1. The usage can’t be the whole damn thing
2. It has to be for a supported purpose: parody, news, etc.
3. It has to be part of creating a new work

Since they excerpted the comments, used them for reportage, and used the comments to create a “new work,” they’re covered by fair use.

And this is where my musing about comments as “works” comes in. If a comment is an independent work, what might be considered a fair portion to quote before you are effectively reproducing the work in total?

I’m sympathetic to the idea that comments are independent works, but in a sense they’re meaningless outside the original context of the blog post. Most comments don’t stand on their own out side of that context… Except when they do.

How is it just that a news organization can “borrow” text under fair use then lock it up under more restrictive terms? For example: Under stories at the News and Observer you find this.. “All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.” Here is the N&Os Terms of Use.

My gut says blog comments are separate or sub works. At least in context of ownership. But its possible that the ownership (leasing) of the web server and database trumps the ownership of the text content in some way.

Complicated stuff. Easy to appreciate several points of views that appear to contradict each other.

Here’s an interesting question: Are blog comments part of the “original” work — the blog post — or are they separate works?

Was the consequence of that injurious to them – no – I don’t think so.

Did it rob OP of some value – you obviously think so – that appears to be why your upset.

As far as “The people who work hard on non-profit sites like Orange Politics do it for there community, not for profit. ” OP is a calling card for Ruby. She definitely has used it to advance her career – so I don’t think this statement is supportable by the facts.