Remind me if someone does.

They have this quote on their site "News worth sharing". Little Bryant should remove that from the site or he is a hypocrite and an asshole.

Don't post from these asswipes site.

Remind me if someone does.

Who are they? What is the name of the web site?

bgergeres@gmail.com

I never really trust a business contact who uses free email services as an official email provider.

I know some Nigerian princes and barristers that also use @gmail.com to conduct their business transactions with their "beneficiaries".

What is the name of the web site?

I hope that was a clever stab at sarcasm...

LOL

What is the name of the web site?

I hope that was a clever stab at sarcasm...

LOL

No,it was an honest question. The name of a lawyer or a holding company doesn't mean squat to me. If I am to avoid posting articles from a web site here,I need to know the name of the web site/

www.inquisitr.com/2494892...in-guangdong-china-video/

Are these from the artist formerly know as tater? He's probably the only one here who would lovingly quote the chicom gov propaganda, in response to something Ron Paul said.

If I am to avoid posting articles from a web site here,I need to know the name of the web site

www.inquisitr.com

I didn't realize that the website in question was unclear.

I believe that the charging "official" that lodged the complain never read the articles on this site before making the accusations, otherwise the following would have occurred:

1) The content on each article was truncated and a link to the direct article was provided for the full content.

2) If there was too much plagiarized content, the DMCA notice should have reflected this.

3) A inquiry to the site "owner" (not ISP or web host) for an explanation of how the site works and a discussion of removing content and avoiding further incidents.

The charging "official" is a moron for implying that the site is an automated aggregator. Of course, it is easier to just blindly accuse someone than it is to contact them directly and ask them for an explanation of how the site performs its intended purpose and removal of content directly if required... but where is the fun in that?

Civil discourse is no longer applicable to this world.

www.inquisitr.com/2494892...in-guangdong-china-video/
Are these from the artist formerly know as tater? He's probably the only one here who would lovingly quote the chicom gov propaganda, in response to something Ron Paul said.

Not I, you dumbass. I know how to comply with copyright laws. Just so you will be a little smarter, but never as smart as I am, I will post some information to help you understand copyright ... what you can and can’t do when posting.

The following is excerpted from: Blogger Law - 12 Important U.S. Laws.

Copyright in the Web:

1. Copyright applies to the Web.

2. Your work is protected under copyright as soon as it’s created and protected for your lifetime, plus 70 years.

3. Copyright expires. When copyright expires, the work becomes public domain.

4. Ideas can’t be copyrighted, only the result tangible expression of the idea can. (updated)

5. You may use logos and trademarks in your works.

6. You may use copyrighted material under the “fair use” doctrine.

7. You may quote only limited portions of work. You may publish excerpts, not whole articles.

8. You have to ask author’s permission to translate his/her article.

9. The removal of the copyrighted material doesn’t remove the copyright infringement.

10. If something looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. (updated)

11. Advertising protected material without an agreement is illegal.

12. You may not always delete or modify your visitors’ comments.

You should never treat comments as though you own them by manipulating them or deleting them without having included a terms of service which gives you permission to do so. Consider that if you are allowing anonymous posts you will have no way of verifying the true owner of a comment when someone emails you asking for you to take a comment down. Consequently, you should make sure to at least collect basic identifying information before allowing someone to comment or post on your site.

13. User generated content is the property of the users.

14. Copyright is violated by using information, not by charging for it.

15. Getting explicit permission can save you a lot of trouble. 16.

www.adweek.com/fishbowlny...ggregation-fair-use/39177

Interesting. I remember the case well. It was discussed on LP at the time.

I also remember this case: Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic.

Robinson announced the decision to drop the appeal and begin excerpting and linking articles on June 19, 2002, saying "Well, my fingers are not cold and dead and my keyboard has not been ripped away." Thousands of threads were subsequently deleted from the archives as Times and Post articles were purged. Free Republic has complied with other post-litigation requests from other copyright owners such as USA Today to excerpt and link.

It looks like excerpting and linking the same as FR does may be a good way to go.

1) The content on each article was truncated …

Were they … each article? I can’t recall.

Sample DMCA Take Down Letter .

