<?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: Judge to YouTube: Cough up those IPs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/03/judge-to-youtube-cough-up-those-ips/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/03/judge-to-youtube-cough-up-those-ips/</link>
	<description>... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: mathewi</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/03/judge-to-youtube-cough-up-those-ips/#comment-342902</link>
		<dc:creator>mathewi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:42:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2535#comment-342902</guid>
		<description>As far as I can tell it definitely means that, Mark. When it comes to&lt;br&gt;Canada, the proposed bill doesn&#39;t give content companies the right to&lt;br&gt;compel ISPs or other hosting services to reveal IP addresses -- it&lt;br&gt;just creates a "notice and notice" system whereby if the copyright&lt;br&gt;holder becomes aware of activity by a user, it can let the ISP know&lt;br&gt;and then the provider has to pass that notice onto the user. That&#39;s as&lt;br&gt;far as it goes. In order to get a specific user&#39;s info, the content&lt;br&gt;company would have to go to court and get a court order.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I can tell it definitely means that, Mark. When it comes to<br />Canada, the proposed bill doesn&#39;t give content companies the right to<br />compel ISPs or other hosting services to reveal IP addresses &#8212; it<br />just creates a &#8220;notice and notice&#8221; system whereby if the copyright<br />holder becomes aware of activity by a user, it can let the ISP know<br />and then the provider has to pass that notice onto the user. That&#39;s as<br />far as it goes. In order to get a specific user&#39;s info, the content<br />company would have to go to court and get a court order.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark McKay</title>
		<link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/03/judge-to-youtube-cough-up-those-ips/#comment-342901</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark McKay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2535#comment-342901</guid>
		<description>So does this mean if Viacom wanted it could take this information and knock on the doors of the people who uploaded the content and sue them?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This seems very very scary. Is this what we have in store here in Canada with Bill C-61?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So does this mean if Viacom wanted it could take this information and knock on the doors of the people who uploaded the content and sue them?</p>
<p>This seems very very scary. Is this what we have in store here in Canada with Bill C-61?</p>
<p>Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
