Replies

"Furthermore, whether we like it or not, the case has been decided - WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR COUNTRY'S CONSTITUTION. FR lost. It is in for apeal. FR may win there or may lose (I would have to say they will probably lose)."

Actually, the case has not been decided, it's not even been heard yet. Just because some rookie liberal activist judge, appointed by the most corrupt president this country has ever had the displeasure of suffering through, and who was directly supported by plaintiff's editorial staff by the way, violated my right to trial by jury by summarily dismissing our primary defense does not make it decided and does not make it constitutional. In fact, the lower court's action is a direct violation of my civil liberties. Who knows, I may yet get the ACLU involved in this thing.

We should have been allowed to present our case in front of a jury. Evidenced by the size of the amount of judgement, this was no nickle and dime case. And the potential precedent set could change the face of modern copyright law forever, not to mention its impact on free speech. It should have been tried. What the heck was the judge afraid of? Was she afraid of costing her friends and political supporters, the plaintiffs, more of their money? Was she afraid that her friends might actually lose? Or that we would be wasting her time? Is this enough to justify summarily dismissing our primary defense? Shouldn't the little guy have his shot at justice? Or is it money, power and influence that sets the judicial agenda? There is no excuse for not hearing this case, complete with our full defense.

Now, I realize that this (referring to trial by jury) is not the way it's done in modern streamlined legal proceedings, especially when you do not have money to hire a large and powerful law firm, but again that is one of the reasons why we are here on Free Republic in the first place. We are challenging these illegal kangaroo courts and unconstitutional rulings. Where and when was our right to trial before jury repealed? Should we be deprived of our Constitutional rights simply for the purposes of court expediency and convenience? I thought that that was one of the primary purposes of government, to defend our individual rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, it was long ago realized that this case is a major first amendment issue. Regardless of who won or lost at the lower court, the case would've been appealed by the other side. And whoever loses at the appeal will attempt to get it before the Supreme Court, you can count on that. It will not have been "decided" until that point. Now, if we don't get there and or if we lose entirely, that still does not make it "decided" or the decision constitutional. The Court will have simply been wrong again (IMHO). The constitutionality of the question will just be put on hold until some other poor dumb sucker decides to risk it all by challenging the system again. Perhaps he'll have better luck. But that's the only way to force these issues and, hopefully, sooner or later, the Court will rule correctly. The fact of the matter is, at this time, the Constitution is more or less ignored by the Congress and the Courts.

Jim,

The more I listen to your arguments concerning WP/LAT, and the principles you base them on, the more reasonable you seem and the more likely it seems to me you will win.

The failure of WP/LAT to consistently go after all so-called offenders, and instead pick on one and ignore the others, reminds me of an entity who hasn't made that mistake: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The statuette of Oscar -- both the object itself and images depicting it -- are scrupulously protected by the Academy. It goes after anyone, big or small, who reproduces that image even in the most general way. The Academy speaks up at minor infractions by the owners of tiny shops who sell Oscar-like images, even images not exactly reproduced.

A few years ago, I noticed a piece of illustrative art on the Web site of the Minneapolis Star Tribune (StarTribune.com). On their arts page, they had a graphic similar to this:

Their old image, like the image above, was a composite of images meant to portray "the arts," and it included a piano keyboard, a scrap of film, and... an image curiously similar to, but not the same as, the Oscar statuette. The paper had been using that exact piece of graphic art for years.

During that time, I had been reading about the Academy's protection of their image at their Web site. I decided to inform them of the StarTribune's veiled use of the Oscar image, and sent the Academy a link to the offending Web page.

The very next day the image had disappeared. The StarTribune had undoubtedly been contacted by the Academy.

The Academy does this because if they didn't protect their copyright against each infraction, however small, they would eventually risk losing the exclusive right to that valuable image. It would enter the public domain.

The WP and LAT, in my mind, gave up all rights to their flimsy, so-called claims when they allowed everyone else on the planet to the same "fair use" that they find objectionable by you. They have lost not only their credibility, but -- in my humble non-legal opinion -- any claim at all to the distibution and reproduction of their stories. At least when it comes to the Fair Use issue, you have them over a barrel.

Keep protecting yourself furiously as you have been doing, but I don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell.

(And now I may have to contact the estate of Grant Wood and send them a link to the Star Tribune's Web site.)