[quidnunc]

litany_of_lies wrote: Y'know, this excerpting cr*p is for the birds. If the Admin Moderator or the WaPo-LAT settlement doesn't require it, why would you excerpt?

Because federal copyright law requires it, regardless of FR's posting policies.

Here, for the benefit of those who know what "fair use" means…

Fair use doesn't mean that you get to post copyrighted material in toto.

Here's what Stanford University has to say about fair use:

"The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart" of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would not probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words "I can't get no satisfaction" from the song, "Satisfaction.""

[Deb]

Just amazing. It was a truly sad day when the French (who finally moved in to stop the slaughter) looked heroic compared to the USA. The Clinton legacy is nothing but death, treason and betrayal.

[litany_of_lies]

Sorry, that issue was never fully litigated. JimRob settled for sanity's sake. The odds of his winning IF the Supremes would have been willing to hear the arguments were IMHO 50-50 or greater.

In the meantime, I will keep up-to-date with who is demanding excerpts-only and honor those demands on FR.

As to my own computer's hard drive, though, I'll save any d**n thing I want, because being and staying informed constitutes fair use, as long as I don't attempt to profit in any way from said saving. If I seem defiant, it's simply because I don't trust the press to maintain the historical record without the inherent oversight of people like FR (and to a small extent me). The "memory hole" temptation is just too great for them to resist.