L.A. Times v. Free Republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum and activist site for Republicans, Conservatives and Neoconservatives from the United States. It was founded in 1996 by Jim Robinson of Fresno, California. The site gained popularity during the President Clinton impeachment controversy.
During the first few years of its existence, Free Republic and its members made a practice of posting and archiving the full text of copyrighted news articles on its website, despite the objection of the copyright holders, claiming the affirmative defenses of Fair Use and Freedom of Speech.
The home page of Free Republic stated:
- Any man, corporation or government entity who wants to challenge our right to discuss news accounts (copyrighted or not) of public policy issues or political events or of government corruption, etc., in our non-commercial, not-for-profit, public electronic townhall forum should first examine each and every word of the First Amendment above and then tell us which words they don't understand. -- Jim Robinson
In December 1997, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post newspapers (among others) sent certified letters to the "Free Republic" internet forum and its owner Jim Robinson asking them to cease and desist republishing and archiving full text articles of copyrighted materials. Robinson defiantly refused, saying before he would agree to excerpt and link, they would have to rip the keyboard from his cold dead fingers. The papers then sued for federal copyright infringement. The ensuing four-year long court battle is commonly referred to as "L.A. Times v. Free Republic", and is cited frequently in cases arguing copyright and fair use issues.
Free Republic owner Jim Robinson characterized the ensuing court battle as:
- a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine, namely, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.
The plaintiffs were represented by Rex S. Heinke, originally of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. [1] During the litigation he moved first to the firm of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP, of Beverly Hills, then to the firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld of Los Angeles, California. Defendants Free Republic et al were represented by the now-disbarred [2]attorney [3] Brian Langford Buckley. He was replaced during the appeal by David Flyer of Newport Beach.
[edit] Action in the District Court
Suit was filed on September 28, 1998, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff moved for partial summary adjudication on Defendants' Fair Use defense on October 4, 1999. Defendants cross filed for summary judgment, citing a First Amendment defense, on October 19, 1999, under seal. On April 4, 2000, Judge Morrow issued her Order granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiff and denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In this opinion, Judge Morrow set out the federal standard for Fair Use of copyrighted materials, which is current authority on all subsequent litigants.
Plaintiff filed for summary judgment on remaining issues of permanent injunction and damages on June 5, 2000. Defendants failed to file any opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming they hadn't been served, but that it didn't matter as they "did not oppose the relief being requested." [4]. Defendants waived their remaining defenses and stipulated to the entry of final judgment with a stay on execution, preserving their right to appeal only on fair use and First Amendment grounds. The stipulation granted a Permanent Injunction against posting full-text versions of copyrighted materials, ordered archived articles be stripped, and awarded the plaintiffs $1 million in damages but no attorney fees on November 16, 2000. Robinson claimed to be judgment-proof, saying "Practically speaking, we were already bankrupt long before any of this got started. We just did not have, and still do not have any assets to protect . . ." [5]
[edit] The Appeal
Defendant's counsel filed its appeal to the Court of Appeals on December 15, 2001. Appellant's Opening Brief was filed April 20, 2001, Appellee's Brief was filed May 31, and Appellant's Reply was filed June 25, 2001. On September 1, 2001, Defendant's attorney was declared Inactive by the California Bar due to MCLE noncompliance and therefore Not Eligible To Practice Law; and thereafter fought publically with Robinson regarding related legal matters [6]. On October 5, 2001, Defendants notified the Court of Appeals of their substitution of counsel.
The parties then began negotiating a settlement. The parties ultimately agreed that in return for Defendants dropping their appeal and agreeing to both endorse the Stipulation for Entry of Amended Final Judgment containing the Permanent Injunction Order and link to it on the Free Republic home page[7], the Defendants would only be jointly and severally liable to the newspapers for $5,000 each which was not described as damages or legal fees; and the Court found that Plainitiffs had "no 'adequate legal remedy' other than a permanent injunction to protect them against further acts of copyright infringements by the three named defendants (Free Republic, Electronic Orchard and James C. Robinson). . ."
Mr. 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.
[edit] The original complaint
Complaint for Copyright Infringement.
Case: Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic.
Court: U.S. District Court, C.D.Cal., Case No. 98-7840 MMM(AJWx).
Date filed: September 28, 1998.
The original complaint alleged (among other arguments) that[8] :
15. The Infringing Website [Free Republic] consists of hundreds if not thousands of copyrighted articles from competing "name-brand" news sources, including, among others, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Articles from Plaintiffs' websites and other would-be competitors' websites are literally copied onto and posted on Defendants' website -- frequently within hours if not minutes of their initial publication.
17. For their own profit and advantage, Defendants [Free Republic] are misappropriating the non-transformed, copyrighted material in which each Plaintiff [Los Angeles Times, Washington Post et al] has invested heavily. Defendants' website relies on the copyrighted content of Plaintiffs' newspapers and websites to attract readers, and to subject those readers to Defendants' and others' advertising and promotional material.
24. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendants stop copying and publicly displaying Plaintiffs' copyrighted content without their consent. Defendants have refused to cease their infringing activities.
The petition for relief asked that the court:
A. Declare that Defendants' unauthorized conduct violates Plaintiffs' rights under common law and the Federal Copyright Act;
B. Immediately and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors, assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with them from copying and republishing any of Plaintiffs' copyrighted articles or copyrighted material without consent or otherwise infringing Plaintiffs' copyrights or other rights in any manner;
C. Ordering Defendants to account to Plaintiffs for all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants by their infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights or such damages as are proper, and since Defendants intentionally infringed plaintiffs' copyrights, for the maximum allowable statutory damages for each violation;
D. Awarding Plaintiffs actual and/or statutory damages for Defendants' copyright infringement in an amount to be determined at trial;
E. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and disbursements in this action, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. ยง 505; and
F. Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as is just and proper.
