<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Backwards Reasoning on Copyright Law</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:34:23 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Backwards Reasoning on Copyright Law</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/10/11/backwards-reasoning-on-copyright-law/#comment-1448074</link><description>81e31de21f46 Hi     &lt;a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav"&gt;http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav&lt;/a&gt; tramadol</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tramadol</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:34:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Backwards Reasoning on Copyright Law</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/10/11/backwards-reasoning-on-copyright-law/#comment-1448076</link><description>db9826f9e5eb Hello!     http:/0zu.tw/ shorturl</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">shorturl</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:28:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Backwards Reasoning on Copyright Law</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/10/11/backwards-reasoning-on-copyright-law/#comment-1448077</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is all too true. Look at Scalia's "logic" about holding the police accountable. According to him, the laws against them are abled to be loosened just because in his mind, the police are more professional today. No transcendental principles that last between generations and eras. Just one Justice Scalia's opinion on the State of Law Enforcement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;But then, the rule of law is all but dead in America as it is.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">MikeT</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:55:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Backwards Reasoning on Copyright Law</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/10/11/backwards-reasoning-on-copyright-law/#comment-1448078</link><description>My point was that judges sometimes treat defendants differently based on perceived arrogance, not that I think that's a good thing.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tim Lee</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:39:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Backwards Reasoning on Copyright Law</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2006/10/11/backwards-reasoning-on-copyright-law/#comment-1448075</link><description>A court will not blindly apply a legal copyright test in a way that contradicts copyright's underlying principles, or quash innovation-competiton when they clearly are at stake.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I wouldn't go so far as to give Google a carte blanche though, a judge can still side against it if he/she thinks Google has not sought alternatives or made efforts towards legal compliance.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Hey Tim, how about a post on the top 5 most arrogant litigants in the tech sector...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Noel Le</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:23:17 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>