<?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: Some Thoughts on Perfect 10 v. Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2007/05/16/some-thoughts-on-perfect-10-v-google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/05/16/some-thoughts-on-perfect-10-v-google/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:22:44 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tech LawForum &#187; Three Views of the Perfect 10 v. Google Decision</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/05/16/some-thoughts-on-perfect-10-v-google/comment-page-1/#comment-211970</link>
		<dc:creator>Tech LawForum &#187; Three Views of the Perfect 10 v. Google Decision</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 15:35:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/05/16/some-thoughts-on-perfect-10-v-google/#comment-211970</guid>
		<description>[...] Alfred Yen, writing at Madisonian.net, is also pleased by the ruling on prima facie infringement, but is similarly concerned about what constitutes &#8220;simple&#8221; steps to thwart infringing materials:  My concern is that “simple” will be interpreted as “easy for Google” without any consideration for the social benefits that “simple” actions might destroy. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Alfred Yen, writing at Madisonian.net, is also pleased by the ruling on prima facie infringement, but is similarly concerned about what constitutes &#8220;simple&#8221; steps to thwart infringing materials:  My concern is that “simple” will be interpreted as “easy for Google” without any consideration for the social benefits that “simple” actions might destroy. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: copy this blog &#187; Perfect 10 v. Google updates</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2007/05/16/some-thoughts-on-perfect-10-v-google/comment-page-1/#comment-210161</link>
		<dc:creator>copy this blog &#187; Perfect 10 v. Google updates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 14:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/archives/2007/05/16/some-thoughts-on-perfect-10-v-google/#comment-210161</guid>
		<description>[...] written by Carlos and posted on 5/16/2007 at 12:34 pm and filed under Copyright, Tech. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback:Trackback URL.    &#171; Ninth Circuit on Kahle v. Gonzales [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] written by Carlos and posted on 5/16/2007 at 12:34 pm and filed under Copyright, Tech. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback:Trackback URL.    &laquo; Ninth Circuit on Kahle v. Gonzales [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
