<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>Ken Tabachnick&apos;s Blog</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</link>
<description>A general discussion of issues related to IP, the digital world, and general matters of interest.</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>ktabachnick@nyc.rr.com</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2004-06-17T11:19:33-05:00</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.2" />
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>

<item>
<title>Cunning DVD Scheme</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000869.html</link>
<description>IPKAT (a great blog on European IP) has an interesting post about a scheme by Dutch DVD movie-distributors to avoid paying royalties. The scheme seems to sell and then buy back DVD-movies from consumers after they have viewed the films and thereby, since there is no sale, not have to pay a royalty. The scheme is in limbo though because it was designed to be delivered over set-top boxes to televisions and steros and the hardware manufacturer has gone out of business. One has to wonder how the European rental right would apply to such a scheme. One also has...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">869@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>General IP</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-06-17T11:19:33-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Privacy Surveillance</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000506.html</link>
<description>Fordham Law School professor Sonia Katyal has written an insightful article about the effect of strengthened copyright law in the digital age (the DMCA) on privacy. Professor Katyal analyzes the difference between privacy in the real world, which she posits is based upon &quot;geographical&quot; limits and their defense, and in cyberspace, where there are no such &quot;geographical&quot; limits.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">506@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-05-13T09:05:15-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Copyright Policy</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000376.html</link>
<description>Lawrence Lessig&apos;s Free Culture struggles with the continuing antagonism between &quot;property&quot; and &quot;piracy,&quot; which Professor Lessig proposes is our historical norm, without reconciling these two opposing tendencies. Thanks to Ernest Miller, I found Timothy Wu&apos;s trenchant Copyright&apos;s Communication Policy that attempts to explain the tensions in our copyright law and the struggle Lessig describes. Wu&apos;s observant central premise is that American copyright history has been a story of two public policies - (i) providing author&apos;s rights and (ii) managing competition between disseminators - that ebb and flow as technology develops. Wu argues that historically, entrenched technologies (used by disseminators) are...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">376@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>Coypright</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-05-01T20:06:17-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Culture</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000359.html</link>
<description>I finally finished Lawrence Lessig?s latest book, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. Professor Lessig, a leading light in the copyfight, posits some pressing points regarding copyright and culture in a digital world. But the book&apos;s message is confusing and unfocused. Professor Lessig proposes a simple, but probably untenable solution, for what he sees as the core problem of an ever-decreasing ? even disappearing ? public domain of material from which creators can draw: reinstitute a modified system of required registration to receive the full measure of copyright protection....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">359@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>Coypright</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-04-29T20:12:10-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Google Privacy</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000167.html</link>
<description>EFF&apos;s Deep Links (Donna Wentworth) has a practical and useful article about protecting your privacy when using web-based mail services....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">167@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-04-16T13:36:25-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Scalia Follow Up</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000128.html</link>
<description>AP has now reported that Justice Scalia has done the right thing regarding the incident in which two reporters were accosted by federal marshals and told that the Justice does not permit recording of his speeches....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">128@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-04-12T20:38:35-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Scalia&apos;s Freedom of</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000125.html</link>
<description>A schocking story involving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was reported several days ago and I have been watching to see if it is picked up and further reported by mainstream media. Today&apos;s NY Times has an opinion piece outlining the events, but does not opine on the true import of Scalia&apos;s actions....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">125@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>Free Speech</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-04-12T19:37:36-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blogs and Privacy</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000042.html</link>
<description>On my way to DC yesterday, I picked up a copy of PC Connections, a custom publicaiton of PC Connections, Inc., which is one of the myriad &quot;free&quot; publications available on the shuttle. A short piece on p.9 discusses workplace blogs and their increasing popularity. A privacy and security expert from Proskauer Rose states that &quot;compan[ies are] liable if an employee posts libelous material. . . &quot; The expert&apos;s analysis assumes a traditional analysis of publisher liability. But how would this play out in a &quot;news&quot; context, which one might argue is involved in the use of RSS or XML...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">42@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blogging</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-04-02T09:55:34-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Reuters Headlines</title>
<link>http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/archives/000038.html</link>
<description>Responding to the discussion about the copyrightability of its headlines, Reuters has jumped into the discussion. Their announcement that they do not consider use of their headlines in XML feeds to be infringement of their copyright clearly implies the underlying consensual control the copyright owner has. Under traditional law in the US, the owner is the one to control the enumerated rights for which they are granted protection. But the Reuters statement avoids the key question of whether or not a headline is subject matter that is subject to copyright. As others have stated, a title is traditionally not subject...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">38@http://blogs.indiewire.com/kentab/</guid>
<dc:subject>Coypright</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2004-04-01T12:54:29-05:00</dc:date>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>