<?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: Celebrity Impersonation and Section 230</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/25/impersonation-and-230/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/25/impersonation-and-230/</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: James Jones</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/25/impersonation-and-230/comment-page-1/#comment-94639</link>
		<dc:creator>James Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:13:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=597#comment-94639</guid>
		<description>Twitter has been looking for a way to create a sustainable revnue stream.  Seems like verified accounts would be a good way for them to do so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Twitter has been looking for a way to create a sustainable revnue stream.  Seems like verified accounts would be a good way for them to do so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Info/Law &#187; More Fun With Section 230</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/25/impersonation-and-230/comment-page-1/#comment-91967</link>
		<dc:creator>Info/Law &#187; More Fun With Section 230</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=597#comment-91967</guid>
		<description>[...] is some back-and-forth between Michael Risch and me about section 230, building on my earlier post here, now posted on [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is some back-and-forth between Michael Risch and me about section 230, building on my earlier post here, now posted on [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek Bambauer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2009/06/25/impersonation-and-230/comment-page-1/#comment-91325</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek Bambauer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/?p=597#comment-91325</guid>
		<description>Right of publicity is out in California under &lt;a href=&quot;http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Perfect 10 v. CCBill&lt;/a&gt; if memory serves, but it could work in, for example, the First Circuit under &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scribd.com/doc/3964117/Doe-v-Friendfinder-CDA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Doe v. Friendfinder&lt;/a&gt;...

I agree completely that the action in Section 230 these days involves creative pleading to jam one&#039;s cause of action into one of the explicit or implicit exceptions...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right of publicity is out in California under <a href="http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/" rel="nofollow">Perfect 10 v. CCBill</a> if memory serves, but it could work in, for example, the First Circuit under <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/3964117/Doe-v-Friendfinder-CDA" rel="nofollow">Doe v. Friendfinder</a>&#8230;</p>
<p>I agree completely that the action in Section 230 these days involves creative pleading to jam one&#8217;s cause of action into one of the explicit or implicit exceptions&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