6. You may use copyrighted material under the “fair use” doctrine.

7. You may quote only limited portions of work. You may publish excerpts, not whole articles.

Before LP started up, or maybe shortly thereafter, I researched the case that FR lost in the suit raised by the LATimes and, I think, the Washington Post.

From that I gleaned that what qualifies as "Fair Use" is not cut and dry. There are four basic criteria that are each weighed in favor of the plaintiff and defendant, and where the most weight falls is how the judge should rule.

Whether whole articles or only a portion is reproduced is only one of the 4 criteria, so it's possible to reproduce a whole article and still be on safe ground with Fair Use.

FR was using the entire articles, and though FR did lose the case, it was a close call with the 4 criteria evenly split between FR and the newspapers. Going against FR was it's pretty obvious for-profit practices of significant fundraising for site operations and, I think, advertising as well. LF has neither of those going on.

I will say that when posting articles that contain links to images from the source site, that there is a bandwidth draw on the source site to send those images to visitors that are reading the LF (or alternate) site, and that technically that could cause a monetary expense from the source site to support the bandwidth. However, these days bandwidth is so cheap there may not be any cost at all for the source site to support that, particularly on a forum that is not exactly competing with BBC or CNN. Still, for what it's worth.

I would certainly maintain that, in the case of LF, source sites benefit from the publicity of the links, so that these complaints may do the source site more harm than good.

FR was using the entire articles, and though FR did lose the case, it was a close call with the 4 criteria evenly split between FR and the newspapers. Going against FR was it's pretty obvious for-profit practices of significant fundraising for site operations and, I think, advertising as well.

It was not really a close call on the FR case.

FR claimed to be a non-profit and the court found it to be a for-profit business. FR operates as an LLC, a Limited Liability Company, in which profits pass through to the members.

The court handed down a $1 Million judgment against FR which was set aside as part of the settlement agreement.

COURT DOCUMENTS from the FR case:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266069327/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Docket-Report

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266069666/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-73-ORDER-by-Judge-Morrow-GRANTING-Plfs-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266069864/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-91-ORDER-Granting-Ptfs-Motion-for-Summary-Jgm

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266070060/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-105-FINAL-JUDGMENT-Free-Republic-permanently-enjoined-and-restrained-1M-statutory-damages

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266070226/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-119-STIPULATION-and-ORDER-for-Entry-of-amd-Final-Jgm-by-Judge-Morrow

Were they … each article? I can’t recall.

I did a Google search on each LF article link that was mentioned and used the Google-cached page on any of the articles that were still available (not DMCA'd by Google's search too).

Nearly every one of those articles seemed to be truncated by 1/2 or more, with a link at the bottom encouraging the reader to go to the website, plus the facet that every one of them were text articles, with little to no pictures linked.

I would say that the asshole did nothing but find some links and hastily fashioned a few DMCA take-down letters after catching the smell of litigation profits in the air.

I would say that the asshole did nothing but find some links and hastily fashioned a few DMCA take-down letters after catching the smell of litigation profits in the air.

You don't really think that lawyers,the same elite 'murikans that get elected to public office,become DA's,become judges,would stoop so low to do such a think,do you?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

From that I gleaned that what qualifies as "Fair Use" is not cut and dry.

This has always been the case. As I remember, the law was left intentionally vague so that it could be open for interpretation in each case.

I personally adopted a “truncated with remainder here” procedure for posting articles after the FR vs LA Times fiasco, thinking it was the safest way I could find. Whether that is correct or not can, of course, still be challenged.

From what I gleaned in the past about link the Stone posted concerning the Las Vegas trial … the newspaper was suing everyone because they thought they found a "money hole" and the judge put a stop to that. But that decision did not give a “blanket” lawful authorization to anyone to declare everything is fair use.

I am of the opinion that the situation here today was someone being an asshole or maybe having too much time on their hands. I believe that posting the articles here was of actual benefit to the asshole because it gave them wider dissemination and some “free reference advertising” … so to speak.

There are some posters who feel “fair use” gives them the right to post anything at any time they want to. One poster on LP even suggested to post WAPO articles on LP to intentionally challenge WAPO. I felt that was asinine. The was no need go looking for trouble, especially after WAPO had written to Sally.

Some people do crazy things in life sometimes … I guess that is life and they will continue to do crazy things. If there is a safe side, I will attempt to find the safe side and save a fight for something more important another day. I am a proponent of “energy conservation” … especially my energy.

