<?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>Intellectual Property Expert Group (ipeg) &#187; Copyright</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:28:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>UK’s Digital Economy Act hurts Digital Technology Development</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1629</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1629#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collecting societies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Economy Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EMI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1629</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What if a government created obstacles for the entrepreneurs innovating in low cost railways and trains, simply to protect the stakeholders of water channels, steam-engine technology and barges? What if libraries were prohibited in order to protect stakeholders of book printing and book shops? And what if a government ‘criminalized’ the users of these services? [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1629</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media Industry’s Push against Network Service Providers</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1502</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1502#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A&M v. Napster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Zittrain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MGM v. Grokster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times v. Tasini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sony v. Universal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal v. Reimerdes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viacom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the largest and most closely-watched intellectual property disputes in the United States right now is the lawsuit that Viacom, a major media company, filed in 2007 against Google. This is a copyright case, not a patent case, but it has major implications for the types of technologies that will be valuable in curbing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1502</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Independent Invention</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=921</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=921#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[French Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trolls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK patent litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent invention]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=921</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is “independent invention” a cure against trolls in that it can be argued that infringement cannot be established in case of an “independent invention”? No it is not. A  lot of confusion, misunderstandings, half-truths, nonsensical quasi-lawerly talk exists around the term &#8220;independent invention&#8220;. The term is often &#8220;spittered&#8221; about as means against patent infringement actions [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=921</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>China learning fast in IPR, also the bad habits</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=304</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=304#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright overstretch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Everyone still thinks of China being intellectual property right (IPR) pirates. However things change, fast. Faster then we think and by doing so also emulating the bad IPR habits of the West. Forget about the copy shops stealing Gucci, Prada and other Western fashion symbols. That will keep on going, for sure,  so does [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=304</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
