This article is astonishingly biased. It brushes off the important "escape valve" of fair use like this: Eric Goldman, director of the high-tech law institute

This article is astonishingly biased. It brushes off the important "escape valve" of fair use like this: Eric Goldman, director of the high-tech law institute at the Santa Clara University School of Law, said reposting published material online could qualify as "fair use" if it didn’t diminish the market value of the original. Other critics of the suits contend that reposting material for the purposes of discussion does not constitute infringement. That brush off both misleads and diminishes the purpose of fair use. Fair use isn't not-for-profit, it's for the purpose of education, criticism and some other things. Fair use isn't just "a small piece", either. Recently, reposting of an entire article was found to constitute fair use. The "critics contend" part seems particularly misleading, in that fair use is a part of both case and statute law. It's not some lame-o pundit's opinion, it's the law. Unfortunately, you have to actually go to trial to get a fair use judgement, and that's where the anti-free-speech nature of "copyright infringement" shows up. Without a presumption of fair use, the government-granted monopoly of copyright impedes free speech.