Thanks for your informative post to me.

Some people do crazy things in life sometimes …

Yeah, too bad you never had any legal action taken against you for all the plagiarizing you did at LP.

The thing is, you probably still do it - you just haven't been caught lately.

Not I, you dumbass. I know how to comply with copyright laws.

Unfortunately, you know very well how to steal someone else's written words and pass them off as your own, as you did quite frequently at LP.

There are some posters who feel “fair use” gives them the right to post anything at any time they want to

Quite true. -- I say that we are here to discuss the news/opinions of the day, news that is publicly published and already paid for by subscribers.

The publishers have a copyright, protecting them from further use of their material, - for PROFIT.

No one here if PROFITING from our discussions.

Get it gatlin? -- I won't bet that you do..

The publishers have a copyright, protecting them from further use of their material, - for PROFIT.

No one here if PROFITING from our discussions.

Get it gatlin? -- I won't bet that you do..

What happens when bullshit goes to court.

Los Angeles Times v Free Republic. Free Republic liable for copyright infringement (Doc 91). Free Republic permanently enjoined and restrained; liable for $1,000,000 for statutory damages (Doc 105).

= = = = = = = = = =

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266069327/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Docket-Report

Los Angeles Times v Free Republic, CACD 98-7840, DOCKET REPORT

= = = = = = = = = =

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266069666/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-73-ORDER-by-Judge-Morrow-GRANTING-Plfs-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 73 Filed 04/04/00 Page 15 of 40

Defendants next argue that their use of plaintiffs' works is transformative because registered Free Republic users add comments and criticism concerning the articles following a posting. Copying portions of a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism or commentary is often considered fair use. See Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Inevitably, some identification of the subject matter of a writing must occur before any useful comment may be made about it, and it is not uncommon for works serving a fair use purpose to give at least a brief indication of the plot. Works of criticism,

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 73 Filed 04/04/00 Page 16 of 40

teaching, and news reporting customarily do so"). The fact that criticism is involved, however, does end the inquiry. See Harper & Row, supra, 471 U.S. at 561 (list contained in § 107 is not intended to be exhaustive or to single out any particular use as presumptively fair); Sony Corp., supra, 464 U.S. at 452 ("[e]ven copying for noncommercial purposes may impair the copyright holder's ability to obtain the rewards that Congress intended him to have"). Rather, it must be considered in combination with other circumstances to determine if the first factor favors defendants. See Twin Peaks, supra, 996 F.2d at 1375-76 ("'Purpose' in fair use analysis is not an all-or-nothing matter. The issue is not simply whether a challenged work serves one of the non-exclusive purposes identified in section 107, such as comment or criticism, but whether it does so to an insignificant or a substantial extent. The weight ascribed to the 'purpose' factor involves a more refined assessment than the initial, fairly easy decision that a work serves a purpose illustrated by the categories listed in section 107").

Since the first posting of an article to the Free Republic site often contains little or no commentary, it does not significantly transform plaintiffs' work. In Netcom On-Line II, supra, defendant posted verbatim copies of works copyrighted by the Church of Scientology to an Internet website "with little or no added comment or criticism." Id. at 1243. The court found that the works were only "minimally transformative" because "unlike the typical critic, [defendant] add[ed] little new expression to the Church's works." Id. The court specifically rejected defendant's argument that his copying was fair use because subsequent visitors added further comments. It concluded that while the copying of "works that were previously posted by their authors on the basis of an implied license or fair use argument" might be justified, such a defense would not be available "where the first posting made an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work." Id. at 1247, n.18.

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 73 Filed 04/04/00 Page 17 of 40

Similarly, in Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 1996 WL 633131 (E.D.Va. 1996), defendant downloaded or scanned into his computer portions of works copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. He then posted segments of the works on the Internet. Id. at * 4. Defendant argued that his use was transformative, because he was a "dedicated researcher delving into the theory and scholarship of Scientology," and was "providing materials which 'add new value to public knowledge and understanding, thereby advancing the goals of copyright as set forth in the Constitution.'" Id. at * 5. The court rejected this argument, noting that it did "not justify the wholesale copying and republication of copyrighted material," and concluding that "[t]he degree of copying by [defendant] combined with the absence of commentary on most of his Internet

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 73 Filed 04/04/00 Page 18 of 40

postings, is inconsistent with the scholarship exception." Id.

