<?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: Q2 2015 Quick Links, Part 2 (Censorship and More)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/06/q2-2015-quick-links-part-2-censorship-and-more.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/06/q2-2015-quick-links-part-2-censorship-and-more.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2015 05:29:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Methaya Sirichit		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/06/q2-2015-quick-links-part-2-censorship-and-more.htm#comment-1329</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Methaya Sirichit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2015 05:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=14439#comment-1329</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As always, I just would like to point out that Europe has their own legal paradigms that are not random, with perhaps more solid legal roots and the common law. France and the Netherlands have just updated their copyright laws (see Prof Ginsburg&#039;s recent post here http://www.mediainstitute.org/IPI/2015/061515.php ). Europe&#039;s copyright tradition, contrary to popular myth, has always been more strict than the U.S. These contract copyright updates are meant to create inalienable contract rights that prevent authors from giving away right to mega intermediaries for unspecified digital exploitations; but they are not intended to disrupt technology more than necessity. One should see these legal developments as indication that European laws, unlike our section 230, do not tend to forget that laws should protect people before technology.


The article from WSJ just made me laugh. This is what we see in America all the time: the unwillingness to subject European legal thinking to genuine academic investigation. All I see is this Silicon Valley activist-type of pointing finger and calling names.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As always, I just would like to point out that Europe has their own legal paradigms that are not random, with perhaps more solid legal roots and the common law. France and the Netherlands have just updated their copyright laws (see Prof Ginsburg&#8217;s recent post here <a href="http://www.mediainstitute.org/IPI/2015/061515.php" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.mediainstitute.org/IPI/2015/061515.php</a> ). Europe&#8217;s copyright tradition, contrary to popular myth, has always been more strict than the U.S. These contract copyright updates are meant to create inalienable contract rights that prevent authors from giving away right to mega intermediaries for unspecified digital exploitations; but they are not intended to disrupt technology more than necessity. One should see these legal developments as indication that European laws, unlike our section 230, do not tend to forget that laws should protect people before technology.</p>
<p>The article from WSJ just made me laugh. This is what we see in America all the time: the unwillingness to subject European legal thinking to genuine academic investigation. All I see is this Silicon Valley activist-type of pointing finger and calling names.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
