Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's Official: LAT/WP vs Free Republic Settles
LAT/WP vs Free Republic ^ | June 19, 2002 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 06/19/2002 1:54:11 PM PDT by 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:

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



TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freerepublic; latwp; lawsuit; losangelestimes; sanfrancisco; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660661-663 next last
To: Grampa Dave
You are free to ignore me.
641 posted on 06/20/2002 7:28:17 PM PDT by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
Hey, don't write off Grampa Dave. He's just a little cranky sometimes! We're all one big, happy, slightly dysfunctional family.
642 posted on 06/20/2002 8:41:48 PM PDT by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Great news! I bet you are smiling from ear to ear!
643 posted on 06/20/2002 9:22:49 PM PDT by senorita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan; Grampa Dave
Heh, Gramps, keep Bryan on your open list...

But heh, I'm not the one who used the word, "cranky..."

Smiles,
Nicollo

644 posted on 06/20/2002 9:33:49 PM PDT by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
bookmark

645 posted on 06/20/2002 11:14:52 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
May I have your permission, after the fact, heh, heh, to use this post anyway I see fit?

As long as you don't make a profit on it and give credit to 'TigersEye'. /sarcasm (HTML tag included for the benefit of the humor challenged.)

646 posted on 06/21/2002 4:30:33 AM PDT by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Thanks for the alternative choice. I have a feeling the LAT/WP papers are going to wish they were referenced here at the Free Republic as this foum continues to grow.

Congratulations, Jim!

647 posted on 06/21/2002 4:37:00 AM PDT by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
I'm not sure why they killed that, because for a niche paper like they IBD, it must have been great publicity to have their stuff posted here on FR.

I would think that reprinting of articles on any website would be good publicity for ANY publication as long as the source was included. And of course virtually every article on FR is sourced as well as hyperlinked. The editors at the LAT'S and the WP must be morons. If people see one or more articles that they like from a particular publication it stands to reason that they might be moved to go directly TO that publication to see what else they have. Then again, if you're selling incompetence or propaganda you might be more concerned about controlling its availability so as not to spoil things with your intended audience. FR was bringing flashlights into their mushroom farm and some of their crop might have began to notice that their feet were mired in Barbara Streisand.

648 posted on 06/21/2002 4:49:29 AM PDT by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict
I have a feeling the LAT/WP papers are going to wish they were referenced here at the Free Republic as this foum continues to grow.

The beautiful thing is their papers and articles WILL be referred to repeatedly and in the most unflattering ways. And without violating the terms of the agreement. And due to the history this mess has generated there will likely be greater interest in seeing just what nonsense they are currently publishing. When things referred to are proceeded with "BANNED MATERIAL" or "THIS CAN'T BE LEGALLY VIEWED HERE" it's just human nature that an irresistable itch to go find it develops.

649 posted on 06/21/2002 5:02:45 AM PDT by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: 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."

WONDERFUL....great news on this first day of Summer!! Thanks for "slogging" it out on behalf of all of us.

I've been through this, myself, and it's a fine day when the lawyers pack their briefcases and go home...........

Some stuff is just worth fighting for!!!!

650 posted on 06/21/2002 5:24:24 AM PDT by soozla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soozla
I was trolling the lib websites and some of the clymers "think" this decision effects every article and website out there (not just the WP/LAT). One was keeping track of all full articles posted here.

The WP and LAT don't ever have to worry about me posting articles from their bird cage liners.
651 posted on 06/21/2002 5:43:47 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Dear JimRob,

As a First Amendment lawyer, I felt strongly that FreeRepublic should have won its case, on several strong grounds that go to the heart of the meaning of the First Amendment. However, it takes deep pockets to be ready to go all the way to the Supreme Court. And given some recent rulings by that Court including two really bad ones yesterday, there is no guarantee of good results if you went that far.

Bottom line: the settlement you outlined is well tolerable to FreeRepublic, so I fully support your decision to go that route.

I do have a suggestion, however, that you may find interesting. I understand that the Washington Post and the L.A. Times are both hypocritical (no surprise there) in that they attacked FreeRepublic for "full-article" posts, but took no action concerning such posts on other websites that agree with the leftist bias of those two newspapers. My suggestion is based on that understanding.

When an article appears in either of those newspapers which FReepers feel should be intellectually tarred and feathered, a Google search should turn up whether the entire article has been posted on SOME OTHER WEBSITE. If so, the entire article should be posted and referenced to the OTHER website. Let the Post and the Times sue the other websites, ad infinatum.

As I understand it, the Consent Decree does not have any effect on the relationships between FreeRepublic and any other websites in the world, except for the two that are operated by those newspapers.

Do you like that suggestion?

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest: "Talking without Speaking -- Hearing without Listening."

652 posted on 06/21/2002 6:25:44 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict
I agree with you on the LA Times/WP -- time to basically halt posting anything that gives those two papers any hits.
653 posted on 06/21/2002 6:27:37 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
YYYEEEEAAAAHHHH!
654 posted on 06/21/2002 12:27:03 PM PDT by gracie1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
John Robinson will be soon allowing us that choice of whom and whose words don't appear on our screen while logged on to Free Republic. I currently use two other forums that allow this ultimate power to each user, and it is great.

So if individual freepers are screened out, what if you WANT to know what it was from John Q. Obnoxious that provoked Jane Z. Friend's comment? You have to cumbersomely reset your filter to see?

655 posted on 06/21/2002 3:07:03 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I don't know, you will have to ask John Rob. In some cases at the two sites I visit with this ability, it is worth the time to go disable the kill program and go back. Most of the time, I say, now, I rember why I blocked this clymer.
656 posted on 06/22/2002 7:08:31 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
While this is not entirely a win for FR

Close enough for government work. :-)

This is great news.

657 posted on 06/23/2002 12:24:05 PM PDT by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
If something like this could be set up, I think few sites would have any objection to the permanent archiving -- most just want the hits for the few days the articles are accessible on their sites, to show to their advertisers.

Few sites would probably object, but the L.A. Times and Washington Post also want to keep the ability to dump into the memory home any stories they've posted that turn out to be unflattering (i.e. are too quickly exposed as major lies or goofs).

BTW, one reason Jewish World Review's requests for link/excerpt-only posting have generally been respected is that their links generally (if not always) stay valid and the linked stories do not change. By contrast, some other "news" sources routinely try to cover their tracks when they get caught lying.

658 posted on 06/23/2002 7:26:56 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: bobbyd
Cool!
659 posted on 06/24/2002 8:52:21 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
As was said earlier, thanks for fighting the good fight, on behalf of all of us. We all owe you a lot.
660 posted on 06/24/2002 9:12:43 PM PDT by PianoMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660661-663 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson