<?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: &#8216;Huge stress&#8217; now on IP laws</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6621/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6621</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</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/6621/comment-page-1#comment-22459</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22459</guid>
		<description>I think it is definatly important for the creators to have rights concerning how their works are used. Without SOME control, there really would be no incentive to create anything.

The problem we have now is that those &quot;controls&quot; have been so badly abused that they are dangerous to the public good.

People (generally) have a fairly good understanding of what&#039;s right and what&#039;s wrong. One of the reasons P2P is so popular is that we (the people) are just informally correcting intellectual propery rights that have been allowed to be skewed to (unfairly) favour one small group of people. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is definatly important for the creators to have rights concerning how their works are used. Without SOME control, there really would be no incentive to create anything.</p>
<p>The problem we have now is that those &#8220;controls&#8221; have been so badly abused that they are dangerous to the public good.</p>
<p>People (generally) have a fairly good understanding of what&#8217;s right and what&#8217;s wrong. One of the reasons P2P is so popular is that we (the people) are just informally correcting intellectual propery rights that have been allowed to be skewed to (unfairly) favour one small group of people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6621/comment-page-1#comment-22430</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22430</guid>
		<description>&quot;It concludes with a quote from Boyle: âgood policy does not just consist of âmore rights&#039;, it consists of maintaining a balance between the realm of property and the realm of the public domainâ.â

Law professor Boyle got it wrong and pushes the Cartel agenda.

Better: ...it consists of maintaining a balance totally in favor of the public.  If the public is better served by allowing some private rights, then and only then should private rights be allowed.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It concludes with a quote from Boyle: âgood policy does not just consist of âmore rights&#8217;, it consists of maintaining a balance between the realm of property and the realm of the public domainâ.â</p>
<p>Law professor Boyle got it wrong and pushes the Cartel agenda.</p>
<p>Better: &#8230;it consists of maintaining a balance totally in favor of the public.  If the public is better served by allowing some private rights, then and only then should private rights be allowed.</p>
<p>Rafael Venegas<br />
<a href="http://www.gvenegas.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gvenegas.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


