A conservative Web site which posted articles copied without permission on the site is not protected legally by "fair use" doctrine or regulation, says a Federal judge in a ruling the Los Angeles Times says could shape how copyright laws are applied in cyberspace.
Judge Margaret Morrow's preliminary ruling did more than turn down Free Republic's request for dismissal - she said the site is "not entitled to assert a fair use defense to the claims of copyright infringement alleged in the complaint." The case faces trial next year.
The copyright infringement complaint in question was filed by the Times and the Washington Post against Free-republic.com, a Fresno site which posts copies of news articles for users to attach comments. Free Republic's attorney Brian Buckley tells the Times the site's owner, Jim Robinson, will appeal the ruling.
Buckley told the paper the ruling will have a chilling effect on free discussion, while an attorney for the Times and the Post, Rex Heinke, says the ruling means copyright laws do apply online.
The papers claim they lost online ad revenue because consumers weren't as likely to visit them or spend fees to read their articles when Free Republic posted them for free. By contrasting example, the controversial Web site of maverick journalist Matt Drudge, Drudge Report, links directly to numerous newspapers and magazines and other news media off its home page - but doesn't reprint articles itself.
Indeed, the Times and the Post argued that Free Republic could have done likewise, despite Buckley's contention that it would impose a significant inconvenience to Web surfers.
Still, Morrow's ruling provoked some criticism. University of California-Berkeley law professor Pamela Samuelson tells the Times Morrow should have given Free Republic some leeway because the site wasn't trying to set up an alternative publication system but, rather, was posting articles merely and mainly to let users comment.
