<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Displacement of Concepts</title>
	<link>http://robert.heverly.org/blog</link>
	<description>Writings on technology, media, law and society</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Strange Reasoning by Scamp</title>
		<link>http://robert.heverly.org/blog/?p=13#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>Scamp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://robert.heverly.org/blog/?p=13#comment-17</guid>
		<description>Hi, really enjoyed your post, sorry I might be really really late commenting on it.

Anyway... I doubt I'm going to beat a lawyer when it comes to arguing but... here goes!

1)Regarding whether a creative can legitimately adapt a book or a film... I meant in terms of creative integrity, not legality! Obviously I wouldn't say they should do it if such adaptation were illegal. You and other lawyers better judges of that than me.

2) The good cause angle. I agree that WCRS made money on the job, so less of a good cause for them. But their client, Transport for London, is a government body and they are motivated purely by saving lives, so maybe the 'good cause' argument can validly be applied to them, at least.

That's it. Did I win?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, really enjoyed your post, sorry I might be really really late commenting on it.</p>
<p>Anyway&#8230; I doubt I&#8217;m going to beat a lawyer when it comes to arguing but&#8230; here goes!</p>
<p>1)Regarding whether a creative can legitimately adapt a book or a film&#8230; I meant in terms of creative integrity, not legality! Obviously I wouldn&#8217;t say they should do it if such adaptation were illegal. You and other lawyers better judges of that than me.</p>
<p>2) The good cause angle. I agree that WCRS made money on the job, so less of a good cause for them. But their client, Transport for London, is a government body and they are motivated purely by saving lives, so maybe the &#8216;good cause&#8217; argument can validly be applied to them, at least.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s it. Did I win?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sometimes Location Matters by Displacement of Concepts &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Strange Reasoning</title>
		<link>http://robert.heverly.org/blog/?p=12#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Displacement of Concepts &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Strange Reasoning</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:04:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://robert.heverly.org/blog/?p=12#comment-7</guid>
		<description>[...] reflected in &#8220;Elanco Products v. Mandops,&#8221; which I&#8217;ve written about recently here. The point is that in the U.K. starting from someone else&#8217;s work and changing it does not a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] reflected in &#8220;Elanco Products v. Mandops,&#8221; which I&#8217;ve written about recently here. The point is that in the U.K. starting from someone else&#8217;s work and changing it does not a [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
