Skip to comments.
$1,000,000 Million Judgement against Jim/FR LLC - What does it mean?
12-02-01
| Bob J
Posted on 12/02/2001 10:09:56 PM PST by Bob J
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 321-338 next last
To: francisandbeans
bump
To: ContemptofCourt
Ummm, maybe because that is called fraud? Why?
To: Bob J; Jim Robinson
The weakness in WP/LAT's case, in my humble and legally-uninformed opinion, is that every else in the whole wide world lets us -- and everyone else, it seems -- post entire articles. It seems to be the industry standard.
63
posted on
12/03/2001 10:23:49 AM PST
by
Silly
To: PeaceBeWithYou; Jim Robinson
PBWY's post 54 is another great reason why I think Jim will prevail, and that all the dithering and nail-biting on the part of the AFers is for naught.
64
posted on
12/03/2001 10:25:58 AM PST
by
Silly
To: Silly; Bob J; Bryan
The weakness in WP/LAT's case, in my humble and legally-uninformed opinion, is that every else in the whole wide world lets us -- and everyone else, it seems -- post entire articles.
It seems to be the industry standard.
Even MORE damaging, the folks at the Washington Post and the L.A. Times do NOT prevent many OTHER news websites from posting the FULL TEXT of their articles. Their "concern" about protecting the value of their copyrighted work seems to be only with US, which CONSIDERABLY weakens their case, IMHO.
Check out, fer instance, THIS STORY about CNN's "balance" originally published in the Washington Post on 10/31/01, reposted in all of its glory in:
www.CommonDreams.orgwww.IndyMedia.org
www.CCMEP.org
www.theHOOT.org
www.NewHumanist.com
www.my-homeschooling-place.com
www.InfoShop.org
GlobalResearch.CA
There are MANY other examples, which can be found through a determined
Google search.
Bottom line: If the OTHER NEWS WEBSITES can post full text without challenge from these bozos, why cannot WE?
65
posted on
12/03/2001 12:42:45 PM PST
by
RonDog
To: RonDog
Bottom line: If the OTHER NEWS WEBSITES can post full text without challenge from these bozos, why cannot WE? Perhaps they will answer, "Because we haven't given you permission," but you make a good point -- they are being arbitrary.
66
posted on
12/03/2001 12:50:53 PM PST
by
Silly
Comment #67 Removed by Moderator
To: RonDog
Oooo, good argument! BTTT
To: PeaceBeWithYou
Are all 4 of these to be considered or is it you only need to qualify in one, i.e., literally #1 "for non profit educational purposes?
How does #3 fit or pertain?
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.
This isn't being asked out of 'sour grapes or whining'....it appears you are a lawyer or have inside info (maybe a paralegal, a judge, or something).I have very little actual knowledge of the legal profession as probably a goodly number of FReepers don't either. Or better yet, maybe you're privy to exactly what Congress meant, or did, or discussed when they passed this legislation and any amendments.
Thanks
69
posted on
12/03/2001 1:24:50 PM PST
by
Rowdee
To: Grampa Dave; Bob J
Thanks for the legal clarifications Bob - all these clintoon judges need to go. And thanks Grampa Dave for the nice fundraising graphics! GO FR!
To: Libertina
Thanks for the kind words.
Here is the update on the Freepathon with links to the new thread #3 and an update on PayPal:
![](http://www.modemmom.com/graphics/im_holiday-ani/xmas_lights2-ani.gif)
Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year, Official link: (Thread #3)
For regular snail mail donations:
FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
(link for monthly credit card donations)
![](http://www.modemmom.com/graphics/im_holiday-ani/xmas_lights2-ani.gif)
(Reindeer says, "Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com")
To: mdittmar
So,your point is? Send the bill to Carol Hu-Tex.
To: ICU812
Excellent post... so when do we start planning the particulars, for that sad day when the evil ones score a win?
Comment #74 Removed by Moderator
To: Silly
There's another issue...even without FR.....the media companies are spending fortunes on their websites...and they are all losing tons of money....they are financial black holes for the companies....no one has figured out how to make any money from them..( except the WSJ and Consumer Reports)..yet they are forced to keep throwing money down the rat hole.....so they're focusing on this issue..but it's a false flag......even if everyone here linked to the articles, they wouldn't go through the rest of the website..they'd just return here after reading it...and no one is paying advertizing rates based upon "hits" anymore....
75
posted on
12/03/2001 2:08:23 PM PST
by
ken5050
To: Bob J
My question is what happened to clarity? If it isnt something to be announced on this thread maybe someone can freepmail the answer.
76
posted on
12/03/2001 2:17:20 PM PST
by
winodog
To: Bob J
Thanks for the helpful info.
77
posted on
12/03/2001 2:21:04 PM PST
by
Exigence
To: Bob J
I have said it before, and I will say it again. The lefties on the 9th Circuit are FR's greatest friend with respect to this case. You should get down on your knees and pray every day that you draw an all liberal panel.
78
posted on
12/03/2001 2:27:45 PM PST
by
Torie
To: BRL
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. What words on God's Green Earth posted on this thread would lead you to conclude that?
It may come to a shock to you, but lots of folks thing some judges get it wrong more often than right, and that judges make mistakes as to what is the law, or how to best fill in the gaps. Sometimes such nevetheless becomes "the law" for the time being, until reversed, if it is reversed. So, to the extent the law is an ass, what is wrong with "discounting" it providing you don't disobey it, or if you do the latter in an act of civil disobedience, to peacefully accept the consequences?
79
posted on
12/03/2001 2:37:07 PM PST
by
Torie
To: Bob J
In the manner in which you refer to Clarity ... please either use Jim's words in this matter (with his permission, if needed) or avoid the subject.
You have portrayed him as "the bad guy" after a huge amount of support from him for Jim and FR.
I cannot make the citations of JIM'S explanations ... but I surely do remember the gist of them and still don't feel that Clarity is being treated fairly here at all ... so no matter what your appointed or select position with FR is, my friend (and I do not call you that in any less than honest way) ... the subject of Clarity and FR cannot be reduced to so few words -- "all in favor of Jim and his causes (ours)" without presentation of the whole story as given by Jim, himself.
It is, or should be, wrong to give others any reasons to dislike or distrust or denigrate Clarity ... or to assign such a burden of guilt to be laid upon him, who has always been ... another "friend".
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 321-338 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson