M.Ted —— I was about to repeat a post from the original thread, but Troll said basically the same thing very eloquently. I would just add that there is NO parallel between government trying to suppress news (they try, but rarely succeed in my experience) and a paper refusing to run a particular writer's work.

And, as I said in the other thread, my writing and photos were pirated about 28 years ago by a fundamentalist preacher who warped what I had written for this own purposes and produced a book out of it. When I asked about suing him I was told that once my articles appeared in a newspaper, they were in the public domain.

Use of the articles is what seems to be the issue here. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that the Times ran some stories, then posted them on the Net and the authors wanted to be paid again? If that is what happened, I can't understand how the court found in favor of the writers. Maybe if I read the decision I could figure it out, but it would take some pretty contorted logic, IMO.

Kat — sorry love, but I think this cause is out to lunch. It's the kind of thing that could get somebody stirred up emotionally, but it just doesn't stand up to analysis because the bottom line is that any company can buy or not buy any product they choose — including a writer's work.

cheers all,

david