What is Free Republic all about?

Free Republic | 12/08/01 | Jim Robinson

[an amused spectator]

Simply because taking down that last 10% is cost prohibitive doesn’t mean that the terrorists are going to win.

• The site I'm talking about has a larger membership than FR had at the time the lawsuit was instigated.
• With mmmorron's opinion in hand, it would take a two or three line email from representation for the interested parties to shut this site down.

[brityank]

... I'm aware of the free speech dimension, but there's a commercial dimension.

Just like free speech doesn't include a right to be published against the will of the publisher, I think free speech doesn't include a right to republish creative works against the will of the author (or his publisher).

There are ways to direct people to the full text of articles while enabling their discussion. If it really was a conflict between property rights and free speech, it might be different. But it's only a conflict between property rights and convince.

Sorry; you are wrong.
The First Amendment was placed because the Anti-Federalists knew that if not protected, your right to undiluted and honest information about the state of the nation would be hobbled and curtailed by the powers that be. You just try to go into a Presidential, Senate, or Congressional news-conference. You don't have the requisite papers to attend; you won't get in. In defense of those requirements, the purpose of establishing some form of orderly distribution of the news means that some of us, the Citizens, will be unable to get in but all of us will get the information as disseminated. The right for us to discuss, dissemble, decry, and detail the anomalies of competing press accounts is the sole reason for the People having the freedom of the press, and not for the corporations to have a copyright.

News, editorials, opinion-pieces, pertaining to current events in government, law, and politics is all fair game to the People.

Art, inventions, research compilations, fictional works, are the items for copyright.

Do you think news is creative content?

[RJL]

ISP'S are contracting in the dot.com bust and are awash in red ink.

What better time to buy than when the industry is in a slump? Remember the old saw "buy low, sell high".

The moment FR leaves a "non-commercial" status, it loses the fair use defense and leaves itself open to many legal and civil problems.

FreeRepublic ISP LLC. would be a completely separate legal entity from FreeRepublic.com LLC.

The donations are working. Why ruin a good thing?

More is better. If Jim and the Mrs. can put a few dollars in the bank, maybe take a cruise, and make donations to FreeRepublic.com from the ISP proceeds, so much the better.

[elfman2]

"Do you think news is creative content?

Most of what's posted here is not only creative content, it's commercial goods. 90% of the people who post here can report the news, but 99% of those would make lousy syndicated columnists.

Nothing's being withheld from the people by limiting full text copy and republication. The source of the discussions taking place here would still just be a click away.

[bulldog905]

I don't know how many users would would need to make an ISP profitable(on a nationwide setup) but if half the total members bought the service(and that's a big if) you would have a base of about 30,000.

I think you have to have MUCH bigger numbers to make a nationwide ISP financially viable.

[an amused spectator]

The source of the discussions taking place here would still just be a click away.

This statement is just naive.

[facedown]

ping

[RedWing9]

Important history thread for Chicagoland FReepers...

Also, there is a Part II, and at the moment, a coming Part III. Search for by:"Jim Robinson" to find those...

[elfman2]

"This statement is just naive."

Enlighten me oh wise one.

[an amused spectator]

I'd like to thank you. Your stubborn adherence to the concept of LATWP as "commercial goods" has opened some fascinating lines of inquiry. I'll give a teaser.

Is it possible, nay probable, that the LATWP accounting geeks don't know what the legal geeks are up to with their barbara streisand "copyright" lawsuits? Ouch! ;-)

[snorkeler]

I like to think of what you have put together as the Internet Colonial American tavern. I can speak freely here, because I cannot elsewhere.

I am really not trying to make you uncomfortable, but can I suggest that it is your duty as a patriot to speak up in other venues? One possible down side of FR is that we tend to clan-up here instead of circulating and spreading the word.

I think maybe the posts and the good points we make on other forum are more valuable in the end than those we sing to the choir hear.

