It should be obvious to everybody that this newspaper has issues not just with FR but with every christian and conservative Internet outlet. These people have made it very clear by hteir actions that they want to see America become a christian and conservative free zone and they are willing to do anything to see to it that it happens, even if it's criminal.
And if we don't put a stop to this and stop enocuraging these unsavory elements from pursuing this what they know full well is an enormously harmful political and social agenda, Amercai is going to end up becoming a sharia law nation. That and the notion of Barack Obama's America is NOT something I'm looking forward to.
There's a reason why the Washington Post doesn't want FR publishing their articles in their entirety. It's because they know full well what they are doing to try and make America a conservative and christian free zone is wrong and immoral and they know it. They don't want christians and conservatives to expose their evil activities.
Either we stand toghether against the Washington Post and the mainstream media and put them all out of business or one day we will all hang in Barack Obama's America. I don't think any of us wants that to happen.
I don’t think you read my entire reply. If the WAPO (and LA Times) wanted to shut FR down they could have done it very easily by pressing their monetary claims of copyright infringement which included a “per violation” penalty.
They didn’t. They accepted Jims offer of yanking every article already posted and excerpting and linking in the future. To me and others involved this showed they were only interested in protecting their copyrighted properties and setting a legal precedent for future violations.
At that time the anti-freepers were notifying publications about FR. Copyright law is clear that when a potential violation “becomes known” to the holder that they must take action to protect that copyright or they could lose legal protections in the future. If there are small websites who use their work who they don’t go after it’s because they are too small or insignificant to address and can fall back on the excuse that they weren’t aware of it. If they went after every single violation in cyberspace the legal cost on their end would be significant, so they pick and choose the targets to keep their legal costs down and do just enough to be able to claim they are infact attempting to protect those copyrights.
Now you can run around with your pitchfork claiming the sky is falling but all that gets you is tired and hoarse.