$1,000,000 Million Judgement against Jim/FR LLC - What does it mean?

12-02-01 | Bob J

[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...

[IronJack]

If this place were to start moving the right mountains, it would become an Achilles Heel.

Now there's a metaphor that's more mixed than Jesse Jackson's kids.

[Sandy]

What happens if the appeals lose out and they (WP/LAT) come after JR for the million?...Will he ask freepers to pony up the cash?

He won't even have to ask. There are so many FReepers right now who thoroughly love and are hooked on Free Republic--and there will be even more by the time this suit is finished--who are quite willing to give whatever it takes.

[$1 million] Is this even attainable?

Hell yeah! When push comes to shove, it'll be like a drop in the bucket.

worst case scenario

Worst case scenario is... we lose, pay up, and go to linking. It'll suck, but we'll adapt.

[RonDog]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The court has plenty of conservative types. The problem is the lefties are REALLY left and make such stupid rulings they get smacked DOWN by the SC on a regular basis. Check their rulings.

As I posted on a previous thread:

Did you hear USC professor John Eastman (and the better half of Hugh Hewitt's Friday morning "Smart Guys" segment) on this morning's show?

Hugh asked him what the U.S. Supreme Court might do about a case decided by the ULTRA-left Ninth Circuit, and he said that if they take it, they have a special [ALT-9] macro to automatically insert at the end of any opinion involving a case from the Ninth Circuit the following conclusion: "The opinion of the Ninth Circuit is reversed; the decision of the Court is unanimous." - since those black-robed Left Coast bozos are reversed so often by the REAL Supremes.

This is, of course, a joke - but it is CLOSE to being true!

[boycott]

I go to several different sites that link newspaper articles. I go to a sports forum everyday and numerous newspapers are linked. I don't see why Free Republic was singled out.

[Jim Robinson]

Bob, Thanks for the post, but I'd like to correct the record on at least a couple of points. First, I am a Navy Vet, but I am not a "disabled vet." True, I have muscular dystrophy and I get around in a winged wheeled silver chariot instead of stumping around on spindly sticks like the rest of you have to do, but that hardly makes me disabled; and the MD is not war related. Second, when they told me they wanted a million bucks (and actually it was before they told me), I had suggested they fine me $100,000 per proven copyright infringement. We had at the time over a 100,000 articles posted so that would've worked out to approximately $10,000,000,000 (if my math is correct, I got lost in the zeros). After all, if my unfair competition has truly damaged these multi-billion dollar media corporations, then it's only reasonable that ALL publications which are represented in our postings here were also damaged and therefore they should all be entitled to fair and just payment. The last thing on this earth I'd ever want to do is deprive anyone of their just due.

[f.Christian]

Our society is based upon laws, not upon the whims of the person who stomps their feet the loudest.

What do you know about Law--rights--constitution--free speech vs. politics-bias-spin?

Are you stomping your feet?

[Bob J]

Not to my knowledge and I was in the courtroom the day it was argued.

[Rowdee]

I believe you have said you're a lawyer, so maybe you can answer my question in #69 above.....where there are 4 items listed.....does that mean that all four items have to be met in order to qualify as fair use, or can they/we/them/whoever just pick one thing that applies, i.e., non profit status. I was concerned about #3 because we have (up until this judgment thing) (collectively 'we') posted the entire article.

[hoot2]

"a billion here, a billion there; pretty soon you're talkin' about real money..."

Audio

[Bob J]

Don't ask me what the plan is, I'm not the owner nor a party to the suit. What I previously posted were just my opinions.

[Bob J]

What are you talking about?

[Bob J]

How can you pay up when you don't have any assets?

[Bob J]

It's up to the judge, but these are the four "tests" of fair use.

[InvisibleChurch]

[hoot2]

"Send the bill to Carol Hu-Tex. "

gosh, with oil prices comin' down, n christmas right-around the corner.....it might put a dent in her checking account

[Torie]

All four items need not be met to constitute fair use. Meeting one conceivably could constitute fair use given unusual facts. It is all a rather jumbled mix and match test. But there is no case of which I am aware or which was cited in the Briefs which has ever upheld the complete copying of a piece for wide dissemination constitutes fair use, and none that have held that the subsequent comment is a "transformation" that results in the complete copy being different from the original, and thus not an infringement, which is an argument FR has made. I'm not a copyright lawyer, and thus not an expert, but after having perused this, I would be amazed if the court does not uphold the infringement, unless it finds that the internet is a different medium, which requires distinguishment from other media. I doubt that will happen, particularly if the judges are property rights oriented, i.e. somewhat conservative.

Another argument that has been made is that the First Amendment is this context trumps the copyright law. That argument strikes me as a Hail Mary pass. My inexpert opinion is that FR has an uphill battle. JMO of course. Clarity thinks I am an idiot on this. And Clarity is no dummy, although at the time he was an advocate.

[Doe Eyes]

I go to several different sites that link newspaper articles. I go to a sports forum everyday and numerous newspapers are linked. I don't see why Free Republic was singled out.

I thought the issue was posting the entire article instead of posting the link. Without the link, the sites get fewer hits, and lose advertising value.

[oc-flyfish]

Thanks for the post Bob!