To: John Robinson

"hundreds of spider programs for sites with varying structure could consume thousands of hours. "

Have you considered a distributed program like that "seti search" one? One that freepers could run on our computers?

481 posted on 06/19/2002 9:10:32 PM PDT by mrsmith

To: Jim Robinson

Thank you and thank God, Jim Robinson.

Put up a holler if the legal fund needs more money.

And, for what it's worth and despite that [Or more probably, "because"] I am a near-obsessive news junkie and a Mr Limbaughesque "Relentless Seeker Of The Truth," I will never dignify either of their servers with a "Click;" knowingly spend a cent on one of their products -- nor willingly on the products and/or services of one of their advertisers.

Warmest FReegards -- Brian

482 posted on 06/19/2002 9:16:28 PM PDT by Brian Allen

Rivera, Van Sustern, TLB Show, Coulter and Estrich.

codebreaker, whatever are you saying about TLB Show and Coulter?

483 posted on 06/19/2002 9:17:31 PM PDT by TLBSHOW

"What JR doesn't mention is that the consent degree will now be used by the Associated Press, Reuters, NY Times, Dow Jones, et al to force FR to edit/remove their full length articles as well in order to conform with fair use provisions."

Could happen. We will take them on as they come.

"Besides providing an excellent conservative news/discussion forum, FreeRepublic viewed itself as a crusader by which ordinary copyright laws did not apply. One of the benefits of reading FR was that one did not have to take the time loading the source article - it was usually right there in front of you."

No, the law applies. It was just being applied wrong (IMHO).

"However, as I learned more about fair use and copyright law while designing FreeSpeech, I became more and more conscious that I was, while at FR, in essence a party to theft."

How can you remain on FR then. Doesn't that make you an accessory after the fact or even a receiver of stolen goods?

"The bottom line, however, is that the source news is a commodity - the value add is the discussion capabilities. Just take one look at Google's news search feature, and you'll quickly see that current breaking news can be had at a click of a button."

Ok.

It's the community that JR has built that is what's truly remarkable.

Thanks

484 posted on 06/19/2002 9:19:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

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!

485 posted on 06/19/2002 9:22:03 PM PDT by ArneFufkin

To: Jim Robinson

CONGRATULATIONS, JIM -- LONG LIVE FREEREPUBLIC!!!!

486 posted on 06/19/2002 9:23:29 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

To: Jim Robinson

I am so happy that this is finally over for you. Like they say, that which does not kill you makes you strong.

487 posted on 06/19/2002 9:24:23 PM PDT by truthkeeper

The judge's pre-trial ruling disallowed us the fair use defense based on her wrongly claimed commercial aspect of our operation. We've settled the case prior to completing the appeal. Her summary judgment ruling has no effect on fair use itself.

488 posted on 06/19/2002 9:25:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

Someone had mentioned on an earlier post up the page about the makeup of a future Supreme Court (with Ann and yourself on the conservative side)

489 posted on 06/19/2002 9:30:13 PM PDT by codebreaker

To: codebreaker; TLBSHOW

My disturbing vision of a future SCOTUS consisted of TLB and Ann's child (that was good -especially for TLB) Jack Thompson's excitable boy and six of Geraldo's love children. He scored with a pretty fair number of lesbians by my account. Swarthy machismo and menschness.

490 posted on 06/19/2002 9:35:32 PM PDT by ArneFufkin

Because a company invests millions of dollars in a product it has
a natural right to it's every dividend?

Your argument is specious. At best, you have it backwards.
The right is not created by profits. Investments and returns
follow the right. Or would you have it the other way around?

The same political rights that lend to copyright protect our
(fair) use of this material in the political context in which
we use it.

PS I suppose you subscribe to the Mickey Mouse school of copyright?
For those who don't know, copyright is extended by Congress
everytime Mickey is about to reach the age of maturity.

