<?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: 9th Cir. Decides Perfect 10 v. Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2007/05/17/9th-cir-decides-perfect-10-v-google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2007/05/17/9th-cir-decides-perfect-10-v-google/</link>
	<description>News and Analysis on Copyright, Trademark, Internet Law, and Culture from San Francisco Attorney Joe Gratz</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Substantial Similarity &#8250; Ninth Circuit Saves Internet, Kinda</title>
		<link>http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2007/05/17/9th-cir-decides-perfect-10-v-google/#comment-21797</link>
		<dc:creator>Substantial Similarity &#8250; Ninth Circuit Saves Internet, Kinda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 06:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2007/05/17/9th-cir-decides-perfect-10-v-google/#comment-21797</guid>
		<description>[...] one&#8217;s blogging agenda. Last week, the Ninth Circuit decided Perfect 10 v. Google. Quite a few very smart people have already commented on this decision, but there may yet be a couple points [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] one&#8217;s blogging agenda. Last week, the Ninth Circuit decided Perfect 10 v. Google. Quite a few very smart people have already commented on this decision, but there may yet be a couple points [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: derivative work &#187; Blog Archive &#187; 9th Circuit again: P10 v. Google</title>
		<link>http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2007/05/17/9th-cir-decides-perfect-10-v-google/#comment-21785</link>
		<dc:creator>derivative work &#187; Blog Archive &#187; 9th Circuit again: P10 v. Google</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 20:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2007/05/17/9th-cir-decides-perfect-10-v-google/#comment-21785</guid>
		<description>[...] the case, pointing out that the court held that a plaintiff must disprove fair use, which Joe Gratz also pointed out. I was also amused to see his take on the case as difficult to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] the case, pointing out that the court held that a plaintiff must disprove fair use, which Joe Gratz also pointed out. I was also amused to see his take on the case as difficult to [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