I come here for ammo and then, head back to the battlefield of debate and ideas. If you accept your feeling that you can't speak freely any place else, if you don't stand up for what you really believe in all places at all times, you are enabling the day when it really will be imposible to speak freely.

Take courage from this site and use it everyday.

[lavrenti]

I understand your argument. However, my reality dictates otherwise.

[elfman2]

Sure, it's possible.

Do you drink as you write? Internet people have such a wide variety quirks and agendas that I'm not motivated to follow a stranger's riddles, teasers or hints. Your writing style's amusing, but I can't spend time on this right now without seeing a return.

[an amused spectator]

Do you drink as you write?

Why do you ask? Looking for a drinking companion? ;-)

The source of the discussions taking place here would still just be a click away.

I guess you haven't discovered that URLs can be changed en masse, in a matter of seconds. I could disable all the links on a site built up over years in under a minute, given access to the administrative PC. Is this so hard to understand?

[elfman2]

"I guess you haven't discovered that URLs can be changed en masse, in a matter of seconds. I could disable all the links on a site built up over years in under a minute, given access to the administrative PC. Is this so hard to understand?"

Archiving and reporting are two separate FR features. Archives are not lost to the public as I mentioned to NittanyLion in #121. If FR is intent on being an online library for back issues, their software could easily be set up to periodically check for broken links and then display the original copy made at time of posting (if that's really important). But then the copyright issue pops up again.

I personally don't think it's important. There are other paid services for archiving periodicals. Lexis/Nexis comes to mind. I don’t know how they deal with the copyright issue.

I think that 90% of FR's value doesn't involve article archiving. I think 75% of FR's appeal will remain if we had to link to full text. I think that's a fair price to pay for maintaining our principles. I think it was Dr. Laura that said, "It's not a principle until it costs you something."

And sure, I'll have a drink with you. Make it to the Keys, and we'll argue in person.

[AAABEST]

. But if you're willing to surrender to lawlessness, maybe you'll be interested in this:

Not at all. I don't believe in breaking the law and neither do 90% of the people who are reading the articles posted on FR.

Do you read articles on FR without paying the source or visiting the site? Have you ever DL'd an MP3 or made a copy of a cassette or VCR tape? You don't have to answer because it's a rhetorical question and I already know the answer.

We should not condone breaking laws that we don't agree with, but whether or not anyone is breaking the law is a totally moot point. Metallica spent a few mil going after Napster, and all they got for it was a bunch of pissed off fans and 50 copycat sites for their trouble. If JR was ordered to shut down FR, all he would have to do is move to another country that doesn't have our copyright laws and start it up again.

Things are changing whether our antiquated 19th copyright system wants it to or not. I'm not even arguing if it's good, bad, right or wrong. It's simply a fact of life that (unlike terrorism as per your example) is infinite can't be stopped.

Unfortunately the dinosaur ideologue controllers may win this one and ruin something great while accompishing nothing. No justice will be served and no wrong will be righted.

All we'll have is a disabled vet with an ulcer and a looted bank account while a lot of rat pig leftists pat themselves on the back.

[upcountry miss]

WOW!!! Did you ever hit the nail right on the head!!! You rock!!!!

[KC Burke]

While issues of legality will be settled "at law", the issue of motives, and therefore, applicability to the values of the first amendment cannot be overlooked.

During the Clinton criminality, the WP and L A Times conspired to slap-sue a site that enabled people of intelligence to first pick apart their propaganda masquerading as journalism, and then secondly, disseminate the smashing analyis nationally and instantly. This greatily interfered with the setting of the national perception and understanding of events normally orchestrated by the liberal media.

During that pursuit of corruption and criminality many instances were found in the media where a story, and its related URL was pulled or altered by senior editors. Only a full-text, real-time version could preserve the evidence of the criminality and the related management of the news by the liberal media.

If that isn't related to free speech and a free press, then I wish somone would tell me what is.