<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Longer royalties for performers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.voxpolis.com/2006/longer-royalties-for-performers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.voxpolis.com/2006/longer-royalties-for-performers/</link>
	<description>Politics, culture, surrealism...</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vox Polis &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Good signs from the Gowers Review</title>
		<link>http://www.voxpolis.com/2006/longer-royalties-for-performers/#comment-1347</link>
		<dc:creator>Vox Polis &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Good signs from the Gowers Review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:56:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.voxpolis.com/?p=87#comment-1347</guid>
		<description>[...] The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property has brought the issue of copyright length into prominence in the past couple of months (and brought out swarms of music industry lobbyists). The BBC reported last night that the review is to recommend that copyright on sound recordings not be extended from the current period of 50 years. Whilst I am personally in favour of a significantly shorter terms the music industry, figure-headed by the likes of Sir Cliff Richard, had been lobbying for an extension to 95 years so a recommendation of no change does feel like a victory of sorts. The Review will be published next week as part of the Chancellors pre-budget report. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property has brought the issue of copyright length into prominence in the past couple of months (and brought out swarms of music industry lobbyists). The BBC reported last night that the review is to recommend that copyright on sound recordings not be extended from the current period of 50 years. Whilst I am personally in favour of a significantly shorter terms the music industry, figure-headed by the likes of Sir Cliff Richard, had been lobbying for an extension to 95 years so a recommendation of no change does feel like a victory of sorts. The Review will be published next week as part of the Chancellors pre-budget report. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vox Polis &#187; Blog Archive &#187; IPPR recommend fair use copying changes</title>
		<link>http://www.voxpolis.com/2006/longer-royalties-for-performers/#comment-432</link>
		<dc:creator>Vox Polis &#187; Blog Archive &#187; IPPR recommend fair use copying changes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:05:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.voxpolis.com/?p=87#comment-432</guid>
		<description>[...] Given how much illegal activity there is, giving us fair use rights is long overdue.  Having a law that is so widely flaunted weakens public understanding of (and adherence to) copyright law as a whole.  Provisions for the British Library are also a good thing, although exactly what DRM encumbered fluff they feel the need to archive is a bit of a puzzle.  As for leaving the copyright period alone I am personally of the opinion that the current terms are far too long but there doesn&#8217;t seem to be much public appetite for a change. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Given how much illegal activity there is, giving us fair use rights is long overdue.  Having a law that is so widely flaunted weakens public understanding of (and adherence to) copyright law as a whole.  Provisions for the British Library are also a good thing, although exactly what DRM encumbered fluff they feel the need to archive is a bit of a puzzle.  As for leaving the copyright period alone I am personally of the opinion that the current terms are far too long but there doesn&#8217;t seem to be much public appetite for a change. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vox Polis &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Arrh&#8230;vote Pirate!</title>
		<link>http://www.voxpolis.com/2006/longer-royalties-for-performers/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Vox Polis &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Arrh&#8230;vote Pirate!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 May 2006 20:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.voxpolis.com/?p=87#comment-26</guid>
		<description>[...] However as the General Election has been approaching they&#8217;ve moved towards a softer line -with the policy to reduce the lifetime of patents from 25 to 5 years.  Sounds sensible to me.  Looks like the kind of grouping we could do with in the UK - especially as people like Sir Cliff Richard are pushing for longer royalty payments (as we reported last month). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] However as the General Election has been approaching they&#8217;ve moved towards a softer line -with the policy to reduce the lifetime of patents from 25 to 5 years.  Sounds sensible to me.  Looks like the kind of grouping we could do with in the UK - especially as people like Sir Cliff Richard are pushing for longer royalty payments (as we reported last month). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
