<?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: Debate on YouTube Copyright Vulnerability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerability/</link>
	<description>Information, Law, and the Law of Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:34:24 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Suggestor</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerability/comment-page-1/#comment-13216</link>
		<dc:creator>Suggestor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 14:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerabi#comment-13216</guid>
		<description>I first went on YouTube and found a ton of videos with famous music.  I naively thought I&#039;ll make one too with my favorite song only to find out afterward about the strict copyright rules.  I say, that musicians should be honored that people want to use their music in their videos.  A solution would be to have YouTube require a special fee for those who want to post a homemade video with copyrighted music.  The creator of the homemade video would not receive any money or profit whatsover but would pay to post their creative video on YouTube only if it includes a copyrighted music.  The musicians would profit enourmously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I first went on YouTube and found a ton of videos with famous music.  I naively thought I&#8217;ll make one too with my favorite song only to find out afterward about the strict copyright rules.  I say, that musicians should be honored that people want to use their music in their videos.  A solution would be to have YouTube require a special fee for those who want to post a homemade video with copyrighted music.  The creator of the homemade video would not receive any money or profit whatsover but would pay to post their creative video on YouTube only if it includes a copyrighted music.  The musicians would profit enourmously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JRE</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerability/comment-page-1/#comment-11747</link>
		<dc:creator>JRE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerabi#comment-11747</guid>
		<description>Your first comment here is on point.  This is ridiculous.  That&#039;s what happens to all of these money makers.  Even websites are popping up claiming to make money off of you tube, such as &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theinternetscashmachine.com/tubetraffic.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tube Traffic&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your first comment here is on point.  This is ridiculous.  That&#8217;s what happens to all of these money makers.  Even websites are popping up claiming to make money off of you tube, such as <a href="http://www.theinternetscashmachine.com/tubetraffic.htm" rel="nofollow">Tube Traffic</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Info/Law &#187; Studio 60 Contemplates Information Law</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerability/comment-page-1/#comment-878</link>
		<dc:creator>Info/Law &#187; Studio 60 Contemplates Information Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerabi#comment-878</guid>
		<description>[...] In addition to the copyright issue, there was an internet issue too. Panicked by the apparent copyright infraction, our heroes altered the tape-delayed rebroadcast of the show on the West Coast in order to replace the apparently infringing material with an apology. Ah, but they are rushing. This is the dark side of the sped-up world of the internet and the way it makes us all so hasty. (More Info/Law!) Just after the apology airs, one of the characters discovers that the stand-up comedian who was captured on the video had himself swiped the jokes &#8212; from a former staff writer for Studio 60 in the early 1990s. Therefore, Studio 60 owns the copyright after all! Hooray! Here, again, no one paused to mention the work for hire doctrine, but they probably got the substance right on that too. (BTW, the characters&#8217; lack of information aboout copyright ownership here is a nice illustration of my point yesterday about YouTube/Google.) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In addition to the copyright issue, there was an internet issue too. Panicked by the apparent copyright infraction, our heroes altered the tape-delayed rebroadcast of the show on the West Coast in order to replace the apparently infringing material with an apology. Ah, but they are rushing. This is the dark side of the sped-up world of the internet and the way it makes us all so hasty. (More Info/Law!) Just after the apology airs, one of the characters discovers that the stand-up comedian who was captured on the video had himself swiped the jokes &#8212; from a former staff writer for Studio 60 in the early 1990s. Therefore, Studio 60 owns the copyright after all! Hooray! Here, again, no one paused to mention the work for hire doctrine, but they probably got the substance right on that too. (BTW, the characters&#8217; lack of information aboout copyright ownership here is a nice illustration of my point yesterday about YouTube/Google.) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Palfrey &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Making a Market Emerge out of Digital Copyright Uncertainty</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerability/comment-page-1/#comment-877</link>
		<dc:creator>John Palfrey &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Making a Market Emerge out of Digital Copyright Uncertainty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/11/debate-on-youtube-copyright-vulnerabi#comment-877</guid>
		<description>[...] The digital copyright issue is one of the sidebars related to the Google/YouTube transaction that has merited a fair amount of digital ink. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The digital copyright issue is one of the sidebars related to the Google/YouTube transaction that has merited a fair amount of digital ink. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
