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...
Why?
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.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.
It seems to be the industry standard.
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.orgThere are MANY other examples, which can be found through a determined Google search.www.my-homeschooling-place.com
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.
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
Here is the update on the Freepathon with links to the new thread #3 and an update on PayPal: 
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)
(Reindeer says, "Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com")
Send the bill to Carol Hu-Tex.
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?
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.