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.
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.
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.
I don't buy into the Historical record stuff too much, especially considering that the archives have been down for 2 months and my posts won't even go back more then a month.