Posted on 12/02/2001 10:09:56 PM PST by Bob J
Nothing...thats what it means.
The afholes have been trying to scare FReepers with this little bit information. Here is my opinion on the subject.
As you all know, the Washington Post and LA Times sued FR LLC and Jim to stop it from posting full text articles. The basis of FR's attorneys defense rested on the fair use clause. Unfortunately, Jim drew probably the worst judge he could...Margaret Morrow, a Clinton nominee, whose appointment was held up for a long time by Republicans due to here obvious left wing opinions.
The plaintiffs attorneys filed a pre trial motion to squelch the fair use defense and Judge Morrow ruled affirmatively. That basically took all the guts out of the Jim's defense. At that point, Jim's most prudent course of action was to stipulate to a decision against him. That way the case could get into the appeal with the least cost. This may have actually worked for the best since if Jim won, the WP was certainly going to appeal. It would also follow that whoever lost the appeal would then appeal to the SC. It has been estimated going directly to appeal may have saved Jim and FR 200-300k. Now, it may only cost 20-30k to get all the way to the Supremes.
Once Jim stipulated, they were allowed to ask for a dollar judgement. When Jim found out it was 1 million, he said "Why not make it 500 million. Hell, make it a billion!" The fact is Jim nor FR LLC have any money. What is raised during the quarterly FReepathons is used during the next 3 months for expenses. The LAT and WP know this. I doubt if they expect to ever see a dime of it. The judgement allows them to put a nice round number on their balance sheet to offset the obvious huge expenses this case is chewing up on their P&L's. Can you imagine the public relations nightmare for a multi billion dollar corporation to going after a disabled vet for a million bucks he doesn't have? How about a billion...heheh.
Obviously, some donations go to legal expenses, as in any business, but Jim is trying to minimize the cost. So, when an afhole throws that million dollar judgement in your face, as if you are or they expect you to pay for it, say what Jim said, "Thank you sir, make it a billion, please!"
Ha! What loosers...
This case is not a good example of this. I think if polled anonymously, most libertarians would say 2 things about this case:
1. This is not a clear cut case of intellectual property theft. I think it depends on how you view the forum. To me the forum's appeal was always the people here that would tear apart the articles and reveal it for what it is really worth. If you use it as a news filtering service, then perhaps it could be argued that it is theft, especially considering that there is a payroll involved. I think Jim could do himself a favor and make the "orignal source" link a bit more prominent and encourage folks to visit the original site. Follow that with a disclaimer stating that the entire article is posted for Historical recording purposes.
2. The LAT/WP case is based in pettiness. Even if someone could espuose an argument that proves this is intellectual property theft, I think the damages would be hard to prove. How many "conservative" readers do you think they fear losing? If they were honestly trying to lure some conservative readers, they would fire the editorial staff...not sue a website.
The problem most libertarian bashers have is they forget that libertarians (most anyhow) subscribe to a philosphy that is rooted in its purity (not by pragmaticism), so using real world scenarios to prove a belief wrong is not quite the same as proving a democrat (or republican) policy wrong. The libertarian philosphy is deeply intermingled. For example, many folks here have been smashing the open border policy of libertarians by using the example of terrorists entering this country. That policy is based on the fact that we would be a non-interventionist country. (this is beside the fact that most of the folks calling for tighter borders were talking more specifically of Mexican iommigrants....not Arab). In order for one to be effective, the other needs to be in place. I think it could be argued that in a libertarian republic, FR would have no reason to exsist, and even if it did the WP/LAT would probably be quite different. Is it a Utopian ideal? Of course....that won't change until libertarians get elected to power positions. It's philosophical Zen for now.
All that being said...If I were JR, I would excerpt and link like Lucianne does (yet still alow vanities and our own fact finding investigations) and commercialize the site.
... the first amendment amends the Constitution (including amending the copyright clause) and allows for the unabridged right of the people to free speech, free press, free assembly and redress of grievance, regardless of copyright or any other restriction.Thus, the congress cannot diminish or restrict the people's superior right to use whatever form of expression they wish to critique, praise, promote, campaign, petition, defend, protest, research, teach, learn, report or otherwise spread information or news regarding government, law, public policy, politics, or any other public or government affair, place, object, person, theory, or event, or anything else, at anytime, anywhere, which may or may not be important to or affect the interests of we the people, and especially when it pertains to the preservation of the Constitution, the Republic and Liberty itself and or the prevention of tyranny.
A well said BUMP.
What a nice sentiment. Trouble is, the law interpreters are corrupt. Therefore, our society is not protected by laws at all. The people with the most money or power decide how the judges will rule.
The question is then whether you have an obligation to follow those corrupted laws. I infer from your post that you really do not have to.
You have constructed a fancy little model within your brain that allows you to disregard the laws that have been put into place by WE THE PEOPLE. If you think a judge is corrupt (or according to others here - if merely appointed by Clinton) then you get to disregard the law.
This approach will not make for a very pretty society. Much worse then what we presently have in place.
I would agree that prior to the lawsuit it was not clear cut. However, both parties agreed to take it to court and fight it out AND FORCE A CLEAR CUT DECISION. Jim Robinson has decided to force the decision. Aside from the possible appeal, it is now CLEAR CUT - get it?
I think it depends on how you view the forum. To me the forum's appeal was always the people here that would tear apart the articles and reveal it for what it is really worth. If you use it as a news filtering service, then perhaps it could be argued that it is theft, especially considering that there is a payroll involved. I think Jim could do himself a favor and make the "orignal source" link a bit more prominent and encourage folks to visit the original site. Follow that with a disclaimer stating that the entire article is posted for Historical recording purposes.
In case if you don't quite get it, it no longer depends on what you or I think or on what Jim Robinson thinks. The matter has been elevated to the point where the Federal government has made a ruling on this. Opinions are no longer relevent, the ruling is out.
2. The LAT/WP case is based in pettiness. Even if someone could espuose an argument that proves this is intellectual property theft, I think the damages would be hard to prove. How many "conservative" readers do you think they fear losing? If they were honestly trying to lure some conservative readers, they would fire the editorial staff...not sue a website.
Assuming it is based on pettiness , who cares? It does not really matter what motivated them to file the suit. The law has ruled against the practices that this site used/ uses.
I may be mistaken here , but here goes:
The constitution was written. At some point in time the congress passed a law that clarified the constitution regarding fair use of copyrights. This congressional intervention erred on the side of free speech, not on the side of copyright protection. This congressional intervention is the very basis on which you have argued against copyright protection. Now you blame congressional intervention for all our woes?
What am I missing here?
I don't buy into the Historical record stuff too much, especially considering that the archives have been down for 2 months and my posts won't even go back more then a month.
To answer your question, the answer is essentially No.
However, my answer to your question does not automatically link me to some other (unspecified) point that you are trying to make.
Exactly! That is one of the problems with so many of us conservatives. We haven't or refuse to think of being a team member. Becoming a team member does not mean giving up your soul or your individuality. When you become a team member, you add your soul and individuality to that team. The team becomes stronger and so do you!
Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year, Official link: (Thread #5)
Why Free Republic needs 5000 regular monthly donors: (5000 Freepers who care are needed now!)
For regular snail mail donations:
FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
(link for monthly credit card donations)
(Reindeer says, "Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.