Replies

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.

"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."

That, of course, is the point. Retrieving archived articles is a potential revenue stream for the publishers. After all, the content is their product and was developed at their expense. You have the option to pay for the retrieval or go down to the library if you want to save money. The entire reason publishers exist, hire reporters, write stories, build web sites, and print newspapers is to make money -- not to provide gratis discussion material. The archive retrieval fee is for the value and convenience of avoiding a trip to the library.

If Freepers truly prefer to read WP or LAT content only on this site, then I'll bet there is a license deal that could be made between freerepublic.com and the publishers. After all, publishers are in the business of licensing their content. It doesn't seem like this approach was explored. Instead, it seems that the FR position was to argue copyrighted material was free to take.

This fight will be lost. Nobody will challenge this copyright law. You want to discuss the "news" without paying for it. Fine ... your not paying for it. Click on their link. That's what the business model is predicated on. I hate to harp on this, but if ain't worth double clicking, it ain't worth reading if it was fully pasted into the thread. It's not a big deal.

Regarding archiving - what is our situation now? Do we have access to all threads from 1997 on? If we haven't archived all previous FR activity up till now for search and recall and review ... what the hell were we fighting for? I honestly don't know.

I give up. I'd like to visit some Freeper communities -some seem to live in a economy where everything is free of charge. Money for nothing and chicks for free.

Thanks for the thoughts Meyer ... this stuff just really p's me off because it is indicative of a larger world view I've observed among some here of a surly entitlement and a dismissal of any social commitment to the world beyond their immediate demand or greivance. It's just getting so old. And, it wasn't so long ago I was wobbly legged starting a business and my partner vendors and customers SUPPORTED me. They wanted me to succeed. It is completely beyond my comprehension that anyone here would deny a vendor's request that the use of material he has paid for and presented be trafficked through his site. That's either ignorance of business reality or just a dislikable lack of basic consideration. There's no principle to defend ... there's no free speech issue. We should support these sites, these conservative syndicators and great writers. It's a double click - there's no rational grounds for oppostition. It's just a confrontational, reflexive boorishnes that colors every issue and event. And it really, really blows.

The thought of that guy from JWR coming here two years ago and explaining his dilemma - and some here just flicking him is really disgusting me. I'd forgotten about that until tonight. Boys Behaving Badly. Selfish louts displease me greatly. I shun them in business, community events and my social circles. I don't like people who don't contribute to the team. Thanks for the shout out, I'm off sir. Regards!