491 posted on 06/19/2002 9:36:40 PM PDT by nicollo

To: B. A. Conservative

"Restoring respect for the constitution is a worthy replacement for opposition to Clinton. Partisan party politics are not,.."

I would suggest that Constitutional restoration is not possible without the political defeat of the Democratic Party. Granted the Republicans have some areas of assault on the Constitution, but the gross rapes of the Constitution have occured from liberals who live in the Democratic Party.

And I would suggest that such a collapse of the democratic party is a political fantasy.
Any attack on liberal socialism must be made on constitutional grounds. -- The Republican party could be led to stand up for these principles. -- And FR could help to do just that, if we can pull together in non-partisan effort to restore constitutionalism.

492 posted on 06/19/2002 9:37:27 PM PDT by tpaine

To: Jim Robinson

Congratulations on reaching a settlement that satisfied all interested parties.

It is past 9:30.

493 posted on 06/19/2002 9:38:17 PM PDT by unsycophant

it is the changing of the story that is the main problem. Liberals bias and the fact that they allow full post at liberal sites. I really don't think anyone owns the news.

494 posted on 06/19/2002 9:38:58 PM PDT by TLBSHOW

So, I shouldn't go to the library anymore. What business model is that based on? I must, instead, buy the paper to read one article. BS. Its free on the net. If they don't want it to be free, they won't put it on their free web page.

I can guarantee you that every article that was ever pasted to FR is available whether convenient or not. What we are fighting for is the ability to discuss NEWS!! Especially to discuss liberally slanted news, which the left hates for us to be able to do.

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.

You're exadderating. Immensely. The information is already being offered for free. They just don't like the fact that we are reading it elsewhere (like at the library instead of the newsstand).

If they want to charge for it, then make it a pay site. Otherwise, once you put the information in a free public location, its there for anyone and everyone to copy. If the newspaper laid their paper down on the sidewalk with every page open, should they expect that people won't walk by, read it, and comment on it? Can they prohibit people photographing it (or otherwise copying it) if they themselves place it on a free public forum?

But he still put his information up for free for all the world to see. Granted, I may have visited his site more than once just to support him, but that was of my own free will. I would not do that for the LAT as they didn't deserve my support. Likewise, I buy magazines and newspapers that I like and read the rest either in the library or on line or not at all.

What you're advocating is copyright benefits for free information. You are drawing a comparison between this and people stealing software and the like. But Microsoft doesn't put its software up on a web site then tell people they can't have it. And, record companies don't post their music on a web site then tell someone not to use it. In short, you're equating piracy with fair use and there is no comparison.

495 posted on 06/19/2002 9:40:15 PM PDT by meyer

You are correct. It is now 9:42.

Thanks,

Jim

496 posted on 06/19/2002 9:42:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

To: John Robinson

I'm a complete non-techie, but I've wondered if there's a way to have people post an article with a link, and have only the link show for as long as it's working; then the first time the link retrieves some sort of error code, have the full text post kick in permanently. I don't know if it's feasible, since different sites produce different types of responses to expired links, making the programming for a recognition system difficult. Alternatively, the system could rely on freepers, with a standing instruction to click the "insert full text" button if and only if the link doesn't work. If something like this could be set up, I think few sites would have any objection to the permanent archiving -- most just want the hits for the few days the articles are accessible on their sites, to show to their advertisers. Few of the news sites are deriving any significant income from paid archive retrievals by individuals looking for a specific article. Just a thought to keep in mind if problems of this sort crop up again in the future.

497 posted on 06/19/2002 9:43:05 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker

To: Jim Robinson

498 posted on 06/19/2002 9:43:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

To: mhking; Jim Robinson

Thanks for the ping.

This is much better than it could have been but what was the $5k to each of those fishwraps for?

499 posted on 06/19/2002 9:45:21 PM PDT by mafree

To: Jim Robinson

Most excellent. Bless you and your family for hanging in there! In this case, Right makes Might!

500 posted on 06/19/2002 9:53:54 PM PDT by AngrySpud

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794