[Jim Robinson]

The editor of JWR has come on to FR many times asking people to excerpt and link to his articles rather than post full text. Most people were happy to comply with his requests, but there are some who post full text anyway.

As a result of our settlement with the LAT/WP we now have the excerpt feature built into our software. Also, as of the settlement, I have been honoring any publication's request to not have full text posted. So, when the editor repeated his request for us to excerpt and link to JWR, I added his url to our excerpt only list.

We still feel that we have a right under the fair use exemption to use copyrighted materials for discussion purposes, but we also have decided to respect the requests of those who object. I think most publications enjoy the hits, additional exposure, increased readership and attention coming to their websites from ours whether we post full text or excerpts.

We have not seen a rush by the media to sue us, like many thought would be the result of our settlement, or even to request excerpt only posting. There have only been a handful of requests that I'm aware of and we've complied with them all.

In addition to the sites listed in the LAT/WP settlement, we are also complying with the requests of jewishworldreview.com, aim.org, bsudailynews.com, and startribune.com to post excerpts only. There may be other sites added to the list if additional requests are received. The posters are notified of the excerpt only request when they attempt to post from these sites.

[William Terrell]

I can certainly understand FR's desire to accomodate the wishes of commercial sites whose income depends on traffic generated ads. I agree that it is in FR's interest to maintain a friendly relationship with media sources. My only possible objection is what appears to be inequatable favoritism. Evidently my concern is misplaced; all requests are honored.

I haven't seen any forum-wide new policy statement to date, and I read a lot on FR. This is the first time I've heard this, so I'll assume most aren't aware of it either.

I have been in the habit of posting the full article text whenever I come across an excerpt not on the LAT/WP list. Since you added the "excerpt" feature on the posting page, many people think they have to use it.

That has resulted in an increasing number of unnecessary excerpts. More than several times I have searched the archives for information, only to find the article in which I was interested had been pulled and was not available. Sometimes it has been replaced during the active life of the thread.

Now, I could continue expanding frivolous excerpts but I don't know what sites are currently protected, or, as time goes on, what new sites are protected. I've decided I'll just stop expanding the excerpts and not worry about it. If I come across an excerpt, I'll simply skip it unless the conversation of the posters themselves, in my opinion, call for comment.

Concerning JWR, before I found FR in mid-1997, I hit their site and read their articles often and for some months thereafter. Then the editor started posting fundraisers on FreeRepublic threatening the the site was going out of business, they needed hits from FR to keep their head above water, among other specious, as it turns out, reasons.

This was done more than twice. My subsequent examinations of their site revealed it's growth, while at the same time not very much excerpting on FR of their articles. Still they posted regular appeals using the same rationale. I don't mind helping a business out, but I object being lied to and courted by deceit, toward a policy that undermined the operational capabilities of a site I like (this one).

Of course, you have sovereignty on your site, and I support you and it's growth/influence 100%, but I no longer support or visit JWR because of the greasy tactics of its owners.