<?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: Copyright &#039;evergreening&#039;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/273/copyright-evergreening/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/273/copyright-evergreening/</link>
	<description>Trusted advisors to the world&#039;s most innovative companies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:10:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duncan</title>
		<link>http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/273/copyright-evergreening/comment-page-1/#comment-1199</link>
		<dc:creator>Duncan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=273#comment-1199</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Peter - you would infringe copyright with your first copy.&#160; The closer that each minor variation is to the original, the more likely it infringes the original copyright (which is fine if you&#039;re the original copyright owner).&#160; &lt;br /&gt;The copyright owner gets to use this to their advantage because the minor variations, when they are created, each have their own, new copyright term.&#160; So, minor variations of each of these may also infringe copyright in each of them.&#160; And so on.&lt;br /&gt;Is the law asymetrical?&#160; Well - you can&#039;t avoid copyright infringement merely by making a minor change.&#160; However, minor changes reinforce the notion that the newly created work has its own, separate copyright rather than being covered by the original work.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter &#8211; you would infringe copyright with your first copy.&nbsp; The closer that each minor variation is to the original, the more likely it infringes the original copyright (which is fine if you&#8217;re the original copyright owner).&nbsp; <br />The copyright owner gets to use this to their advantage because the minor variations, when they are created, each have their own, new copyright term.&nbsp; So, minor variations of each of these may also infringe copyright in each of them.&nbsp; And so on.<br />Is the law asymetrical?&nbsp; Well &#8211; you can&#8217;t avoid copyright infringement merely by making a minor change.&nbsp; However, minor changes reinforce the notion that the newly created work has its own, separate copyright rather than being covered by the original work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Cebon</title>
		<link>http://www.thinkipstrategy.com/ipthinktank/273/copyright-evergreening/comment-page-1/#comment-1198</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Cebon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:13:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost:100/thinkipstrategy/?p=273#comment-1198</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;If Disney can perpetually renew the copyright on Mickey Mouse by creating minor variations, what is stopping me from copying it and simply making a minor variation to avoid breaching copyright?&#160; Is the law asymettrical?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Disney can perpetually renew the copyright on Mickey Mouse by creating minor variations, what is stopping me from copying it and simply making a minor variation to avoid breaching copyright?&nbsp; Is the law asymettrical?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

