[CedarDave]

I have to agree with JoeEveryman. Except for your not paying a very large dollar settlement, FR has LOST THIS CASE! You still have to get permission from (BARF) the LA Slimes or the Washington Compost to publish full text articles. And you do have a bullseye on your back for companies like TimeWarner-CNN, the NY Times and others to aim at. You may have saved FR, but the First Amendment took a hit.

[BADJOE]

A five grand bullseye aint much of a target.

Plus the fact that not all are as stupid as they are.

Getting your story and your publication mentioned on FR to hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise would never see it is a plus not a minus.

[pyx]

The FAIR USAGE clause seems to have taken a bad hit. In fact, it may have been gutted. Freedom was indeed defeated with this case, sad to say.

[muawiyah]

AOL-TIME and the NYT management teams are much smarter than those over at the WarshPost. They know that the commentary on FR "adds value" to their news articles, and that means they can reduce the size of each news piece while increasing the percentage of advertising! People who want that extra "umph" in their news can just come here while the proles can make-do with what the NYT condescends to allow them to read.

As strange as it seems, we help NYT and others make greater profits!

[targetpractice]

It will be interesting to read the court order, because publishers pursue these lawsuits in order to esablish precedent and clarify Section 107. Their goal is not to win damages but to build a body of case law that narrows the definition of "Fair Use."

For an interesting and similar case, read "Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphic Corporation."

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/pr imary/cases/c758FSupp1522.html