<?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: Calling Dr. Kevorkian</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/03/calling-dr-kevorkian/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/03/calling-dr-kevorkian/</link>
	<description>Copyright Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:02:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neal</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/03/calling-dr-kevorkian/#comment-15405</link>
		<dc:creator>Neal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=395#comment-15405</guid>
		<description>This article is in poor taste, at best., despicable at worst.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article is in poor taste, at best., despicable at worst.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dominique</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/03/calling-dr-kevorkian/#comment-15210</link>
		<dc:creator>dominique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:58:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=395#comment-15210</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t understand your problem. Creative Commons gives option. It&#039;s Creative Commons that is the opt-in, not U.S. and International Copyright Law. 

Remember, Creative Commons provides licensing options for more than just artists. There are all kinds of works created and licensed under Creative Commons, like scientific research, papers, etc.

Creative Commons provides options. You&#039;re not forced to take them. They provide some more clearly differentiated options than the black or white U.S. Copyright system now does.

The world is evolving. There are plenty of people, artists and more, who see options in publishing beyond the traditional. Let them have options if they want to.

If you hate Creative Commons so much, just don&#039;t use them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand your problem. Creative Commons gives option. It&#8217;s Creative Commons that is the opt-in, not U.S. and International Copyright Law. </p>
<p>Remember, Creative Commons provides licensing options for more than just artists. There are all kinds of works created and licensed under Creative Commons, like scientific research, papers, etc.</p>
<p>Creative Commons provides options. You&#8217;re not forced to take them. They provide some more clearly differentiated options than the black or white U.S. Copyright system now does.</p>
<p>The world is evolving. There are plenty of people, artists and more, who see options in publishing beyond the traditional. Let them have options if they want to.</p>
<p>If you hate Creative Commons so much, just don&#8217;t use them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

