Isn't that illegal, since you don't own the copyright? Or are you not distributing it and keeping it for archive purposes?

It's on my website, which is a blatant copyright violation. So far the NYT hasn't asked me to take it down.

It could potentially be considered fair use, since I'm not making a profit and I provide commentary.

> It's on my website, which is a blatant copyright violation

Tangential, but I long for a world where we can all be as candid with each other.

I figure you're doing the same as someone that cuts an article that they are mentioned in out of a newspaper and frames it on their wall. I've seen plenty of restaurants and businesses do it.

Except that's a physical product that was purchased.

What if OP purchased a copy of that day's paper?

That's exactly the point I'm making.

Isn't the argument for adverts that they're somewhat equivalent to buying the website page?

And: Who has been harmed here?

> It could potentially be considered fair use, since I'm not making a profit and I provide commentary.

Although people through that term around willy nilly, in our current framework that means being sued for a minimum of $100,000 per supposed violation, and making your fair use defense in front of a judge.

Youtubers have reported spending $50,000 just to begin talking with lawyers and preparing briefs.

Maybe our ISPs can start offering us insurance.

If he is actually providing commentary and it does meet the fair use requirements, the EFF would probably end up representing him.

Remember to donate to the EFF, they're literally the only thing between you and a world where the corporations rule the world.

Don't downvote people for asking questions ffs!