It's Official: LAT/WP vs Free Republic Settles

LAT/WP vs Free Republic ^ | June 19, 2002 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

I just received official word that our settlement with the LAT/WP in their alleged copyright infringement and unfair competion suit against Free Republic (click Source link above for complete history of the case) is completely finalized with the court. I do not have a copy of the final order yet, but the basic terms are as follows:

• Unless we receive prior written permission on an article by article basis, Free Republic agrees to continue posting only excerpts (as allowed by fair use) and links from any of the LAT/WP or related publications.

• Free Republic agrees to remove all full text copies of any LAT/WP and related publications copyrighted articles from its archives and servers and to destroy all copies of same.

• Neither party is awarded any damages, attorney fees or costs except that Free Republic agrees to pay the Los Angeles Times $5,000 and the Washington Post $5,000 (these negotiated amounts have already been paid).

I will post the entire final order including the list of related publications as soon as I receive a copy and get it scanned in.

Well, my fingers are not cold and dead and my keyboard has not been ripped away. While this is not entirely a win for FR, neither is it a crushing defeat. Free Republic is alive and well and the fight against liberalism continues on. It's a crying shame that the hallowed words of the WP/LAT will no longer grace our pages, but, somehow, I am sure we will manage to live on without them.

And despite what our detractors may say, we have not committed any crimes or broken any laws and we have not admitted to any guilt. We have negotiated a mutual agreement and settlement with the LAT/WP and have agreed upon satisfactory terms for continuing forward without having to spend the rest of our lives in court.

Many thanks to all of you for your past and continuing support.

Regards.

Jim Robinson

[MeekOneGOP]

Wow ! Thanks for puttin' that up! I gave Cool Guy the Hooters thread.
Now he wants their names. Can you get their phone numbers too?
(Oh, no no no ! I'm just anticipatin' Cool Guys NEXT request! LOL!)

[Victoria Delsoul]

Congratulations FR!

[ArneFufkin]

I wouldn't care if they requested the same parameters as the settlement. So what? We hit the link. If you're not interested enough in the material to double click a link, Fred, you aren't interested in the material.

I remember the guy from Jewish World Review used to come here and PLEAD with us to not post full text. His operation was on the brink of insolvency, and he needed every hit to not only garner revenue, but retain his advertisers. Of course, some the selfish troglodytes here don't kowtow to no rules, so they continued to just cut and paste the material HE WAS PAYING the outlets to display. It was sad, and the boorish arrogance of the purists here and the dismissal of his really poignant and undestandable requests is just unfathomable to me. One fricking double click on a link. Not for the unappeasables. I emailed the site's owner and apologized on behalf of FR for some peoples attitude and sent him $25 that day.

The guy at JWR doesn't have the resources to take FR to court if we don't comply with his wishes. Worldnetdaily.com ... if I owned that site, I'd demand that we link to it. Some folks here affect this righteous boycott, but your boycotting ONE G.D. hit!!! Big loss for WND!

These sites have NOTHING to lose by demanding a link from FR. If something is worth sharing with the group, it's worth going to their site.

What is so DIFFICULT about this concept? Every one of us should want to support WND, JWR, National Review Online, the Washington Times, Insight Mag, etc. They're good guys tryng to spread the gospel and make a business work. They've got expenses. They carry debt that makes them stay awake nights. They pay for the food the put on their tables and the roof they put over the family through the proceeds of their enterprise. I know what it's like to start a business, it's tough. But if anybody knowingly stiffed me, I'd put a boot up their ass. Who's that crass and rude? Anyone here who won't respect ANY websites desire to derive REVENUE to offset their costs and make a profit so they can pay their bills and employees and keep the doors open another month is a world class d-head in my opinion. It's beyond my comprehension.

[Auntie Mame]

The mainstream press, with the blessings of the Senate, control access by reporters and news organizations to the Senate. By controlling access, they control the news. The average citizen cannot get the access that the press does. Therefore, Congress, via the mainstream press, controls what news citizens get. That's not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Very well said.

[Born in a Rage]

Thanks for the pings!! This is good news indeed. I'm so happy for JimRob that he doesn't have to deal with this issue anymore!!! Whoo-Hah ;-)

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, the cost has been high. We were a much tighter group a few years ago when we were all pulling for the same thing. Clinton was the common foe that brought us all together. With him out of the picture, our group has split into dozens of factions with conflicting ideals and goals and we're at each other's throats. It's going to be interesting to see if we can keep it together in order to defeat the liberals at the polls. Even more interesting to see if we can continue growing and start work on our major long term goals: repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, etc., etc.

[meyer]

I'm not going to jump out of my chair and say "Great!". But, conversely, I'm not going to go off crying somewhere. I haven't read the whole thread yet, but my opinion is simply that this was a "push". This allows the big fight to take place on another day at another time. In the meantime, we can all continue as freepers doing the good deeds that all freepers are wont to do.

