Replies

FR has taken their case to court and been upheld according to fair use of copywritten material....political discussion. And no one could say that it isn't political discussion.

So then those copyright notices don't mean anything if only people take the work, reprint it elsewhere (where the online ads won't be included) and then discuss it?When not even one copy of the original was paid for?

Discussing a copyrighted work eliminates the copyright?

I think you don't understand the real case and just what was settled. FR is by no means in compliance with copyright law. It's just that no one is as yet interested in pursuing it legally. This has more to do with legal tactics than with anything else.

You are arguing, for instance, that discussing syndicated columns makes copying them legal. You are arguing that posting Associated Press syndicated articles is legal without paying them the way their customers (newspapers) do.

How many people at FR don't even bother to buy their local papers because they can turn to FR to get it? And without any popup ads or cookies or extra download time for ads and such? You think that they don't lose money because of FR?

I suspect you know how flimsy your argument is.

And you didn't tell me if you have ever photocopied or recorded copyrighted materials. I've been looking for that one sinless-before-copyright-law paragon of virtue for years now.

Are you then the fabled copyright virgin I have hitherto sought in vain, pray tell?