Another funny thing is the guy who was doing the majority of the posting from said site has an email address from same site. LOL!
He probably posted the (un)referenced offending full text article himself. Notice that he didn’t bother identifying either the screen name of offending poster or the title of the offending article or the URL.
Good luck with your court case, Charlie Brown.
New Media Journal, Old Media Attitude.
Wow... That’s a whole ‘nuther level of stupid there. Circular firing squad with only one person in the ring.
Personally, while I do seek to obey copyright laws, and certain am against making money off other living persons writing without permission, I feel that anyone who offers material for viewing on the Internet should do so under a Creative Common license that allows unlimited copying and sharing, as long as the source is noted, and content is not changed.
Some sites do not even allow copying yet it is unreasonable to think you can offer anything on the Web and not have it copied more than once, as your hard drive already has a copy of it before you save an article.
What this New Media Journal did is not only almost incredible, considering they are supposed to be an ideological ally, but it is counterproductive to both their purpose and message. After all, suing your allies for freely spreading a message helped make America strong.
But what bothers me more is Christian ministries who make you a criminal if you share their own self-created material for free, at your material cost, from sermons to songs, or otherwise restrict its dissemination. Sure glad the Bible can yet be had without copyright restrictions in this country, and that its writers did not charge or otherwise restrict for what God gave them.
Check yer email, Sir.
The user with the user name of the site in question seems to have been blogging articles on that site from Fox News without giving them credit. It is no surprise that he was banned here.