<?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/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Posner&#8217;s Commercial Skipping Dicta</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/</link>
	<description>by Derek Slater</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:07:35 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Murrel Rhodes</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/comment-page-1/#comment-4383</link>
		<dc:creator>Murrel Rhodes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2003 05:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/#comment-4383</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

As eplained to me by my daughter, a former student of Judge Posner&#039;s, the TV show with commercials is a derivative work of the original non-commercialed work and so it would be the TV network that would possess the copyrighted work that would be infringed. I can&#039;t help but wonder if the local public broadcast wouldn&#039;t then be a derivative of the network work and so have to be the copyright holder of the infringed work. IANAL and so wonder if the local station would have to press infringement on the skipping of their commercials, the network would have to press skipping of their commercials and the content originator would have no rights to enforce infringement of commercials.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>As eplained to me by my daughter, a former student of Judge Posner&#8217;s, the TV show with commercials is a derivative work of the original non-commercialed work and so it would be the TV network that would possess the copyrighted work that would be infringed. I can&#8217;t help but wonder if the local public broadcast wouldn&#8217;t then be a derivative of the network work and so have to be the copyright holder of the infringed work. IANAL and so wonder if the local station would have to press infringement on the skipping of their commercials, the network would have to press skipping of their commercials and the content originator would have no rights to enforce infringement of commercials.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Murrel Rhodes</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/comment-page-1/#comment-4382</link>
		<dc:creator>Murrel Rhodes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2003 05:40:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/#comment-4382</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

In mathematics there is a concept called topological equivalence that states if two things are the same in all important ways they are equivalent. These leads to such insightful notions as two rubber band, no matter how stretched, still have the same rubber band shape. This same logical principle when applied to the question of skipping commercials says the performance presented to the audience is the same if the machine skips the commercials or if the viewer leaves the room during commercials to get a beer and a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich. Clearly, it is not illegal to get a PBJ during a commercial. If the logic of law were only held to the same high standards as mathematics, it would also not be illegal to skip the commercials.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>In mathematics there is a concept called topological equivalence that states if two things are the same in all important ways they are equivalent. These leads to such insightful notions as two rubber band, no matter how stretched, still have the same rubber band shape. This same logical principle when applied to the question of skipping commercials says the performance presented to the audience is the same if the machine skips the commercials or if the viewer leaves the room during commercials to get a beer and a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich. Clearly, it is not illegal to get a PBJ during a commercial. If the logic of law were only held to the same high standards as mathematics, it would also not be illegal to skip the commercials.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/comment-page-1/#comment-4381</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:01:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/#comment-4381</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

man, you do the legwork most of us only think about doing... thank you... gorgeous prose and logic, as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>man, you do the legwork most of us only think about doing&#8230; thank you&#8230; gorgeous prose and logic, as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/comment-page-1/#comment-4380</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/#comment-4380</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Check out the Gilliam case for more on this - I think the 7th Circuit might disagree.  Not sure, because I don&#039;t know the case too well, but it&#039;s my impression that they treated the commercials as part of the work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>Check out the Gilliam case for more on this &#8211; I think the 7th Circuit might disagree.  Not sure, because I don&#8217;t know the case too well, but it&#8217;s my impression that they treated the commercials as part of the work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Perkins</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/comment-page-1/#comment-4379</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Perkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:23:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cmusings/2003/07/10/posners-commercial-skipping-dicta/#comment-4379</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

You know what&#039;s funny?  Ignoring the whole &quot;fixed&quot; requirement from Galoob, I don&#039;t think commercial-skipping can implicate the derivative works right unless the complete programming, commercials included, is either (A) a single copyrighted work, or (B) a collective work consisting of the primary program and the commercials.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a></a></p>
<p>You know what&#8217;s funny?  Ignoring the whole &#8220;fixed&#8221; requirement from Galoob, I don&#8217;t think commercial-skipping can implicate the derivative works right unless the complete programming, commercials included, is either (A) a single copyrighted work, or (B) a collective work consisting of the primary program and the commercials.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