Additionally, even where copying serves the "criticism, comment and news reporting" purposes highlighted in § 107, its extent cannot exceed what is necessary to the purpose. See Twin Peaks, supra, 996 F.2d at 1375-76 (the fact that defendant "detailed ... the plots [of episodes of a television series]. . . far beyond merely identifying their basic outline for the transformative purposes of comment or criticism" weighed against a finding of fair use because the "abridgment. . . elaborated in detail far beyond what is required to serve any legitimate [transformative] purpose"); Toho Co., Ltd. v. William Morrow and Co., Inc., 33 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1217 (C.D.Cal. 1998) (relying, inter alia, on the fact that the infringing work contained detailed plot summaries of the Godzilla movies to find that the first fair use factor weighed heavily in favor of a copyright plaintiff, despite the fact that the work also contained "numerous biographies [and] analyses of the movies, including commentary, trivia and other bits of information").

= = = = = = = = = =

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266070060/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-105-FINAL-JUDGMENT-Free-Republic-permanently-enjoined-and-restrained-1M-statutory-damages

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 105 Filed 11/16/00 Page 3 of 6

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the three named Defendants (Free Republic, Electronic Orchard and James C, Robinson), and each of their officers, agents, representatives, alter egos, shareholders, partners, joint ventures, heirs, executors, administrators, parent entities, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, legal predecessors, successors, assigns, licensees, and any and all persons acting in concert therewith or participating with them who receive actual notice of this order, must:

(A) render all copies (in whatever form, e.g., paper or electronic) of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works in their control or possession, inaccessible to users of the freerepublic.com, freerepublic.net and freerepublic.org websites within three months after the date this Final Judgment is signed and must erase or otherwise destroy all copies (in whatever form, e.g., paper or electronic) of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works in their control or possession, within three months after all appeals in this case are exhausted;

(B) post on the home pages of freerepublic.com, freerepublic.net, and freerepublic.org to a web page at freerepublic.com containing a copy of the Final Judgment and the attachment to it for ninety days beginning no later than two weeks after the date this Final Judgment is signed. These links shall clearly and legibly state they are links to the Final Judgment in this case.

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the three named Defendants (Free Republic, Electronic Orchard and James C. Robinson) shall, within ninety days of the date this Final Judgment is signed, file in this Court and hand deliver to Plaintiffs' counsel, declarations under penalty of perjury from James C. Robinson demonstrating that they have complied with paragraph (2)(A) and (B) of this Final Judgment.

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 105 Filed 11/16/00 Page 4 of 6

4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the three named Defendants (Free Republic, Electronic Orchard and James C. Robinson), and each of their officers, agents, representatives, alter egos, shareholders, partners, joint ventures, heirs, executors, administrators, parent entities, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, legal predecessors, successors, assigns, licensees, and any and all persons acting in concert therewith or participating with them who receive actual notice of this order, may copy Plaintiffs' copyrighted works if the use is:

(A) expressly authorized by Plaintiffs' user and member agreements on Plaintiffs' respective websites; or

(B) expressly authorized by a Plaintiff in writing.

5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the three named Defendants (Free Republic, Electronic Orchard and James C. Robinson), and each of their officers, agents, representatives, alter egos, shareholders, partners, joint ventures, heirs, executors, administrators, parent entities, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, legal predecessors, successors, assigns, licensees, and any and all persons acting in concert therewith or participating with them who receive actual notice of this order, may use Plaintiffs' copyrighted works if the use is a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107, or is otherwise lawful under the Copyright Act. This Court's ruling of March 31, 2000 on what constitutes fair use and what is protected by the First Amendment is attached to this Final Judgment, and incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference.

6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Free Republic and James C. Robinson are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000,000 for statutory damages-Electronic Orchard is not liable for these statutory damages.

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 105 Filed 11/16/00 Page 4 of 6

7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no party is awarded any attorneys fees or costs.

8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Final Judgment and the Stipulation, and to resolve any disputes arising under them.

