Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So basically their argument is. We can't keep to the law and remain in business. so we want to be able to break the law so we can keep the money coming in.

Got it.

I see their problem. If someone copies and pastes an article from the NY Times and puts it on Wikipedia or Wikipedia links to a piracy site. Wikipedia might be liable. So no unauthorized links to sites that have not been checked. And no posts authorised until they are checked to see if the content is copyrighted.

They would be very pissed if they had paid reporters, staff, offices, etc to put out to get revenue in return for the investment. Then someone decides to take the product for free so someone else can make money on it.