It's Official: LAT/WP vs Free Republic Settles

LAT/WP vs Free Republic ^ | June 19, 2002 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

I just received official word that our settlement with the LAT/WP in their alleged copyright infringement and unfair competion suit against Free Republic (click Source link above for complete history of the case) is completely finalized with the court. I do not have a copy of the final order yet, but the basic terms are as follows:

• Unless we receive prior written permission on an article by article basis, Free Republic agrees to continue posting only excerpts (as allowed by fair use) and links from any of the LAT/WP or related publications.

• Free Republic agrees to remove all full text copies of any LAT/WP and related publications copyrighted articles from its archives and servers and to destroy all copies of same.

• Neither party is awarded any damages, attorney fees or costs except that Free Republic agrees to pay the Los Angeles Times $5,000 and the Washington Post $5,000 (these negotiated amounts have already been paid).

I will post the entire final order including the list of related publications as soon as I receive a copy and get it scanned in.

Well, my fingers are not cold and dead and my keyboard has not been ripped away. While this is not entirely a win for FR, neither is it a crushing defeat. Free Republic is alive and well and the fight against liberalism continues on. It's a crying shame that the hallowed words of the WP/LAT will no longer grace our pages, but, somehow, I am sure we will manage to live on without them.

And despite what our detractors may say, we have not committed any crimes or broken any laws and we have not admitted to any guilt. We have negotiated a mutual agreement and settlement with the LAT/WP and have agreed upon satisfactory terms for continuing forward without having to spend the rest of our lives in court.

Many thanks to all of you for your past and continuing support.

Regards.

Jim Robinson

[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]

The WarshPost reportedly spent over $180,000,000 on the development of its website.

The Board of Directors were convinced the company would recover every penny in short order through internet advertising!

When that wasn't happening their lawyers went looking for someone else to blame. That's where you and the other folks here at Free Republic came in.

Those lawyers are sure going to have a difficult time explaining this to the WarshPost Board!

[CedarDave]

Dreamer! The Slimes and Compost have more resources than we ever will have.

This is not a victory for FR, but I haven't yet figured out whether we just lost a battle, or are a long way towards losing the First Amendment war. I expect that JimRob will be asking for donations to the FR Legal Defense Fund very soon.

[BADJOE]

Wanna bet?

[grania]

CONGRATULATIONS JIM ROBINSON....and.... FREEP ON!!!!!!!

[CedarDave]

I agree. The original summary judgement stays on the pages of the law books and wasn't overturned. It set a precedent, and others can now come after FR for the same reasons and demand the same thing: No full article posting.

[Jim Robinson]

"Freedom was indeed defeated with this case, sad to say."

No it wasn't. You can always open a website and post the full text of LAT/WP articles yourself. Then, when they sue you, you can have the privilege and honor of taking it all the way to the Supreme Court to try and convince them to overturn a century or more of bad case law. Perhaps you can succeed where I failed. If at first you don't succeed, try again.

Thanks,

Jim

[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!

[BADJOE]

It would be sheer stupidity for them to do it.

I' d bet less than half a dozen ever make such a request or demand.

I really expect the LA Times and Washington Post to remove the restriction because it is in their best interest to do so.

[sauropod]

Great news, Jim!!! When one is on the side of right, one is invincible!

Rectitudine Sto. Sauropod

[StoneColdGOP]

Excellent news. Congratulations.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Thanks for the ping Tonk! Congrats Mr. Robinson! We appreciate the fight!

[fatima]

Congrats to Jim and all who worked on this.Now it is time to move on to bigger and better things.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Free Republic agrees to remove all full text copies of any LAT/WP and related publications copyrighted articles from its archives...

Depending on what backup solution you use, that could be a pain in the ass. DLT tape for example. Easier to just let the backups expire naturally. Or do you guys have to comply immediately?

[pyx]

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.

Indeed. However, aside from the initial advertising benefits that some at Free Republic may realize, please help me understand how this is not a complete disaster for the FAIR USAGE clause ?

Please explain to me how the penalties and remedies that Free Republic has been ordered to pay for losing this case can not be greatly enhanced and expanded next time ? There is no way of protecting Jim and others here from going through this nightmare again that a clear win for FreeRepublic.com would have ensured.

Please explain why freedom is not jeopardized because of this defeat ?

And in case I have not made this obvious, I am happy for Jim that he has had this burden lifted from him but saddened for the cause of freedom by this apparent loss.
Thanks in advance.

[Cai Della]

Jim, can you comment on your understanding of why, in particular, the WP and LAT were willing to agree to these terms? We all have our theories, but I was wondering what the real deal was.

Maybe the WP/LAT agreed to those terms because of the court's reliance on Eschoir's affidavit in finding infringement.

[StoneColdGOP]

Ain't it cool?

[nothingnew]

V-Ping!

FMCDH...still HOT here!...stay wet and keep yer powder dry!

[anniegetyourgun]

Well done and I'm glad you are through the worst of this.

[StoneColdGOP]

Good news, indeed!