1. LIBM 6320 Angela Teal Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic 54 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1453 (C.D. Cal 2000) Microsoft Office Clipart, 2011

2. Los Angeles Times The Washington Post and its wholly-owned subsidiary Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Company “Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post Company publish newspapers in print and online versions.” (UH Law Center, 2000) Microsoft Office Clipart, 2011

3. Free Republic Electronic Orchard Jim Robinson Does 1 through 10, inclusive “Free Republic is a "bulletin board" website whose members use the site to post news articles to which they add remarks or commentary.” (UH Law Center, 2000) Microsoft Office Clipart, 2011

4. Los Angeles Times files suit against Free Republic for unauthorized article copying and archiving hundreds of articles. Free Republic claims fair use according to US Copyright Law (title 17 section 107 of the United States Code) and protection under freedom of speech law (First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Los Angeles Times claims revenues are lost as a result of Free Republic granting access to full news articles which are usually sold by the Times. Los Angeles Times claims revenues are lost as a result of fewer website hits which determine ability to sell advertising. Microsoft Office Clipart, 2011 (Tech Law Journal, 2008)

5. Free Republic failed to prove it’s fair use claim and lost the judgment in circuit court. The judge handed down a $1 million penalty and also an injunction against the Free Republic. Free Republic filed an appeal to the Ninth District Court in California and request a summary judgment but was denied. The court granted a summary judgment to the Los Angeles Times but the penalty was amended to $10 thousand in damages and a permanent injunction requiring the Free Republic to delete all archive news articles and stop copying full articles. Microsoft Office Clipart, 2011 (Citizen Media, 2009)

6. In my opinion, the court's decision was correct. The defendant showed a disregard for the effort and talent of the writers, not to mention, a disregard for the financial obligation that is required to maintain such a high level of journalism. I'm a firm believer in fair use, but in this case, unfair abuse is a more accurate assessment. Free Republic was very obvious and deliberate in infringing on the work of others. The law performed the way it was intended to perform and in turn teaches a very valuable lesson to those who decide to use the work of others. I hope Dr. Rickman agrees. Microsoft Office Clipart, 2011

7. US Copyright Office. (2009). Fair Use. Retrieved November 10, 2011 from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Copyright image. Microsoft Clip Art Gavel image. Modified from Microsoft Clipart. Newspaper image. Modified from Microsoft Clipart. Angry man image. Modified from Microsoft Clipart. Computer and gavel image. Modified from Microsoft Clipart. Thought image. Modified from Microsoft Clipart. University of Houston Law Center. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/LosAngT.html http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/LosAngT.html Tech Law Journal. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/Default.htm http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/Default.htm Citizen Media Law Center. Retrieved November 12, 2011 from http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/la-times-v-free-republic http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/la-times-v-free-republic