While everyone gets up in arms about the paper's demand to cease linking -- which is obviously goofy -- it's worth noting that the paper is also accusing the blogger of reproducing its material ("in whole or in part").
If you haven't yourself seen the material in question, then you're simply rushing to judgment in assuming the blogger is right and the paper is wrong. I know I haven't seen the material in question, so I have no basis on which to form an opinion.
I do know, though, that if the blogger was indeed reproducing entire Tulsa World articles, or reproducing them to an extent unprotected by a fair-use claim, then he is guilty of copyright infringement.
I realize there are many Free Republic users who believe there's nothing wrong with republishing copyrighted content in its entirety. That's quite clear. But if a content owner wishes to protect his copyright, it's certainly his legal and moral right to do so. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, obviously, are among those who have sought to defend their copyrights here. Others, obviously, have not. Intellectual property infringement is (typically) a civil and not criminal matter. Pursuing a claim is entirely the prerogative of a copyright holder.
Tulsa World may very well be engaged in its own legally and morally defensible protection of its copyrights. Until we know the extent of the blogger's reproduction -- or if there was reproduction at all -- then it seems wise to withhold judgment.
I have a bias...and a basis to form an opinion. The Tulsa Squirrel is one of the most Socialist Leftist Marxist Good 'Ol Boy Democrat fish wraps in the whole country..!!
And it doesn't surprise me one bit...that they would try and bully silence someone from criticizing their cozy little operation in the city of Tulsa.
FWIW-