Will MSM Use Copyright Against Blogs?

We've knocked off two icons -- Rather and Jordan -- and we've had numerous other victories embarrassing to MSM, like forcing the LATime's to correct its recent slanderous editorial about Dr. Dobson and Sponge Bob.

Bloggers should not expect to continue being this effective without drawing a response from MSM, and that response will not be moving toward more responsibility. It is more likely MSM will pursue a legal response, and I venture to say that it's being discussed in boardrooms even as I type.

I am not a lawyer, but I studied journalism law and copyright law 30 years ago -- which means my knowledge is probably useless -- but it seems the blogosphere is vulnerable to a copyright law assault. We regularly cut and paste paragraphs from copyrighted publications into our posts. Yes, we attribute and link, and yes, the publications probably benefit from the extra hits on their Web sites, which they can translate to higher on-line ad rates.

But the fact of the matter is that media content is copyrighted, and the publications clearly state that the material cannot be reproduced without permission -- permission that is granted for a price. The media can argue that any blog that runs ads is a commercial enterprise, and is therefore using its copyrighted materials for commercial purposes without paying for usage rights.

If MSM wants to protect its turf -- and I believe they would like nothing more right now than to squash a couple high-profile, highly bothersome bloggers -- we will see a copyright lawsuit soon.

Is there a flaw in my argument? Comments and counter-arguments welcome.