<?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: Fair Use, Documentaries, and Deals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2006/05/28/fair-use-documentaries-and-deals/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2006/05/28/fair-use-documentaries-and-deals/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2006/05/28/fair-use-documentaries-and-deals/comment-page-1/#comment-32802</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2006 22:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/?p=670#comment-32802</guid>
		<description>I agree.  I also think that the &quot;cautious&quot; approach may generate a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you license it, it might become &quot;traditional&quot; to license it.  I explore that idea here: 

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/05/dilemmas_of_the.html

...though I recently read a fair use case from the 2nd circuit (involving the Grateful Dead) that I believe tried to dispel the idea that licensing one can create some sort of presumption that one should always license in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  I also think that the &#8220;cautious&#8221; approach may generate a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you license it, it might become &#8220;traditional&#8221; to license it.  I explore that idea here: </p>
<p><a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/05/dilemmas_of_the.html" rel="nofollow">http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/05/dilemmas_of_the.html</a></p>
<p>&#8230;though I recently read a fair use case from the 2nd circuit (involving the Grateful Dead) that I believe tried to dispel the idea that licensing one can create some sort of presumption that one should always license in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

