is a purchased asset up for grabs Bob.

And what exactly is the value of that property to anyone else? Do you think if the Post gets it, Joe is going to continue the fundraisers and send the money to them? I don't know the disposition of the URL, but if there were a problem, I think FReepers could be directed to the brand spanking new, linking and excerpting, FreeRepublic2.com. I think most could make that adjustment.

Ummm, settlements usually involve negotiation so that the original (ultimate prize) is not the resolute award. So, no I don’t expect that someone is dumb enough to settle for the Lower Court’s award.

So, you think Jim is dumb enough to settle for a large number, and I think he is smart enough to settle for a small number. Want to put some money on it?

But the amount of money is of little importance.

You seemed to indicate it was everything.

The focus will be the fact that FreeRepublic is willing to pay for its existence. It would signify that FreeRepublic is not willing to finish the fight because the fight might just finish FreeRepublic. The key word is might. A settlement, most certainly, will finish FreeRepublic. You can’t afford the repercussions.

Free Republic is paying for it's existence? It just settled a lawsuit that cost the Plaintiffs several hundred large yet had minimal attorneys fees and expenses of it's own. Looks like other "suitors" better watch out. We'll just have to disagree on this one. I think settling will have little consequence outside of excerpting and linking, you think it is the end. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Ouch! So let me get this straight (and if the moderators pull this may they rot in hell). In your opinion, Jim is willing to pull the plug and declare “BK” (bankruptcy for those in Rio Linda) rather than give up money to those who sued from the WP and the LAT’s. However, if a settlement is reached, it would probably (hard to believe it wouldn’t) involve some sort of payoff of a lesser value than $1,000,000.

No, if there were a large settlement, Jim may not have any other option than to declare BK, as he has no assets and I doubt he would ask the Forum participants to make good on it. Since John owns the software, something akin to FR could be up and running in a few days. But, that's just my opinion.

I’m beginning to think you are involved in some of the decision-making Bob.

I am involved in no decisionmaking of any kind regarding the lawsuit and I am not in the loop on any discussions. I will find out about the settlement at the same time as you and everyone else.

Who is going to pay off the settlement amount? Where does that money come from? It comes from fundraisers. It was given by folks who are under the impression that they are donating to something that will be there tomorrow. Settling is a sure fire way to make sure that is not the case.

I would assume that Jim and FR.LLC are going to pay off the settlement amount as they are the defendants. I am not privy to any settlement particulars nor any amounts that may be involved. However, I know Jim to be a smart man and I doubt he would settle for a large number. Keep in mind the Post should be inclined to accept a settlement, as it ends their legal expenses.

There may be a few who stop donating, who knows. I doubt it will have a significant long term effect on fundraising.

That would be remarkable. I would find it hard to believe that the WP and the LAT’s wouldn’t want compensation for all the hours of research on the board, research on the law, and manhours to prepare the action, brief(s) and Summary judgement. I would guess that it is somewhere up around $250,000 to $300,000 by now. Heinke (sic) doesn’t come cheap…and contingency is out the window on plaintiff actions if there is no real settlement as you suggest.

Can't get blood from a turnip, they always knew this. That is why I keep telling people this lawsuit wasn't about money or ideology as some suggested.

Bob, if I came over to your house and spray painted your dog would you ignore it if I promised not to do it again???

If I came over and spray painted your cat, would you commence a costly civil lawsuit if you knew I had no assets or insurance to pay a judgement?

Try telling that to the guy who invented varied speeds on windshield wipers. It took him over 25 years to see his money...but he got it from the Big Three.

Uhhh, FR is not the Big Three....they have assets AND insurance.

No, the sky isn't falling... The Court hasn't signed off yet. Just a little rumbling on the horizon is all.

That rumbling sound is the nattering nabobs of negativity. It's morning in Free Republic! Enjoy it!

Just that not having tangible resources does not protect you from litigation.

Particularly if the Plaintiff is not interested in money, but rather ceasing an activity they believe to be illegal and injurious. If I was your neighbor and spray painted your dog everyday, even if I had no assets from which to derive monetary satisfaction, I believe you might institute legal action to stop me.

Let's say I spray painted everyones dog in the neighborhood. You institute legal action, and subsequently I sign an agreement to stay 50 feet away from all dogs for the rest of my life. Why would the other neighbors then institute similar proceedings of their own? Their dogs may be pink and green but they can be washed and I have no assets to seize. Nothing but time and money down the drain.

