Posted on 06/19/2002 1:54:11 PM PDT by 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
Freegards, LGE
The irony here is that the WP/LAT silence themselves just as they pull the plug on the FR microphone. So be it. They have a larger foot to lose, and they'll bleed more, besides.
So I gather that the strategy is to take this case as example and go at it one at a time. That's all very well, and I doubt anyone can expect more than an agreement to limit postings to a paragraph or two. The burden is upon them, now.
I still believe firmly that full article posting is crucial to our mission and integral to our rights.
I never liked "mirror" posts, and I don't like use of photos, especially those that are not newsworthy. I concede no comparison to our use of full-text articles.
It's sad, then. My first article posted here was a copy of the (com)Post '98 annual report. I was amazed that they buried the cost of the .com section. Could I post it again? Or is an SEC document covered by this agreement?
See what I mean?
(bump)
This is amazing.
It took me a while reading through this thread to fully understand the tone and meaning of your original post. I think I understand. If not, please say.
I think you know my position on this. I hope it has not led to any aggravation on your part in this case. Perhaps we of the hyperbolic crowd have been a couple extra cubes of sugar in your coffee.
You are a brave man.
PS Glad you got the book. I hope you enjoy it. Mostly, I hope you enjoy the spirit in which it was sent your way.
Copying of intellectual property for commercial purposes, or to cheat someone out of their royalty is wrong. Napster users are wrong to take someone else's creation and send copies to all their friends or ciculate it on the internet. That to me is not fair use; it is software piracy (as you rightly call it) and we have no differences.
On the other hand posting an entire article to discuss or critique it is fair use in my opinion, and the Federal district court was wrong, both in its decision and in its characterization of FR as a commercial site.
The Seattle Times can't print a piece by Post reporter Ceci Connelly in their paper without paying for the service.
As well they should pay. The Times is taking the article and republishing it and charging their readers a fee to see it (where they can comment and discuss it among themselves if they so choose without further charge). So the Post should be reimbursed.
And comment and discussion of an article is exactly what we are doing at FR, except the medium is electronic not print. However, unlike print media, links to the original article disappear over time (go back to 9/11 FR articles and see how many links no longer work), or it can be altered at a later date. In a political forum, to hold the writers accountable, there must be an accurate record of what was originally published, and whole text articles are the best way to do that.
They get paid for hits, there's no subscription fee. And, it's not whether any of us would go to the post or Times site without seeing the content of the story ... but rather, how many of us would link into their site once the lead in is presented here? That's the issue.
You may have a point here. If revenue is based on internet site hits, there could be an impact, though the significance is unknown. Although I believe the First Amendment right to comment outweighs this, as I recall the lower court didn't agree.
And, no, I am not going to start my own website to post LA Times and Washington Post articles. As JohnRob said, there are other ways to ensure that we have access to original, un-altered, as-published material. And I expect to continue to support this site as my time and finances allow.
You could go the rest of your life without ever reading an article, oped or editorial from the DC Compost or LA Slimes and never miss anything.
When more conservatives just say no to these left wing fishwraps, we all will feel better, save money and be less frustrated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.