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...
The left works diligently at silencing any dissenting voices. Curious that, and most hypocritical of them. We aren't trying to silence them, we are dam* tired of being silenced, dimished, dismissed, misrepresented, demonized and slandered. God bless Jim Robinson and FR. The adults are back in town to stay. (^:
What is your opinion on someone like A_dutiful_daughter fraudulently posting that her mother feels threatened here?
How about you?
Never posted as BRL at ttc?
Is that it?
So, don't you and Mojo plot together anymore?
Don't be shy.
The WP and LAT, in my mind, gave up all rights to their flimsy, so-called claims when they allowed everyone else on the planet to the same "fair use" that they find objectionable by you. They have lost not only their credibility, but -- in my humble non-legal opinion -- any claim at all to the distibution and reproduction of their stories. At least when it comes to the Fair Use issue, you have them over a barrel.Precisely.
See a site-specific Google search for site:www.commondreams.org "washington post" - with 693 references.
As I understand the limited breadth of the Google-bot technology, this represents THOUSANDS of actual posts on CommonDreams.org with full text articles from the Washington Post - and they CONTINUE to do so, as recently as December 4, 2001. (Plus, CD.org does not even "modify" their full text WP articles with comments.)If I can find them, a "reasonable man" could, too.
Hey Jim, how about asking New Humanist and Common Dreams to file some supporting briefs, since their stated disclaimers seem (at least to my non-lawyer mind) to be the same as Free Republic's? Indeed, CD seems to be flimsier, as they do not make any sort of claim on the right to criticize. How about CCMEP, or InfoShop, neither of whom makes a fair-use claim anywhere on their site (CCMEP even omitted the copyright due the Compost)?
For example, if you are a (1) nonprofit educational institution circulating photocopies in history class, that (2) photocopies only news articles, rather than opinion columns or works of fiction, and (3) only photocopies part of each article rather than the entire article, and (4) has absolutely no effect on the market for the article (since none of the students is going to buy the newspaper), then all four factors would be in your favor.
Two of these factors -- type of article copied, and how muc of the article is copied -- carry less weight than the other two. Both of these factors are easily decided by any reasonable court.
The other two factors -- purpose of the use, and market impact -- were both erroneously decided against us when both should have been decided in our favor. These are the two issues that mattered the most.
Even in a worst-case scenario, the legal world has a descriptive term for the defendants: "judgment proof." You can't get blood out of a rock. And the plaintiffs will never get any money out of these defendants. Free Republic would start over. And make no mistake, it would be flying high and proud (and very loud) within days.
But I don't even see that happening. I anticipate that when it's all over, the million-dollar judgment will be reversed by either the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
The separate First Amendment defense is not a "Hail Mary" pass. It has merit. I didn't work on that issue when Clarity and I worked on the appellate brief, but clearly freedom of speech includes freedom of discussion.
It must be effective discussion for the right of discussion to have any value. And full-article posts are necessary for an effective discussion of those articles, their journalistic quality and the potential bias of their authors.
The news media have the power to shape public opinion. Free and open discussion of their journalisic quality and potential bias in the public forum is vital to a modern republic. Therefore the free exercise of the right of discussion is essential. This website serves that purpose.
Clinton atleast had the dignity to graciously ask for help from his friends, and then he paid his bills. JR cowardly hopes that the liberals will take pity on a pathetic cripple (not a vet- he only served during wart time, not in war). Pathetic is the word.
Jim Robinson served on a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam.
Jim Robinson graciously asks for help from his friends. The process is called a Freepathon. I haven't heard about the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times donating any money.
There is no charity extended here by the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times. It is common practice by federal courts to stay the execution (collection) of a judgment until all appeals have been exhausted.
Can you show me that post? The only post I saw was the one that seemed genuine.
How about you? Never posted as BRL at ttc?
I never have posted there or to any of the freerepublic related board.
Is that it? So, don't you and Mojo plot together anymore? Don't be shy.
I have never had any contact with mojo other than when we occasionaly posted to each other on FR a few years ago. If mojo is nnlb on an afer board, then I have read some of his material.
I don't know why I am answering you. From the time you read this material until the time it goes into the processing part of your brain it will be a distorted pile of goo.
Thanks for the ping Meekie.Dittos! from Texas, Snow Bunny! Thank you!We Freepers would never allow anything to happen to Jim Robinson. The world has felt our freep(sting) in many different ways and areas and subjects.
Tye don't know FR and Jim Rob have the heart of Braveheart and the soul of The Patriot.
Three cheers for Jim Robinson and FR!!!!!!!
I will be following this case very closely..
David
Meanwhile while you are enjoying the benefits of FR for FREE, JimRob doesn't owe you a damn thing, let alone a plan that would absolve you of any obligation for paying any part of that $1M.
Don't you think that if JimRob had any plans to ask FReepers to shoulder the burdeon of this travesty of justice, he would have already passed the hat?
I think I'm going to go out and buy Reynolds Aluminium stock, because so many wacky FReepers are such prolific users of their product. :)
I suggest that you bone up on your constitutional law.
I don't know who is more paranoid...the AFers or those who think anyone with a question about FR is an AFer.
The WP and LAT, in my mind, gave up all rights to their flimsy, so-called claims when they allowed everyone else on the planet to the same "fair use" that they find objectionable by you. They have lost not only their credibility, but -- in my humble non-legal opinion -- any claim at all to the distibution and reproduction of their stories. At least when it comes to the Fair Use issue, you have them over a barrel.
Mightn't FR have an "equal protection clause" defense?
BTW - I met antivenom at the NFRA deal. I don't know why she is picking at me. Seemed like a very nice lady.
Youre paranoid.
Stop it.
FAB
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.