<?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: Dead mandolinist sues YouTube</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12238/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12238</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:43:11 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12238/comment-page-1#comment-138329</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 01:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-138329</guid>
		<description>False and misleading article.  
    
    1. There&#039;s nothing &quot;ironic&quot; in the fact that Grisman would do this.  Yes, the Dead allowed &quot;tapers&quot;, but there was ALWAYS a restriction imposed (if only an implicit one) -- no commercial distribution, for example.)  
    The mechanism which allowed the Grateful Dead the opportunity to stipulate that restriction was -- you guessed it -- copyright.

     2. Grisman has a point about the &quot;smaller artists&quot;.  They should have a say over whether they want their stuff up on viral-video sites (which are, arguably, commercial enterprises backed by ad revenue and subscriptions.).   
         Youtube is NOT &quot;noncommercial&quot;, in the way that say, Internet Archive, is.  There IS money changing hands, and at least a portion  of that revenue is being generated as a result of unauthorized vids of smaller, &quot;unsigned&quot; artists.   To ignore that fact, and essentially say &quot;fuck &#039;em&quot;, while simultaneoulsy posturing as advocates for &quot;creators&quot; is ...... let&#039;s just say a tad sloppy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>False and misleading article.  </p>
<p>    1. There&#8217;s nothing &#8220;ironic&#8221; in the fact that Grisman would do this.  Yes, the Dead allowed &#8220;tapers&#8221;, but there was ALWAYS a restriction imposed (if only an implicit one) &#8212; no commercial distribution, for example.)<br />
    The mechanism which allowed the Grateful Dead the opportunity to stipulate that restriction was &#8212; you guessed it &#8212; copyright.</p>
<p>     2. Grisman has a point about the &#8220;smaller artists&#8221;.  They should have a say over whether they want their stuff up on viral-video sites (which are, arguably, commercial enterprises backed by ad revenue and subscriptions.).<br />
         Youtube is NOT &#8220;noncommercial&#8221;, in the way that say, Internet Archive, is.  There IS money changing hands, and at least a portion  of that revenue is being generated as a result of unauthorized vids of smaller, &#8220;unsigned&#8221; artists.   To ignore that fact, and essentially say &#8220;fuck &#8216;em&#8221;, while simultaneoulsy posturing as advocates for &#8220;creators&#8221; is &#8230;&#8230; let&#8217;s just say a tad sloppy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
