<?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: EMI goes Zombie: its business is now owning and exploiting its copyrights.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2010/06/emi-goes-zombie-its-business-is-now-owning-and-exploiting-its-copyrights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2010/06/emi-goes-zombie-its-business-is-now-owning-and-exploiting-its-copyrights/</link>
	<description>The ways law rules creative endeavors and the ways law itself is a creative endeavor</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:08:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Would Shakespeare have survived the Internet? Scott Turow and the morality of propertizing creativity.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2010/06/emi-goes-zombie-its-business-is-now-owning-and-exploiting-its-copyrights/comment-page-1/#comment-4622</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Would Shakespeare have survived the Internet? Scott Turow and the morality of propertizing creativity.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2010/06/emi-goes-zombie-its-business-is-now-owning-and-exploiting-its-copyrights/#comment-4622</guid>
		<description>[...] Turow and his colleagues are guilty, I think, of the &#8220;bad medicine&#8221; of &#8220;reducing too much to private property.&#8221; Perhaps Turow would describe me as a law professor advancing &#8220;counterintuitive&#8221; arguments, but he runs the risk of living (and profiting mightily from) a culture that has an unprecedented tendency to &#8220;propertize&#8221; everything it can and a blindness to the ways law cannot stem new practices made possible by technology. The inarguable truth is that the music and publishing industries once had virtual monopolies on the production and distribution of their products and that they no longer do. Those industries have largely reacted by trying to enforce a legal regime that grew up with and required the old means of production and distribution, which seems to me at least not the most productive way of promoting creativity. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Turow and his colleagues are guilty, I think, of the &#8220;bad medicine&#8221; of &#8220;reducing too much to private property.&#8221; Perhaps Turow would describe me as a law professor advancing &#8220;counterintuitive&#8221; arguments, but he runs the risk of living (and profiting mightily from) a culture that has an unprecedented tendency to &#8220;propertize&#8221; everything it can and a blindness to the ways law cannot stem new practices made possible by technology. The inarguable truth is that the music and publishing industries once had virtual monopolies on the production and distribution of their products and that they no longer do. Those industries have largely reacted by trying to enforce a legal regime that grew up with and required the old means of production and distribution, which seems to me at least not the most productive way of promoting creativity. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