You may be right Bob...but the loser still has to pay court costs..Someone with an axe to grind can tie you up a long time..

...If I came over and spray painted your cat, would you commence a costly civil lawsuit if you knew I had no assets or insurance to pay a judgement?

If I was your neighbor and spray painted your dog everyday, even if I had no assets from which to derive monetary satisfaction, I believe you might institute legal action to stop me.

What do you have against cats?

Who is going to pay off the settlement amount? Where does that money come from? It comes from fundraisers. It was given by folks who are under the impression that they are donating to something that will be there tomorrow.

Who is going to pay for the ongoing litigation? Where does that money come from? It comes from fundraisers. It was given by folks who are under the impression that their money is going to keep the website up, not to enrich a bunch of lawyers in a never-ending lawsuit.

Bottom line? If Jim says settle, FR settles. It's Jim's butt in the sling, not yours.

JE started the pet graffiti, I just played along...hehehe.

Heads up ladies.

Why is everyone assuming that the negotiations will not be favorable to FR. It could very well be that the WP/LAT want this case to go away because if it ended up in the US Supreme Court, the internet and FR would win. It may just be that the WP/LAT are concerned they might lose. Better to have no decision than a loss.

Hoping for the best.

BTTT

There is a lot of rampant speculation posted to this thread (and elsewhere) by a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons.

Here are the facts:

First, it is common knowledge that we filed for a continuation about a month and a half ago to allow for an attempt to negotiate a settlement with the LAT/WP.

Second, the negotiations have been productive. We have now made another filing with the court. This should show up on the court filing log next week.

Third, we will not announce a final settlement, nor the terms of any such settlement until the court acts on our filing and said settlement is official.

Fourth, as far as I am concerned, there is no settlement until the slender lady in the black robes sings, and that has not happened yet (I'm hoping, though, that she is warming up).

And lastly, I will not discuss the terms of said settlement or any additional facts regarding this phase of the case until it is all said and done and either the ink is dry on the final court orders, or, it is rejected and it's on with the appeal.

The only reason I posted this thread is that one of the AF'ers jumped the gun Friday night and posted prematurely that the settlement was a done deal.

That was disinformation (AF'er speculation). That post was deleted, and then shortly thereafter, another post was made by a FReeper questioning why the first was deleted. Well, I do not want to play that game (post, delete, post, delete, etc.), so the second post was also deleted, and I posted this one.

I repeat, the settlement is NOT complete until the judge says it is, and there will be no official announcement one way or the other until that happens (or doesn't happen).

Also, I'm not going to speculate too much on what actions other news organizations may or may not take if and when the settlement is finalized. I will say that we have been posting excerpts and links from the LAT/WP for over a year now, and we will probably have to do that for the AP and several other sources as well. But there are a lot of news sources that have never complained, and there are others who appreciate very much what we are doing here. I'm sure that we will adapt to whatever new rules must be implemented.

The commonly accepted interpretation of the fair use exemption allows for a lot of latitude in quoting copyright materials. Anything from short excerpts to (in some cases) full copy. Assuming the settlement is approved, we are not giving up our fair use rights. We will continue operating as before except in the cases where copyright holders object to full text posting, in which case we will post excerpts. We can also ask permission to post full text from any source (including the LAT/WP) and where permission is granted, we will post full text.

Hoping for the best.

Thanks, Jim

Thanks Jim. Seems simple enough for me. Those that don't quite understand this will recieve my condolences.

Fourth, as far as I am concerned, there is no settlement until the slender lady in the black robes sings, and that has not happened yet (I'm hoping, though, that she is warming up).................
Also, I'm not going to speculate too much on what actions other news organizations may or may not take if and when the settlement is finalized. I will say that we have been posting excerpts and links from the LAT/WP for over a year now, and we will probably have to do that for the AP and several other sources as well. But there are a lot of news sources that have never complained, and there are others who appreciate very much what we are doing here. I'm sure that we will adapt to whatever new rules must be implemented.

Thanks so much for keeping us advised, Jim!...........
......but can we arrange for a fat lady instead? Seems
more traditional to me, and I'm an old-fashioned kinda guy!
:O)

Thanks Jim. Fingers-crossed that you can put this phase behind you soon.

Thanks for the post, Jim. I was wondering what was going on. Hopefully, in a couple of weeks this litigation will be behind you, and you can FReep with the rest of us!

Thanks for the update.