<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Copyright Law and Deregulating Amateur Creativity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/copyright-law-and-deregulating-amateur-creativity.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/copyright-law-and-deregulating-amateur-creativity.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:44:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacqueline Lipton</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/copyright-law-and-deregulating-amateur-creativity.html/comment-page-1#comment-63598</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacqueline Lipton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 20:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=15873#comment-63598</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s interesting that you make the real property analogy because I was thinking about a slightly different real property analogy as it applies to Lessig&#039;s comments.  There is a series of cases on property rights versus free speech in the United States (eg Marsh v Alabama, State v Shack, Pruneyard Shopping Centers v Robins).  Courts have struggled to balance the rights of a person on the plaintiff&#039;s property to engage in speech that the property owner disagrees with and/or wants to restrict for some reason.  I wondered if this might be a good analogy for what Lessig is talking about to the extent his concern is with the public being misled about the property holders&#039; (ie copyright holders&#039;) views on a particular issue ie whether WB really does condone the use of Bugs Bunny for Nazi propaganda.

I realize this is not the point you were making ie you are talking about a property owner&#039;s more basic right to control use of his or her property.  I just thought it was another interesting real property comparison.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s interesting that you make the real property analogy because I was thinking about a slightly different real property analogy as it applies to Lessig&#8217;s comments.  There is a series of cases on property rights versus free speech in the United States (eg Marsh v Alabama, State v Shack, Pruneyard Shopping Centers v Robins).  Courts have struggled to balance the rights of a person on the plaintiff&#8217;s property to engage in speech that the property owner disagrees with and/or wants to restrict for some reason.  I wondered if this might be a good analogy for what Lessig is talking about to the extent his concern is with the public being misled about the property holders&#8217; (ie copyright holders&#8217;) views on a particular issue ie whether WB really does condone the use of Bugs Bunny for Nazi propaganda.</p>
<p>I realize this is not the point you were making ie you are talking about a property owner&#8217;s more basic right to control use of his or her property.  I just thought it was another interesting real property comparison.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Kopp E. Wright</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/copyright-law-and-deregulating-amateur-creativity.html/comment-page-1#comment-63596</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Kopp E. Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 20:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=15873#comment-63596</guid>
		<description>Real Property....Intellectual Property....

If its your apartment (real property)....for someone to USE your property,
they pay rent (or a license fee) for the privilege.

It&#039;s YOUR song (iintellectual property)....you can licence to whoever you want and give permission to perform also.

So what&#039;s the beef.....honor the original creator....(God and the first songwriter) and there is no problem........COPY (or trespass) without permission or payment is &quot;a rip&quot; no matter how you slice it.

The laws are really good and they get more refined all the time.....
Seen as no problem...there IS no problem.

It&#039;s a matter of honoring property rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Real Property&#8230;.Intellectual Property&#8230;.</p>
<p>If its your apartment (real property)&#8230;.for someone to USE your property,<br />
they pay rent (or a license fee) for the privilege.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s YOUR song (iintellectual property)&#8230;.you can licence to whoever you want and give permission to perform also.</p>
<p>So what&#8217;s the beef&#8230;..honor the original creator&#8230;.(God and the first songwriter) and there is no problem&#8230;&#8230;..COPY (or trespass) without permission or payment is &#8220;a rip&#8221; no matter how you slice it.</p>
<p>The laws are really good and they get more refined all the time&#8230;..<br />
Seen as no problem&#8230;there IS no problem.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a matter of honoring property rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

