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...
In my opinion, Jim Robinson and Rosa Parks just both had enough. Somebody's gotta stand up against the accepted "norm" when the biased bullies setting the norm are wrong.
God bless Jim Robinson. God bless Free Republic. God bless this case as it works its way through the court system. God bless the outcome. God bless free speech and political dissent. May their enemies never prosper.
Nope, he didn't even get a chance to use that defense.
From above: The plaintiffs(LAT/WP) attorneys filed a pre- trial motion to squelch the fair use defense and Judge Morrow ruled affirmatively.
Are you implying that as a patriotic, constitution loving American that you can ignore the law as long as it goes against your own personal beliefs and as long as the law has been tainted by a ruling from a liberal judge?
Excuse me, but our CONSTITUTION (the thingy we hold in such high esteem here) has specific rights given to the owners of inventions and writings. Furthermore, whether we like it or not, the case has been decided - WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION. FR lost. It is in for apeal. FR may win there or may lose (I would have to say they will probably lose). However, your attitude, which is displayed in your post, is the very thing that our constitution was written to gaurd society from. You feel that you have a moral right to discount the law as long as a someone you disagree with was the judge that interpreted the law or wrote the law.
Our society is based upon laws, not upon the whims of the person who stomps their feet the loudest.
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
And if it wasn't so obviously Fair Use, why did the LAT/WP lawyers in a pre-trial motion to the judge seek to prevent the use of it as an argument?
This will be reversed just like the majority of the rulings from this particular court are.
Take your sour grapes and shove 'em, whiner.
Specific rights? Specify them.
What happens if the appeals lose out and they (WP/LAT) come after JR for the million? (I don't beleive that they are wooried about bad press...afterall JR is just another racist conservative pig in media circles)
Will he ask freepers to pony up the cash? Would the quarterly goal become 130K in donations then? Is this even attainable?
Would Jim rob consider bankruptcy?
I think it would releive some of us to know what the plan is, at least within the framework of the best/worst case scenario.
Nope. In my opinion, that's where Jim went right.
If a judge is a judicial activist, legislates from the bench or improperly interprets the law, I think his/her rulings ought to be over turned. If judges were infallible, there would be no appeals process.
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.