
<?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/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Simpsons Solicitors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.simpsons.com.au/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au</link>
	<description>Specialist lawyers to the media, entertainment, arts and technology industries</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:30:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<atom:link rel="next" href="http://www.simpsons.com.au/feed/?page=2" />

		<item>
		<title>Optus wins TV Now litigation &#8211; Round 1</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/optus-wins-tv-now-litigation-round-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/optus-wins-tv-now-litigation-round-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film and TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Optus has won the first round in the copyright litigation over its TV Now service, with Federal Court Justice Steven Rares finding that the company’s service did not infringe the copyright of the NRL, AFL and Telstra (rightsholders of a several sporting broadcasts recorded using Optus’ service). Optus’ TV Now service enables its customers to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/optus-wins-tv-now-litigation-round-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copyright Co-incidence or Caught Red Handed?</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/copyright-co-incidence-or-caught-red-handed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/copyright-co-incidence-or-caught-red-handed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:32:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Moxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visual Arts and Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent UK decision on copyright in photos has stirred up some debate as to whether or not copyright has &#8220;gone too far&#8221;.  The judgment deserves a careful read &#8211; it is much less controversial than many commentators make out. The case involved two photos of a street scene, with the British Houses of Parliament [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/copyright-co-incidence-or-caught-red-handed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Screenrights v Foxtel Hearing Commences in Copyright Tribunal</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/screenrights-v-foxtel-hearing-commences-in-copyright-tribunal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/screenrights-v-foxtel-hearing-commences-in-copyright-tribunal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:42:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film and TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Copyright Tribunal of Australia has commenced hearing an application brought by Screenrights in relation to royalties for the retransmission of free-to-air digital channels on Foxtel. To view the Court list click here. The application follows on from a 2006 decision of the Tribunal relating to the retransmission of free-to-air television. To view the 2006 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/screenrights-v-foxtel-hearing-commences-in-copyright-tribunal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Managing the New Print and Digital Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/managing-the-new-print-and-digital-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/managing-the-new-print-and-digital-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Moxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bringing a book to market brings a range of challenges to publishers and other key players, particularly in the new print and digital rights environments. From a legal perspective, digital rights management is about ensuring that you have the rights you need to meet the new and growing digital market. The licences you then enter [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/managing-the-new-print-and-digital-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government Fees to Register A Trade Mark to Increase in 2012</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/registering-a-trade-mark-will-be-more-expensive-in-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/registering-a-trade-mark-will-be-more-expensive-in-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simpsons Solicitors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP Australia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 9 December 2011, IP Australia released a consultation paper in relation to its fee review. While still a proposal, the trade mark fees are expected to increase in two stages. Most of the fees should be increased from 1 July 2012 and the fees in relation to new online or B2B services (e.g., Headstart [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/registering-a-trade-mark-will-be-more-expensive-in-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ebook agreements: are they anti-competitive?</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/ebook-agreements-are-they-anti-competitive/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/ebook-agreements-are-they-anti-competitive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tam</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Investigators in both Europe and the United States are looking at whether or not agreements that publishers have entered into with online distributors  – such as Apple and Amazon –  are anti-competitive. Anti-competitive conduct can arise, for example, if people or companies collude to fix prices or carve up markets or reach agreements that have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/ebook-agreements-are-they-anti-competitive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>European Union Extend Copyright Protection</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/european-union-extend-copyright-protection/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/european-union-extend-copyright-protection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 05:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simpsons Solicitors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rob Glass]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the 12th of September the European Parliament and Council approved the directive to extend the term of copyright for performers from 50 years to 70 years. Previously, if a performer was either a session musician or a featured artist on a sound recording, and was entitled to income from the PPCA (or the Australian [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/european-union-extend-copyright-protection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second-hand music goes digital</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/second-hand-music-goes-digital/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/second-hand-music-goes-digital/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The launch in the United States of a new service called ReDigi, that purports to be a second-hard store for digital music, has come to the attention of music industry representatives as well as music consumers – and it’s going to be a potentially bumpy ride for the new startup. Walk down any main street [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/second-hand-music-goes-digital/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian real estate case sets direction for online trading</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/canadian-real-estate-case-sets-direction-for-online-trading/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/canadian-real-estate-case-sets-direction-for-online-trading/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 05:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clickwrap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shrinkwrap]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have all become accustomed in recent years to searching for real estate online. A recent Canadian case between two companies in the real estate business raises some interesting issues about doing business online. The plaintiff, Century 21, is a real estate franchise whose website allows searches according to various categories, including locality. The website [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/canadian-real-estate-case-sets-direction-for-online-trading/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meltwater case to be re-examined in the UK Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/meltwater-case-to-be-re-examined-in-the-uk-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/meltwater-case-to-be-re-examined-in-the-uk-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meltwater]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The UK’s “temporary copying” exception is likely to be at issue in an appeal of the decision in the Meltwater News case by the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA). According to recent UK media reports, the PRCA’s appeal of the decision made by the UK Court of Appeals will focus on whether the end users [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/meltwater-case-to-be-re-examined-in-the-uk-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

