<?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: The Library of Congress and Copyright Royalty Judges</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/</link>
	<description>&#34;Light and liberty go together.&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:32:35 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: tvsm22</title>
		<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-706</link>
		<dc:creator>tvsm22</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:43:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=159#comment-706</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see much of a problem, maybe i don&#039;t understand someting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see much of a problem, maybe i don&#8217;t understand someting</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Raymond</title>
		<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-707</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=159#comment-707</guid>
		<description>Eric, if you go to our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.loc.gov/rss/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;main RSS page&lt;/a&gt; and scroll down, you will see that there are four different Copyright-specific feeds.

Keep in mind the thrust of this post, though; Copyright and the Copyright Royalty Judges are separate entities, so it is possible that you might not get as much information as you might hope this way.  I don&#039;t believe the Judges have set up an RSS feed yet, although the &quot;federal register&quot; feed at the link I just gave might capture some of that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric, if you go to our <a href="http://www.loc.gov/rss/" rel="nofollow">main RSS page</a> and scroll down, you will see that there are four different Copyright-specific feeds.</p>
<p>Keep in mind the thrust of this post, though; Copyright and the Copyright Royalty Judges are separate entities, so it is possible that you might not get as much information as you might hope this way.  I don&#8217;t believe the Judges have set up an RSS feed yet, although the &#8220;federal register&#8221; feed at the link I just gave might capture some of that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-712</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=159#comment-712</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Matt, I would like to hear updates on this.  Is there a way to get updates via your RSS feed regarding strictly the copyright news?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, I would like to hear updates on this.  Is there a way to get updates via your RSS feed regarding strictly the copyright news?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Webdesign</title>
		<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-711</link>
		<dc:creator>Webdesign</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=159#comment-711</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I hope that they solve this problem as soon as possible , to many people are affected by it already !&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;good luck&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope that they solve this problem as soon as possible , to many people are affected by it already !</p>
<p>good luck</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Raymond</title>
		<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-709</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Raymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=159#comment-709</guid>
		<description>Wassabi, the Library of Congress is part of the Legislative Branch of government, not the Executive Branch.

I am the communications director for the Library, so I am just stating the facts, including the fact that many webcasters say the decision will put their future in doubt.  However, it is not my place to argue policy here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wassabi, the Library of Congress is part of the Legislative Branch of government, not the Executive Branch.</p>
<p>I am the communications director for the Library, so I am just stating the facts, including the fact that many webcasters say the decision will put their future in doubt.  However, it is not my place to argue policy here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-708</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:19:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=159#comment-708</guid>
		<description>I guess part of confusion might lay in the fact that the link for the CRB is loc.gov/crb. That would obvious lead people to belief its part of the LOC. FYI regarding the increase, my favorite station that broadcasts online kexp.org is looking at a six figure plus bill due to the new ruling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess part of confusion might lay in the fact that the link for the CRB is loc.gov/crb. That would obvious lead people to belief its part of the LOC. FYI regarding the increase, my favorite station that broadcasts online kexp.org is looking at a six figure plus bill due to the new ruling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wassabi Cracker</title>
		<link>http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2007/07/the-library-of-congress-and-copyright-royalty-judges/comment-page-1/#comment-710</link>
		<dc:creator>Wassabi Cracker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loc.gov/blog/?p=159#comment-710</guid>
		<description>So that&#039;s it, huh? You&#039;re not going to explain to anyone about how the administrative appeals process works? Any government body which has knowledge about the procedures which sorround this fiasco of a process has a duty to share that knowledge with the public, particularly in times of duress, it&#039;s called sunshine.  It really appears as if LoC has been &quot;captured&quot; by special interestes, just like every other government institution in the last 7 years. It really seems like the LoC is just another instrument in a wave of exploitative and pro-monopoly policy by this administration.  Regardless of the fact that many will lose their jobs (including those egotistically seeking to be referred to as &quot;judges&quot;), how do you deal with the burdens on your conscience about the fact that THOUSANDS of voices are about to go silent (each with a story)? Isn&#039;t this a blow to American culture? Having the boundaries of our speech -free or commercial- weilded by the personal business interests of dominant market incumbents? And you post a crappy 5 paragraph &quot;oh well, its not us&quot; response. Definitely not what the framers had in mind, or even Mr. Reich (The New Property) and those drafting the Admin. Proc. Act.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So that&#8217;s it, huh? You&#8217;re not going to explain to anyone about how the administrative appeals process works? Any government body which has knowledge about the procedures which sorround this fiasco of a process has a duty to share that knowledge with the public, particularly in times of duress, it&#8217;s called sunshine.  It really appears as if LoC has been &#8220;captured&#8221; by special interestes, just like every other government institution in the last 7 years. It really seems like the LoC is just another instrument in a wave of exploitative and pro-monopoly policy by this administration.  Regardless of the fact that many will lose their jobs (including those egotistically seeking to be referred to as &#8220;judges&#8221;), how do you deal with the burdens on your conscience about the fact that THOUSANDS of voices are about to go silent (each with a story)? Isn&#8217;t this a blow to American culture? Having the boundaries of our speech -free or commercial- weilded by the personal business interests of dominant market incumbents? And you post a crappy 5 paragraph &#8220;oh well, its not us&#8221; response. Definitely not what the framers had in mind, or even Mr. Reich (The New Property) and those drafting the Admin. Proc. Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