You did well, JimRob and company. I'm pleased that we're all still here, though disappointed that we didn't really solve the issue of free speech on the internet. But at least there is hope on the latter.

[sweetliberty]

Thanks for the reply. I am the most anti-commercial individual I know and I can't see how it be construed in any way as commercial, but I am not a lawyer. Anyway, I'm glad they're off y'all's back for the time being.

[patricia]

Wonderful news! You and yours have been, and shall continue to be, in my prayers each and every day.

Thanks for all you do for FReepers.

[meyer]

I tend to agree with most of what you say WRT copyright except for one glaring error - The Washington Post does not "add value" to anything including the news. In fact, if anything, the reduce the value of the news by adding a liberal slant.

[CWRWinger]

This isn't about Free Republic, it's about fundamental rights to the revenue of proprietary and revenue-valuable information provided over this new distribution channel. Doesn't matter if it's on paper, via pager, from a Fax on Demand service or displayed on the World Wide Web. That's their product. That's what advertisers pay them for - the value and demand of the information they provide.

I believe in respecting copy rights. If LAT/WP(a'la Drudge) don't want anyone copying there stuff, they shouldn't put it on the internet or in any digital format.
They are just whining. If they want to be compensated, they should stick with the printed page. No one forced them to go on the internet. They are aware of the perils. If the risk is too high and they can't control the distribution on the internet, they need to hire more paperboys.

[an amused spectator]

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel unless you have servers with terrabyte capacity.

Never pick a fight with someone who buys judges with their ink. ;-)

[Cool Guy]

Ya want their numbers, you ask for it, don;t use me to get their numbers. Anyway, if you finally get them feel free to pass it to me :)

[palo verde]

great news Jim
I am overjoyed
Love, Palo

[meyer]

These sites have NOTHING to lose by demanding a link from FR. If something is worth sharing with the group, it's worth going to their site.

There is something being lost in the case of many of the papers - The loss of archiving. The information often leaves the site daily at some of these newspaper web sites. And when it is gone, there's no way to find it unless you go to the library and look it up (for free) or pay to access the information at the paper's web site at a future date. This makes discussion of these stories impossible. It also allows the paper to later contradict their own story with little chance of someone calling them on it publically.

Part of this fight is about the ability of people to discuss a news story without buying the paper. Does your library carry copies of major papers? Can you read them for free? Then why should you not be able to do the same on the internet and be able to discuss them with peers just as you might do at a library or with a neighbor.

Like I said on an earlier post; this fight will again be fought. It may not be FreeRepublic v. Whoever, but somebody will fight this thing up to a higher court. It just wasn't the right time to make the big effort. When that time comes, I hope that freepers respond by supporting the free speech angle. Even if it is (and I say this reluctantly) a liberal discussion group.

[callisto]

Congratulations on an amicable settlement. And thank you for your hard work and dedication to the cause.

No real conservative would ever "cite" either of these left wing fish wraps for any meaningful thread.

Such a wise observation!

[Jim Robinson]

"Actually, I believe the stipulation agreed to by FR in the Lower Court did just the opposite, did it not?"

I don't think so.

"I would be concerned about that on a going forward basis should any other entity feel it necessary to take the same path as the WP/LATs and, actually, make a concerted effort to show real damages (which they really don't have to do to a high burden)."

I am concerned as well. Will take them on one at a time (or however they choose to come at us) assuming they do.


"While I would have to congratulate you on coming out of the tunnel relatively unscathed, I think settling this case just painted a bullseye on the back of your shirt."

Thanks, and you could be right.


"Also, I think John needs to get busy. I just did a Google search and saw a number of full articles still in the archives that are published through subsidiaries of The Washington Post Company, Inc. Or, are the only entities addressed in the settlement the WP and the LAT's verbatim?"

We have 90 days to get them off (WP/LAT and all related companies). John is working on the programs as we speak.


"As you can tell I wasn't a supporter of a settlement on this case for obvious reasons pointed out above. I.E. either it is fair use or it isn't, but taking the most cost effective path doesn't necessarily support a pursuit of the truth, and a fight against "enemies of the Constitution.""

Well, under the circumstances, I felt it was the best move. And we will continue on in our fight against the enemies of the Constitution.

You may or may not know, but when I started Free Republic, taking on the LAT/WP in an alleged copyright infringement case was not one of my goals. This was an unfortunate byproduct of the way we operated our forum and it has obviously taken a huge toll on the organization and has sidetracked our main efforts. I think full text posting helped us in our battles against Clinton and Gore, and I know that we will miss it, but I'm also hoping that we will develop methodologies to be just as effective without it.

I will assure you that whatever happens next, I am just as determined as always to fight on for Liberty and I'm sure that thousands of FReepers are too.


Thanks,

Jim

[Texaggie79]

We are responsible for 90% of Yatta popularity in the US...........

[Honorary Serb]

Hearty congratulations to you, JimRob!!

[Snow Bunny]

BUMP

Such good news! ( big smile) Hi KLT