$1,000,000 Million Judgement against Jim/FR LLC - What does it mean?

12-02-01 | Bob J

[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...

[francisandbeans]

As an aside, this case is a good example of why the "inalienable rights" approach to government, as proposed by many libertarians here, is flawed.

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.

[joathome]

According to this interpretation of the copyright law, may you post an entire book undercopyright, and say..... of a political nature for us to "critique"?

[brityank]

... 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.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Nice to see this is not another Carol Hu-Tex thread :)

[Osinski]

Our society is based upon laws

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.

[Osinski]

I liked your anaylsis of the situation. Although your prognosis is discouraging, potentiality cannot be dismissed. A catalyst may be right around the corner.

[BRL]

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.

[BRL]

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 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.

[BRL]

Revising and extending my remarks, as far as that goes, show me where in the U.S. Constitution is the power granted to the Congress to restrict free speech even if a person sells access to or profits from it. You might say it's in the commerce clause granting Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Well, regardless of any definition or interpretation of, or the intent of that particular clause, the first amendment amends and supersedes it. The Congress still does not have constitutional authority or power to abridge the right of the people to free speech, regardless of copyright and regardless of commerce.

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?

[francisandbeans]

Perhaps you are more versed in the goings on of the suit, but I think you missed the gyst of my comment. I was defending the libertarian stance on such an issue, not necessarily Jim Rob's decisions. Like I said before, I would have commercialized the sire long ago and let it stand on its own merits.

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.

[Osinski]

If we have laws, yet they are not observed by the interpreters and enforcers, do we have laws?

[BRL]

A site that pulls in over 250K per year is not commercial?

[Vinomori]

If everyone sent a check for $5 we would be home free. It's not that we don't have the $5. It's that it seems like so little, why bother? But that misses the power of the team. Thinking Why Bother? is a disease that is cured by thinking Team.

[BRL]

If we have laws, yet they are not observed by the interpreters and enforcers, do we have laws?

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.

[Grampa Dave]

Vinoori posted, "If everyone sent a monthly check for $5 we would be home free. It's not that we don't have the $5. It's that it seems like so little, why bother? But that misses the power of the team. Thinking Why Bother? is a disease that is cured by thinking Team.

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")

[AKA Elena]

In answer, Bob J, because I did address you, to your own bewilderment -- you are the person who posted the thread -- and there were/are responses within the thread which addressed "sophomoric" actions ... total lack of response to a part of the suit, and a repeat of a few requests to know what had happened to Clarity, which were allowed to persist without any correction.

No one took the responisbility to explain why BB is "missing" -- but swipes were taken at him, and went undefended, nonetheless.

Your post, when part and parcel of the subject was a concerted "work in progress on behalf of and in collaberation with JR" and address the side issues of concern of many who were/are replying with your own responses (no matter that they are central to the discussion of the lawsuit and the appeal) and neglect to give some explanation and allow some misconception of a fellow member (who did a huge body of work on behalf of JR and of FR) to persist and grow throughout the thread, you are not being the "custodian" of your own thread.

Only my own opinion ... I was in a rush to go on my daily rounds around the valley and should have made a general reply to address the "Clarity" issue, but only have my memory to fall back on ... as a FReeper and outside the inner circle.

Since Clarity was the legal representative, I think he should have been defended in kind with all of your direct answers to those who were on the thread. You were keeping the thread active ... if I am wrong to assume that posting on FR kinda gives you an indictment to address the points that you make and any that arise from your post (a vanity with a cause, in effect) ... then forgive my misconception.

[Jimbaugh]

"Margaret Morrow is the epitome of mainstream," said Boxer. "The legal community recognizes her reputation as a moderate consensus-builder, who respects and embraces the rule of law." Among those voting for Morrow last month were Hatch and the judiciary committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of New York. Hatch criticized his Republican colleagues for holding up Morrow's nomination. "A compelling case cannot be made against her. . . . Ms. Morrow's legal career speaks for itself. She will be an asset to the federal bench," the Utah senator said.