[Cowboy_X]

Losing would "create precedent that fair use of online material in a news report is not a copyright violation," which is the whole crux of this joke. "Losing" the court case would force AP to change their (questionably legal) terms of use.

[mahmud]

I think you and I are calling a boolean variable by opposite names. What do you mean by "lose"?

I was solely addressing the missing options, and approaching the matter strictly from a truth-table perspective :-)

AP has two options: pay up, or go to court. Where each has two outcomes, "Success" or "Failure" from Woot's point of view. If AP pays, it's a success, if it doesn't and ignores it's a muted failure, since Woot doesn't need the 18 bucks. If AP goes to court and wins (i.e. doesn't have to pay) it's a success, but if it loses and is forced to pay, then that will do nothing but establish that online content should be paid for.

It seems like you and the parent are ignoring that nasty bottom-right quadrant.

If this wasn't a joke, and Woot pushed the issue to court, and "won", they risk being the first jackasses to sell everyone's online freedom for $17.50.

[chc]

Given how flippant Woot is about this, and how hard the AP would fight if this actually went to court (since having to pay every source would damage its business model way more than people copy-pasting does), the bottom-right quadrant may as well not exist. The AP wants that outcome even less than we or Woot do.

[wildwood]

I don't think small claims court is usually seen as a setter of precedent... :)

Maybe they could sue for 17.50 plus some punitive damages (or emotional distress or something), to push it into civil court. Imagine the briefs and testimony you'd get from the Woot staff. :)