<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Ledger</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ipels.wordpress.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:57:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='ipels.wordpress.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://ipels.wordpress.com/osd.xml" title="The Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Ledger" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://ipels.wordpress.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Regulating the Film Industry in China: A New Approach</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/regulating-the-film-industry-in-china-a-new-approach/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/regulating-the-film-industry-in-china-a-new-approach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Film / TV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: For U.S. filmmakers, the People’s Republic of China represents a prodigious market opportunity. Yet, true exploitation of the market is simply chimerical due to an obstinate web of import quotas, censorship, and government intervention, all founded upon a guise of cultural protectionism. Brian R. Byrne argues that: (i) China’s authoritarian approach to film distribution, [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=476&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/regulating-the-film-industry-in-china-a-new-approach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipels.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/chart1.png" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">chart1</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipels.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/chart2.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">chart2</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to Protect Against a Licensing Partner&#8217;s Bankruptcy: Patent Licenses and the Bankruptcy Code</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/how-to-protect-against-a-licensing-partners-bankruptcy-patent-licenses-and-the-bankruptcy-code/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/how-to-protect-against-a-licensing-partners-bankruptcy-patent-licenses-and-the-bankruptcy-code/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=345</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: Since the financial crisis of 2008, many contractual partners who formerly looked rock solid have experienced major cash-flow problems. In addition, it has always been the case that in some fields of technology, such as biotech, a significant number of businesses are expected to fail. Thus, it is important to think through at the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=345&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/how-to-protect-against-a-licensing-partners-bankruptcy-patent-licenses-and-the-bankruptcy-code/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>“Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night”: The Implications of Recent Delaware Case Law on the Film Industry</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/%e2%80%9cfasten-your-seatbelts-it%e2%80%99s-going-to-be-a-bumpy-night%e2%80%9d-the-implications-of-recent-delaware-case-law-on-the-film-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/%e2%80%9cfasten-your-seatbelts-it%e2%80%99s-going-to-be-a-bumpy-night%e2%80%9d-the-implications-of-recent-delaware-case-law-on-the-film-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Film / TV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: Recently, the Court of Chancery in eBay v. Newmark doubted the ability of firms to cite a threat to corporate culture as legitimate grounds for implementing a takeover defense. Just over a year ago, the Court in Amylin expressed doubt about a firm’s ability to impede changes of control by embedding financial penalties, for [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=472&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/%e2%80%9cfasten-your-seatbelts-it%e2%80%99s-going-to-be-a-bumpy-night%e2%80%9d-the-implications-of-recent-delaware-case-law-on-the-film-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Student Speech in Online Social Networking Sites: Where to Draw the Line</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/student-speech-in-online-social-networking-sites-where-to-draw-the-line/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/student-speech-in-online-social-networking-sites-where-to-draw-the-line/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: Do Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace require courts to Tinker with the Supreme Court’s student speech trilogy of Tinker to Bethel to Morse? Michael J. Kasdan examines the struggle to define the proper place of so-called &#8220;student internet speech.&#8221; By Michael J. Kasdan* Introduction The move toward online communication has the potential to throw off [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=460&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/student-speech-in-online-social-networking-sites-where-to-draw-the-line/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Using Clean Hands To Justify Unclean Hands: How the Emergency Exception Provision of the SCA Misapplies an Already Controversial Doctrine</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/using-clean-hands-to-justify-unclean-hands-how-the-emergency-exception-provision-of-the-sca-misapplies-an-already-controversial-doctrine/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/using-clean-hands-to-justify-unclean-hands-how-the-emergency-exception-provision-of-the-sca-misapplies-an-already-controversial-doctrine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: While the government’s encouragement—and even reliance—on third-party monitoring of citizens is not a new phenomenon, the emergency exception to the SCA adopted in the Patriot Act oversteps constitutional bounds by providing the executive with the incentive to exaggerate potential threats in order to gain the collaboration of the telecommunications companies. The policies underlying this strategy [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=410&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/using-clean-hands-to-justify-unclean-hands-how-the-emergency-exception-provision-of-the-sca-misapplies-an-already-controversial-doctrine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Software Developers, On Guard!: Offering Software For Sale Can Trigger A Bar To Patentability Even If The Software Is Untested And Incomplete</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/software-developers-on-guard-offering-software-for-sale-can-trigger-a-bar-to-patentability-even-if-the-software-is-untested-and-incomplete/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/software-developers-on-guard-offering-software-for-sale-can-trigger-a-bar-to-patentability-even-if-the-software-is-untested-and-incomplete/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: Paul A. Ragusa and Jack Chen discuss the on-sale bar to patentability in the context of nascent software. They conclude that a simple investigation concerning whether software code was complete at the time of an offer for sale is insufficient to establish the critical date for the purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“Conditions [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=394&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/software-developers-on-guard-offering-software-for-sale-can-trigger-a-bar-to-patentability-even-if-the-software-is-untested-and-incomplete/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Student-Athletes and the NCAA: Playing by the Rules</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/student-athletes-and-the-ncaa-playing-by-the-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/student-athletes-and-the-ncaa-playing-by-the-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=354</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: When student-athletes seek representation or advisement to evaluate post-collegiate playing opportunities, their eligibility may be in jeopardy. Steven Olenick suggests a checks and balance system to truly evaluate post-collegiate playing opportunities for students. By Steven Olenick* Prized basketball recruit Renaldo Sidney has yet to step foot on the court for the Mississippi State Bulldogs.   [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=354&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/student-athletes-and-the-ncaa-playing-by-the-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contributory Liability for Trademark Counterfeiting in an Ecommerce World</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/contributory-liability-for-trademark-counterfeiting-in-an-ecommerce-world/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/contributory-liability-for-trademark-counterfeiting-in-an-ecommerce-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=384</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: Scott Gelin and G Roxanne Elings analyze the current standard of contributory liability in the wake of Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the Southern District’s finding that eBay is not liable to trademark owners for counterfeit sales of their products by third parties on its site. After highlighting [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=384&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/contributory-liability-for-trademark-counterfeiting-in-an-ecommerce-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mixed Signals: Takedown but Don’t Filter? A Case for Constructive Authorization</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/mixed-signals-takedown-but-don%e2%80%99t-filter-a-case-for-constructive-authorization/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/mixed-signals-takedown-but-don%e2%80%99t-filter-a-case-for-constructive-authorization/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ABSTRACT: Scribd, a social publishing website, is being sued for copyright infringement for allowing the uploading of infringing works, and also for using the works themselves to filter for copyrighted work upon receipt of a takedown notice. While Scribd has a possible fair use defense, given the transformative function of the filtering use, Victoria Elman [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=153&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/mixed-signals-takedown-but-don%e2%80%99t-filter-a-case-for-constructive-authorization/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Girl Talk, Fair Use, and Three Hundred Twenty-Two Reasons for Copyright Reform</title>
		<link>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/girl-talk-fair-use-and-three-hundred-twenty-two-reasons-for-copyright-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/girl-talk-fair-use-and-three-hundred-twenty-two-reasons-for-copyright-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ledger Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ledger.nyu-ipels.org/?p=103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The music of the artist known as Girl Talk consists of hundreds of pre-existing samples taken without permission from popular songs. As Girl Talk becomes more prominent, lawyers, journalists and bloggers have entered the debate regarding whether the use of pre-existing samples from copyrighted works is a "fair use" as defined in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. This Article analyzes the merits of the "fair use" argument in light of sparse and largely unsympathetic case law regarding music sampling and ultimately concludes that Girl Talk's use of pre-existing samples fails to qualify as a "fair use." The Article further proposes an amendment to the Copyright Act that would enable Girl Talk to record legally while fairly compensating the owners of the sampled works.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipels.wordpress.com&amp;blog=8690498&amp;post=103&amp;subd=ipels&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipels.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/girl-talk-fair-use-and-three-hundred-twenty-two-reasons-for-copyright-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ledger Staff</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
