<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>LawFont.com &#187; kim</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawfont.com/author/kim/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawfont.com</link>
	<description>an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:57:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Twentieth Century Fox v BT (the Newzbin2 website blocking decision)</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/08/01/twentieth-century-fox-v-bt-the-newzbin2-website-blocking-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/08/01/twentieth-century-fox-v-bt-the-newzbin2-website-blocking-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=1056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Late last week Justice Arnold in the UK High Court issued his judgment in Twentieth Century Fox v BT [2011] EWHC 1981 &#8211; ordering BT to block access to a website, Newzbin2 (www.newzbin.com), that was held in an earlier case to be infringing copyright on a large scale. Rick Shera and Lilian Edwards already have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/08/01/twentieth-century-fox-v-bt-the-newzbin2-website-blocking-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill &#8211; the whole kit and caboodle all in one exciting bill</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/01/1013/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/01/1013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=1013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At an IP Academics’ conference in early February, I remember Professor Di Nicol asking, rhetorically, ‘where has all the patent reform gone?’. Di pointed out that we’d had any number of ACIP Reports, ALRC Reports (like that on Gene Patenting), and IP Australia Discussion Papers, all with no actual legislation resulting. No more, it seems. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/01/1013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on the TPPA IP proposal &#8211; aarrgghh even for an AUSFTA-burdened Australia</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/16/more-on-the-tppa-ip-proposal-aarrgghh-even-for-an-ausfta-burdened-australia/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/16/more-on-the-tppa-ip-proposal-aarrgghh-even-for-an-ausfta-burdened-australia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=1003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The TPPA &#8211; for which the US IP proposals were leaked last week &#8211; is earning a little more attention: Crikey had a good short article yesterday by Bernard Keane (subscriber only, free trial), Rick Shera in NZ has been tweeting and has given an interview; Techdirt has an article; Michael Geist has offered up [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/16/more-on-the-tppa-ip-proposal-aarrgghh-even-for-an-ausfta-burdened-australia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Proposals for IP in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Leaked</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/11/us-proposals-for-ip-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-leaked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/11/us-proposals-for-ip-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-leaked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All jurisdictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=1001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The text of the US Proposals for the IP Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement have been leaked, and KEI has a copy on their website. It&#8217;s not a pretty sight: at an admittedly very quick glance, it looks like the proposal is AUSFTA-plus: that is, they&#8217;ve got even more creative in the 7 years [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/11/us-proposals-for-ip-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-leaked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Australia &#8211; raising the bar?</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/03/ip-australia-raising-the-bar/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/03/ip-australia-raising-the-bar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IP Australia has released the IP Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill for public consultation. It&#8217;s huge: it covers patentability standards, a patent research exception; enforcement; oppositions &#8211; you name it, it&#8217;s in there. Written submissions due by 14 April 2011. More thoughts to come&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/03/ip-australia-raising-the-bar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A few thoughts on iiNet FFC decision</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/02/a-few-thoughts-on-iinet-ffc-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/02/a-few-thoughts-on-iinet-ffc-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[p2p]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By now, all the copyright nerds in the world know the headlines: the Full Federal Court has handed down its decision in the iiNet case; that the appeal was dismissed in a 2:1 decision (Emmett and Nicholas JJ; Jagot J dissenting). Most people also will know that the reasoning is very, very different from the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/02/a-few-thoughts-on-iinet-ffc-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Building the case for fair use in Australia &#8211; one specific exception at a time</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/01/building-the-case-for-fair-use-in-australia-one-specific-exception-at-a-time/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/01/building-the-case-for-fair-use-in-australia-one-specific-exception-at-a-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 05:42:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=936</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I noted the other day that the Attorney-General had set out the upcoming copyright reform agenda. And then an email alert crossed my desk &#8211; an actual copyright reform, in a dedicated Bill. Australia is to get a new copyright exception! Specifically, we are to get new s 44BA, for &#8216;acts done in relation to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/01/building-the-case-for-fair-use-in-australia-one-specific-exception-at-a-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attorney-General announces Australia&#8217;s Copyright Agenda</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/02/25/attorney-general-announces-australias-copyright-agenda/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/02/25/attorney-general-announces-australias-copyright-agenda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[p2p]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, at a (invitation only) conference in Sydney, Australia&#8217;s Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced Australia&#8217;s copyright reform agenda for the next little while. I wasn&#8217;t there, but a transcript of the speech is here. In short, the agenda is this: On the issues in iinet, the AG believes that &#8216;an industry dialogue on this issue is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/02/25/attorney-general-announces-australias-copyright-agenda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACTA and transparency</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/20/acta-and-transparency/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/20/acta-and-transparency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:35:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting comment from Michael Geist today on transparency and ACTA &#8211; making the argument that the failure to reveal text is far from normal in relation to plurilateral or multilateral agreements.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/20/acta-and-transparency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Protectionism maintained</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/protectionism-maintained/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/protectionism-maintained/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Minister for Innovation has decided to ignore the Productivity Commission&#8217;s recommendations, and not to change the Australian regulatory regime for books introduced by the previous Labor government. In other words, publishers get to keep their territorial exclusivity for books, and the government thinks we should all get e-Readers instead (seriously, that&#8217;s practically in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2009/11/12/protectionism-maintained/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

