[Jean S]

This is the problem of getting all our information from the internet.

Yes, and the copyright restrictions put on Free Republic and other sites don't allow us to archive the original articles. Articles can be changed and we can't prove that they were changed because of threats of future lawsuits.

[meyer]

Yes, and the copyright restrictions put on Free Republic and other sites don't allow us to archive the original articles. Articles can be changed and we can't prove that they were changed because of threats of future lawsuits.

Under the fair use doctrine, individuals can archive original articles. FR cannot, I believe, due to an agreement derived from a previous court case cocerning this issue.

It's probably a good idea for people to start archiving more information from these types of resources for future reference so that they can't claim it never existed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

the copyright restrictions put on Free Republic and other sites don't allow us to archive the original articles. Articles can be changed and we can't prove that they were changed because of threats of future lawsuits.

That's interesting. Nothing much seems to be moving toward a more open society or accountable government these days, does it?

[markomalley]

Yes, and the copyright restrictions put on Free Republic and other sites don't allow us to archive the original articles. Articles can be changed and we can't prove that they were changed because of threats of future lawsuits.

You should download and install PDF Creator. Open source software which allows you to create PDFs from web pages, word docs or whatever (it works just like a printer driver).

That, used with sites such as docstoc or Wikileaks can make sure that subtle changes like reported in this article are exposed to their fullest extent!

[Political Junkie Too]

I just asked this question as a reply to another post: If the original news source changes the on-line only copy of a story such that the original is not recognizable, then does it continue to "own" the rights to it? How do they claim "fair use" of a story they don't even recognize as theirs anymore?

-PJ