
<?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>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:35:38 +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>Government releases Convergence Report</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/government-releases-convergence-report/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/government-releases-convergence-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:35:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Marks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Government has released the Final Report of the Convergence Review. In April 2011 the Government appointed a Convergence Review Committee to examine the policy and regulatory frameworks that apply to the converged media and communications landscape in Australia. The Committee engaged in widespread consultations and released an Interim Report in December 2011. While the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/government-releases-convergence-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rights holders defeat Optus in TV Now Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/rights-holders-defeat-optus-in-tv-now-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/rights-holders-defeat-optus-in-tv-now-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 01:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></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=3424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Full Federal Court has decided in favour of the NRL, AFL and Telstra in the ongoing litigation that had pitted Optus against the two sporting bodies and Telstra. Finn, Emmett and Bennett JJ’s decision held that: - The maker of the recorded broadcasts was either Optus alone, or Optus and the TV Now user [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/rights-holders-defeat-optus-in-tv-now-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landmark Judgment on Authorisation of Copyright Infringement</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/landmark-judgment-on-authorisation-of-copyright-infringement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/landmark-judgment-on-authorisation-of-copyright-infringement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></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=3413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The landmark iiNet dispute has concluded with the High Court handing down its judgment in favour of iiNet. The Court unanimously held that iiNet had no direct power to prevent its account holders from using the BitTorrent system to infringe copyright in the appellants’ films. It also held that the information contained in the AFACT [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/landmark-judgment-on-authorisation-of-copyright-infringement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACCC draft determination is a win/win for artists and licensees</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/accc-draft-determination-is-a-winwin-for-artists-and-licensees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/accc-draft-determination-is-a-winwin-for-artists-and-licensees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last year Copyright Agency and Viscopy announced their plan to streamline their operations by entering into a service agreement, subject to regulatory approval. The ACCC has recently issued a draft determination authorising the arrangement. ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said that “the service agreement will result in significant cost savings to artists and licensees, and operational [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/accc-draft-determination-is-a-winwin-for-artists-and-licensees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Draft Terms of Reference for ALRC Copyright Review</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/draft-terms-of-reference-for-alrc-copyright-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/draft-terms-of-reference-for-alrc-copyright-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ALRC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Attorney-General has released draft terms of reference for the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into copyright. In a press release the Attorney-General said: &#8220;The draft terms of reference ask the ALRC to examine the adequacy and appropriateness of a broad range of exceptions in the Copyright Act, including time shifting. &#8220;The draft terms of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/draft-terms-of-reference-for-alrc-copyright-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High Court Upholds 1% Cap on Broadcast Royalties for Sound Recordings</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/high-court-upholds-1-cap-on-broadcast-royalties-for-sound-recordings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/high-court-upholds-1-cap-on-broadcast-royalties-for-sound-recordings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:55:04 +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[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The High Court has handed down its decision in Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited (PPCA) &#38; Ors v Commonwealth of Australia &#38; Ors. The case concerns the cap in the Copyright Act 1968 for royalties payable for the radio broadcast of sound recordings. While price caps are a common form of economic regulation, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/high-court-upholds-1-cap-on-broadcast-royalties-for-sound-recordings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copyright Infringement by Dealing</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/copyright-infringement-by-dealing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/copyright-infringement-by-dealing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Court has handed down its decision in Allam v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 34. The case considers infringement by dealing and damages under s 115 of the Copyright Act 1968. The full decision is available here. To read more about this story go to: http://www.copyright.org.au/news-and-policy/details/id/2055/ For inquiries relating to publishing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/copyright-infringement-by-dealing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government announces review of Australian Contract Law</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/government-announces-review-of-australian-contract-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/government-announces-review-of-australian-contract-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3346</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Government has announced a review of Australian Contract Law. This is likely to have implications for copyright licensing. For example, there have been some interesting decisions in relation to browsewrap licensing recently. There was also the 2002 Copyright Law Review inquiry into Copyright and Contract. A copy of the discussion paper can be accessed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/government-announces-review-of-australian-contract-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TV Now Appeal Hearings Have Begun</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/tv-now-appeal-hearings-have-begun/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/tv-now-appeal-hearings-have-begun/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paralegal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></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=3337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Full Federal Court hearing marks the start of round two of the litigation between the AFL, NRL and Telstra against Optus, over its TV Now service. Finn, Emmett and Bennett JJ have begun hearing submissions from the parties. Additionally, Screenrights has sought leave to intervene in the appeal. The Federal Court declared Optus’ TV [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/tv-now-appeal-hearings-have-begun/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Federal Court judgment reminds why care should be taken before making threats of legal action in copyright disputes</title>
		<link>http://www.simpsons.com.au/new-federal-court-judgment-reminds-why-care-should-be-taken-before-making-threats-of-legal-action-in-copyright-disputes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.simpsons.com.au/new-federal-court-judgment-reminds-why-care-should-be-taken-before-making-threats-of-legal-action-in-copyright-disputes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:47:55 +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[Simpsons Solicitors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Visual Arts and Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simpsons.com.au/?p=3327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Court has ruled that a US woman pay damages of $147,000 plus costs for her unjustified threats of legal action against an Australian indigenous artist and his agent. The woman had assisted the artist in making some film footage for which she was paid. She then claimed she owned copyright in the footage [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.simpsons.com.au/new-federal-court-judgment-reminds-why-care-should-be-taken-before-making-threats-of-legal-action-in-copyright-disputes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

