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...
There is a solution to that problem:
Post two links, one to the source, and the other through archive.org. - Just not that the first is to be used if operable.
I love this one, Global Research CA which copies the article and ends with...
Copyright, Washington Post 2001. For fair use only
Oh. I guess we forgot to put that next to the little circled "c":
"For fair use only"What a**'s! -- I love it!!!
Oh, man, if only I'd a put that on my secretary's job description, woulda saved me a marriage or two ...
...none that have held that the subsequent comment is a "transformation" that results in the complete copy being different from the originalWell, should the Court view what has been as what always is, you are correct.
It's all a matter of perspective. Without even getting into why a "transformation" is required for fair use, let us just assume it is necessary. Now, how does a transformation occur? -- One starts with the original and then transforms it. Right?
So, it's ok so long as we leave out the making from the sausage -- Just show us the cooked pork and it's ok? Add up the posts and there you have it: the citizens' pie. Very fair.
Have you noticed that un-replied articles here die? That's exactly the point. What matters here is transformation.
Man, lay off the Howard Zinn a little, k?
The posting there seems to display the first several paragraphs of an article (no date, author, or publication information is cited as there is on FR). The quoted article is then followed by the link to the full article.
I found a Washington Post article and it did not have anything posted apart from the headline and the weblink.
I take it that the DUh website does this under the same threat that FR faces from WP (and LA-T). Did DUh ever post WP articles? How much is too much? FR at least provides all the online bibliographical citations of the article that is referenced.
I hate seeing their great idea destroyed, and I hate to see all of this implode daily in these types of threads.
Lol! Just what copyright violations do you find here? JR's unfair use of the 1st amendment?
Come visit us at Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 5
and be a part of something that is larger than all of us.
Alone, we are a voice crying in the wilderness. Together we are a force for positive action!
Don't be left out!
Be one who can someday say..................... "I was there when..................."
Thank you to everyone who has already come by and become a part!
'nuff said.
Now, if you want some info on http://www.wackybabesinbaseballcaps . .
Who knows before it's all over FR may outlive them both.
By the way, Mojo writes on the AFer board:
"Newspapers have been specifically listed in US copyright laws since the Copyright Act of 1909.
www.kasunic.com/1909_act.htm
Of course newspapers were presumed to be covered long before then. In fact, it could be argued that the very concept of copyright began with the idea of controlling newspapers in England. The king wanted to control pamphlets, broadsides, and other outlets of political speech.
BTW, the first true copyright law, the Statute of Anne, was passed in 1709, eighty years before the adoption of the US Constitution. As was the case with most of the English laws the US inherited, the framers had no intention of overturning its principles.
How old does a law have to be, before JimGod is willing to obey it? Does he want to own slaves, too? Since he doesn't own any property (only a mortgage), should he be allowed to vote?"
Mojo:
And my point is, that before this modern day law was made by Congress, there was no law and no Constitutional provision prohibiting the people from using news accounts as part of their guaranteed right to free speech. News accounts were considered factual public information, not works of art or science eligible for protection under the provisions legally enacted pursuant to the copyright clause. During all of U.S. history before this point, the right of the people to free speech, as guaranteed by the first amendment, including the right to use news accounts in any manner whatsoever reigned supreme.
And, of course the King of England wanted to control pamphlets, broadsides, and other outlets of political speech. That's one of the tyrannies that our founding fathers overthrew. And this is the primary reason why the Founders wanted the rights of a free press and freedom of speech guaranteed for the people, and NOT controlled or abridged by the government. They just fought a revolution to throw off this kind of tyranny and did not want to repeat it.
News sheets were common and were not new technology in those days. Had the Founders intended them to be eligible for copyright protection they would've made it so in the very first Copyright Act. They would not have intended for the Congress to wait for over a century later to enact such protection. Obviously, they fully intended for news accounts to be free speech.
The first amendment means exactly what it says:
The Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now there is a plain, but powerful statement: The Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW....
What is it about that specific rule that is so hard to comprehend?
Now, where does the Congress derive its power to overturn the first amendment and suddenly take it upon itself to MAKE LAW abridging this supreme right? The power is definitely NOT granted by the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution expressly forbids the Congress any such power.
And, lastly, it is not the age of the law that is in question, it is its constitutionality. If the law was enacted illegally, then it should be declared null and void. Government control over free speech and a free press was overthrown in 1776. How many more times must we throw off this particular form of tyranny before we willingly allow the people their guaranteed right to free speech?
from: dutiful
and go to her first post"
You never learn, do you. Rude begets rude. RonDog was kind enough to clarify your dodge.
Now, answer #194 after you wipe the smirk off your chimp.
Bob:
I am apt to side with Jim on this issue, however this post of yours sickens me. I know there are folks who have been around here lately that have a personal axe to grind. That being said, I am seeing a string of unanswered questions (particularly my first one to you...which I asked you what the game plan is...it is only fair to tell freepers this before they donate). I have taken exception with BRLs viewpoint on this very thread, however his opinion seems to be an honest one. This attempt of your to try and paint him (her?)that way seems to be a transparent attempt to discredit him without discrediting his opinion. Personally, I don't care if BRL posts to the Transexual Bestialists chatboard...if his opinion has merit it needs to be addressed.
That dear daughter you refer to was so obvious in her post that anyone could see through her little rant.
How many times did the brain trust on the AFer board pass that one around tweeking it for publication before it was posted?
But seriously....I'm encouraged to find out from this thread, that liberalass judges in California are often struck down on appeal. I had no idea.
Sounds like a conflict of interest that can be mentioned during the appeal?
Brain trust? AFer board? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Seriously though, I have browsed these boards and some of the people sound so unhappy there, that if FR ever did go down under, they would soon be cannibalizing themselves.
But for the sake of argument lets assume that you're right and she's just looking out for her mom. WHERE WAS MOM? Why didn't Mom pop in and say....hey this is my daughter and I asked her to do this for me so leave her alone? That would have ended the argument right then and there.
If she was really looking out for her mother why didn't she reply to any of the questions posed to her? I'm still waiting for mine.
He/She/It was a AntiFreeper plant and nothing more so no I don't feel bad about giving her a hard time. That's the beauty of FR. If I disagree with you I say so. The End. If I agree with you, I say so. The End. I dont' post a flame and run away like daughter did.
They already are. Notice that there is ONLY ONE FreeRepublic and yet there are what, three or four AFer boards.
Why? I'm glad you asked. There are numerous AFer boards because they can't get along with each other and keep splitting into factions of AFers.
If FR ever did go away they would have nothing to talk about because they are boring people who only know how to rant. Notice that there are no discussion threads that are not related to FR. If they were so miserable here and so oppressed to speak their opinions why aren't they posting those brilliant opinions on the AFer boards....because they don't have any.
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.