Dated: November 14, 2000

/s/_______________________
Honorable Margaret M. Morrow
United States District Judge

= = = = = = = = = =

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266070226/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-119-STIPULATION-and-ORDER-for-Entry-of-amd-Final-Jgm-by-Judge-Morrow

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 119 Filed 06/11/02 Page 58 of 62

In short, plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are attempting to exploit the market for viewing their articles online, for selling copies of archived articles, and for licensing others to display or sell the articles. They have demonstrated that the availability of verbatim copies of the articles at the Free Republic site has the potential to interfere with these markets, particularly if it becomes a widespread practice. See Sony, supra, 464 U.S. at 451; Tuilo, supra, 973 F.2d at 798; Hustler, supra, 796 F.2d at 1155 (copyright owner may demonstrate that there is "some meaningful likelihood of future harm" by showing that, "should the challenged use become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the work"; this inquiry focuses on "whether the infringing use (1) 'tends to diminish or prejudice the potential sale of [the] work,' or (2) tends to interfere with the marketability of the work"). Defendants, who bear the burden of proof on fair use, have not rebutted this showing by proving "an absence of 'usurpation' harm to" plaintiffs. Infinity Broadcasting, supra, 150 F.3d at 111. Accordingly, the fourth factor weighs against a finding of fair use in this case.

5. Balancing The Fair Use Factors

In sum, three of the four fair use factors weigh in plaintiffs' favor. Moreover, the factor that favors defendants — the nature of the copyrighted work — does not provide strong support for a fair use finding, since defendants copied both the factual and the expressive elements of plaintiffs' news articles. Conversely, the amount and substantiality of the copying and the lack of any significant transformation of the articles weigh heavily in favor of plaintiffs on this issue. The court thus finds that defendants may not assert a fair use defense to plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim. See Reuters, supra, 149 F.3d at 994-95 ("the district court, having found that only one of the four statutory factors weighed in favor of defendants, correctly concluded that the

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 119 Filed 06/11/02 Page 59 of 62

fair use defense did not apply"); Tullo, supra, 973 F.2d at 799 (since only one of the four fair use factors — the nature of the copyrighted work — supported a fair use finding, the court held that the defense could not be invoked to shield defendant from liability for infringing plainitffs copyrights).

D. First Amendment Defense

Defendants assert, as a separate defense, the fact that the First Amendment protects their posting of copies of plaintiffs' news articles to the Free Republic website.⁶² Defendants contend that visitors to the Free Republic site will be unable to express their views concerning the manner in which the media covers current events since the omissions and biases in the articles will be difficult to communicate to readers without the full text of the article available.⁶³

In Harper & Row, supra. Nation magazine reprinted, without authorization, 300 words from the memoirs of President Gerald Ford. 471 U.S. at 542-45. The Court noted that factual information concerning current events contained in news articles is not protected by copyright. It stated, however, that "copyright assures those who write and publish factual narratives... that they may at least enjoy the right to market the original expression contained therein as just compensation for their investment." Id. at 556-57 (citing Zaccfuni v. Scripps-Homrd Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 575 (1977)). It stressed that copyright fosters free expression because it "supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas" by "establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression." Id. at 558. It noted that copyright also promotes the countervailing First Amendment right to refrain from speech by protecting the owner of a copyrighted work from being forced to publish it. Id. at 559. For all these reasons, the Court concluded that "that copyright's idea/expression dichotomy *strike[s] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts

⁶²"Often, First Amendment concerns are considered as part of the fair use analysis. See, e.g., Hustler, supra, 796 F.2d at 1151-52 ("Courts balance [the fair use] factors to determine whether the public interest in the free flow of information outweighs the copyright holder's interest in exclusive control over the work").

⁶³Defs.' Mot. at 17:21-23.

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 119 Filed 06/11/02 Page 60 of 62

while still protecting an author's expression.*" Id. at 556. Accordingly, it rejected defendant's First Amendment argument that material could be copied because it was "newsworthy," (id, at 559) and "limited its inquiry to 'the traditional equities of fair use,' unexpanded by any free speech concerns." Nimmer, supra, § 1.10[B][2] (quoting Harper & Row, supra, 471 U.S. at 560) . Courts have generally interpreted this discussion in Harper &. Row to mean that First Amendment considerations are subsumed within the fair use Analysis. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, supra, 166 F.3d at 74 ("We have repeatedly rejected First Amendment challenges to injunctions from copyright infringement on the ground that First Amendment concerns are protected by and coextensive with the fair use doctrine'); Twin Peaks, supra, 996 F.2d at 1378 ("except perhaps in an extraordinary case, 'the fair use doctrine encompasses all claims of first amendment in the copyright field'"); Tullo, supra, 973 F.2d at 795 ("Copyright law incorporates First Amendment goals by ensuring that copyright protection extends only to the forms in which ideas and information are expressed and not to the ideas and information themselves____First Amendment concerns are also addressed in the copyright field through the 'fair use' doctrine").

