<?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: Home taping is killing music</title>
	<atom:link href="http://salient.org.nz/features/home-taping-is-killing-music/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://salient.org.nz/features/home-taping-is-killing-music</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 03:34:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Comrie-Thomson</title>
		<link>http://salient.org.nz/features/home-taping-is-killing-music#comment-393133</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Comrie-Thomson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salient.org.nz/?p=16221#comment-393133</guid>
		<description>Libraries and universities to be held liable for infringement they couldn&#039;t prevent:

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blog/2010/11/select-committee-report-on-copyright-infringing-file-sharing-bill-just-released/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Libraries and universities to be held liable for infringement they couldn&#8217;t prevent:</p>
<p><a href="http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blog/2010/11/select-committee-report-on-copyright-infringing-file-sharing-bill-just-released/" rel="nofollow">http://creativefreedom.org.nz/blog/2010/11/select-committee-report-on-copyright-infringing-file-sharing-bill-just-released/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Comrie-Thomson</title>
		<link>http://salient.org.nz/features/home-taping-is-killing-music#comment-390339</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Comrie-Thomson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 22:39:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salient.org.nz/?p=16221#comment-390339</guid>
		<description>A couple of slight tweaks:

- the original s92A was scrapped in March last year (2009) not this year. 

- the original simply called for ISPs to &quot;reasonably implement&quot; a policy for dealing with repeat infringement, so there was no three-strikes policy explicitly called for by the law, but this was one way that the ISPs were looking at implementing the law. This ISP policy could have seen those that were simply accused violators (as opposed to proven violators) disconnected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A couple of slight tweaks:</p>
<p>- the original s92A was scrapped in March last year (2009) not this year. </p>
<p>- the original simply called for ISPs to &#8220;reasonably implement&#8221; a policy for dealing with repeat infringement, so there was no three-strikes policy explicitly called for by the law, but this was one way that the ISPs were looking at implementing the law. This ISP policy could have seen those that were simply accused violators (as opposed to proven violators) disconnected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: salient.org.nz @ 2012-05-27 13:07:18 -->
