I guess I'll jump into this debate too.

1) The webpages linked are on a website that is publicly accessible (no password).

2) One should consider content on a webpage as published information and therefore copyrighted.

So, why shouldn't hsi.chang link directly to the articles? Show people the source of the information and let them read it for themselves. Posting just part of the information is a summary at best (people get curious) and unsubstantiable heresay at worst (i.e. "what's your source?"). Posting the entire article on FT, on the other hand, would be a copyright infringement. Thus providing a link to the original source is the best way to handle it.

burkey: do you mean that the AMRcorp website was brought down with heavy traffic? If this article is not for public use, why is publicly accessible on the amrcorp.com website and not, for instance on the company's private intranet? Please don't take this as me bashing you about this or anything. It's just that if this article linked to by hsi.chang was not meant to be publicly accessible in the first place, they are going to remove it or password protect it anyways.

Back to the original comment by Carty... It is indeed an interesting one. Canada is too small a market to worry about?

FewMiles..