<?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</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawfont.com/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>Convergence review invites submissions</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/28/convergence-review-invites-submissions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/28/convergence-review-invites-submissions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:47:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadcasting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spectrum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=1040</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Australian government&#8217;s Convergence Review Committee has released a Framing Paper and invited public submissions on what principles should guide the review over the next year. The principles currently proposed span across broadcasting, telecommunications, and radiocommunication issues (although the bias is towards broadcasting content issues): 1. Australians should have access to a diversity of voices, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/28/convergence-review-invites-submissions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>YouTube&#8217;s Copyright school: will it prevent infringement?</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/15/copyright-school-will-it-prevent-digital-copyright-infringement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/15/copyright-school-will-it-prevent-digital-copyright-infringement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=1024</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the problems with enforcing copyright in the digital environment is that there is a seemingly infinite amount of content online, free for the taking (if you don&#8217;t count broadband internet fees). As a result, it has often been difficult for content owners to convince everyone that downloading content that is easily available&#8211;but copyrighted&#8211;is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/04/15/copyright-school-will-it-prevent-digital-copyright-infringement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</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>The French Republic v Weiler: further details</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/the-french-republic-v-weiler-further-details/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/the-french-republic-v-weiler-further-details/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor Joseph Weiler has now written about the judgment in the criminal libel case brought against him in a French court. A decision was handed down by the Tribunal de Grand Instance de Paris on 3 March 2011. The details of the matter are outlined in an earlier post. In short, Professor Weiler was sued [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/the-french-republic-v-weiler-further-details/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Journal editor wins defamation action in French court</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/journal-editor-wins-defamation-action-in-french-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/journal-editor-wins-defamation-action-in-french-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=935</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor Joseph Weiler has won the defamation action brought against him in a French court, which I discussed last month here. So far I have not been able to find any more details about the ruling, but once I do will write a longer post.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/journal-editor-wins-defamation-action-in-french-court/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>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.309 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-05-18 00:20:59 -->

