Replies

As an aside, this case is a good example of why the "inalienable rights" approach to government, as proposed by many libertarians here, is flawed.

This case is not a good example of this. I think if polled anonymously, most libertarians would say 2 things about this case:

1. This is not a clear cut case of intellectual property theft. I think it depends on how you view the forum. To me the forum's appeal was always the people here that would tear apart the articles and reveal it for what it is really worth. If you use it as a news filtering service, then perhaps it could be argued that it is theft, especially considering that there is a payroll involved. I think Jim could do himself a favor and make the "orignal source" link a bit more prominent and encourage folks to visit the original site. Follow that with a disclaimer stating that the entire article is posted for Historical recording purposes.

2. The LAT/WP case is based in pettiness. Even if someone could espuose an argument that proves this is intellectual property theft, I think the damages would be hard to prove. How many "conservative" readers do you think they fear losing? If they were honestly trying to lure some conservative readers, they would fire the editorial staff...not sue a website.

The problem most libertarian bashers have is they forget that libertarians (most anyhow) subscribe to a philosphy that is rooted in its purity (not by pragmaticism), so using real world scenarios to prove a belief wrong is not quite the same as proving a democrat (or republican) policy wrong. The libertarian philosphy is deeply intermingled. For example, many folks here have been smashing the open border policy of libertarians by using the example of terrorists entering this country. That policy is based on the fact that we would be a non-interventionist country. (this is beside the fact that most of the folks calling for tighter borders were talking more specifically of Mexican iommigrants....not Arab). In order for one to be effective, the other needs to be in place. I think it could be argued that in a libertarian republic, FR would have no reason to exsist, and even if it did the WP/LAT would probably be quite different. Is it a Utopian ideal? Of course....that won't change until libertarians get elected to power positions. It's philosophical Zen for now.

All that being said...If I were JR, I would excerpt and link like Lucianne does (yet still alow vanities and our own fact finding investigations) and commercialize the site.

This case is not a good example of this. I think if polled anonymously, most libertarians would say 2 things about this case: 1. This is not a clear cut case of intellectual property theft.

I would agree that prior to the lawsuit it was not clear cut. However, both parties agreed to take it to court and fight it out AND FORCE A CLEAR CUT DECISION. Jim Robinson has decided to force the decision. Aside from the possible appeal, it is now CLEAR CUT - get it?

I think it depends on how you view the forum. To me the forum's appeal was always the people here that would tear apart the articles and reveal it for what it is really worth. If you use it as a news filtering service, then perhaps it could be argued that it is theft, especially considering that there is a payroll involved. I think Jim could do himself a favor and make the "orignal source" link a bit more prominent and encourage folks to visit the original site. Follow that with a disclaimer stating that the entire article is posted for Historical recording purposes.

In case if you don't quite get it, it no longer depends on what you or I think or on what Jim Robinson thinks. The matter has been elevated to the point where the Federal government has made a ruling on this. Opinions are no longer relevent, the ruling is out.

Assuming it is based on pettiness , who cares? It does not really matter what motivated them to file the suit. The law has ruled against the practices that this site used/ uses.