Nimmer argues that if the "copying of the expression is essential effectively to convey the idea expressed," then the First Amendment protects the copying regardless of copyright. As the court in Tulfo noted, "[n]o court has adopted Nimmer's proposal." Tullo, supra, 973 F.2d at 796, n. 5. Nimmer argues that the Supreme Court in Harper & Row implicitly adopted this framework when it acknowledged that some of the briefer quotations from President Ford's memoirs were "arguably necessary adequately to convey the facts; for example, Mr. Ford's characterization of the White House tapes as the 'smoking gun' is perhaps so integral to the idea expressed as to be inseparable from it." Harper & Row, supra, 471 U.S. at 563; Nimmer, supra, § 1.10[D].

Even assuming this is true, defendants have failed to show that copying plaintiffs' news articles verbatim is essential to communication of the opinions and criticisms visitors to the website express. As discussed above in connection with analysis of defendants' fair use defense, visitors' comments more often concern the underlying news event than they do the manner in which that event was covered by the media. And, even where media coverage is the subject of the critique, the gist of the comments (which concern the fact that a particular media outlet

Case 2:98-cv-07840-MMM-AJW Document 119 Filed 06/11/02 Page 61 of 62

published a story or approached the story from a particular angle) can generally be communicated without full text copying of the article. The availability of alternatives — such as linking and summarizing — further undercuts any claim that First Amendment rights are implicated. While defendants and other users of the Free Republic site may find these options less ideal than copying plaintiffs' articles verbatim, this does not demonstrate that a First Amendment violation will occur if full text posting is prohibited.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication with respect to fair use is granted, and defendants' motion is denied.

DATED: March 31, 2000

/s/ ____________________
MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

you know very well how to steal someone else's written words and pass them off as your own

Gatlin loves to quote from skinhead nazi sites, that call Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers a fat Jew. Or is he the author, and owner of that site? It's not plagiarism, if he wrote it.

The guy's old enough to have worked the ovens for Hitler, and has same totalitarian philosophy.

No one here if PROFITING from our discussions.

Get it gatlin? -- I won't bet that you do..

Copyright is still violated whether you PROFITED or not, only the amount of damages awarded by the court is affected by that.

Get it tpaine -- I won't bet that you do.

Thanks for posting it.

I would say that the asshole did nothing but find some links and hastily fashioned a few DMCA take-down letters after catching the smell of litigation profits in the air.

Well, fuck 'em anyway - does injizzitr report any information that can't be found elsewhere?

What did you do to hit back at Stone?

Same thought had passed my mind.

Copyright is still violated whether you PROFITED or not

Correct.

Just for the record, here is where the court determined Free Republic was a for-profit limited liability company.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266069666/LA-Times-v-Free-Republic-CACD-98-7840-Doc-73-ORDER-by-Judge-Morrow-GRANTING-Plfs-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment

Page 5: [footnotes omitted]

B. Defendants' Profit Or Non-Profit Status

The parties dispute whether Free Republic is a for-profit or not-far-profit entity. Despite this purported disagreement, it appears uncontroverted that Free Republic is presently a for-profit limited liability company. Free Republic's corporate counsel is currently preparing documents seeking tax-exempt status for the Free Republic Institute, a company incorporated on September 27, 1999. Nothing has yet been submitted to the IRS, however, and tax-exempt status has not been granted.

Re Fair Use factors, see page 11:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

No one here if PROFITING from our discussions.

Get it gatlin? -- I won't bet that you do..

Copyright is still violated whether you PROFITED or not, only the amount of damages awarded by the court is affected by that.

Despite the lengthy politically correct 'legal opinions' posted by nolu Chan, -- copyright is NOT violated by fair use when NO ONE profits..

But you two invariably take the big govt position, so what else is new?