<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Podsafe Music Network is the Music really Safe?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2005/09/26/podsafe-music-network-is-the-music-really-safe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2005/09/26/podsafe-music-network-is-the-music-really-safe/</link>
	<description>Geek News Central is the technical site for Geeks. We Spin tech for the common man. With a Family of Tech Shows and Content.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:38:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2005/09/26/podsafe-music-network-is-the-music-really-safe/comment-page-1/#comment-2289</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2005/09/26/podsafe-music-network-is-the-music-really-safe/#comment-2289</guid>
		<description>I hope you don&#039;t mind, but I&#039;m cross posting my comment here too as it&#039;s certainly relevant. Milage may vary, as I&#039;m referencing the CC 2.5, and this site uses the CC 2.0.
&lt;span class=&quot;mt-export2wp&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
If you read the &quot;legal code&quot; (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode), you will see that the &quot;Licensor&quot; waives all rights to collect royalties from works derived from the original work while the original work is distributed under the Creative Commons license. The Licensor can terminate their license, but derived works still have a &quot;perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright)&quot; license. I&#039;m not a lawyer, but I interpret it as: &quot;as long as the orignal work is copyrighted, and has been released under the CC, a perpetual license is granted to the Licensee.&quot; I could be wrong, but they can&#039;t come back and ask for royalities, because it a perpetual license.
&lt;span class=&quot;mt-export2wp&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
My $.02USD...
&lt;span class=&quot;mt-export2wp&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope you don&#8217;t mind, but I&#8217;m cross posting my comment here too as it&#8217;s certainly relevant. Milage may vary, as I&#8217;m referencing the CC 2.5, and this site uses the CC 2.0.<br />
<span class="mt-export2wp"></span><br />
If you read the &#8220;legal code&#8221; (<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode</a>), you will see that the &#8220;Licensor&#8221; waives all rights to collect royalties from works derived from the original work while the original work is distributed under the Creative Commons license. The Licensor can terminate their license, but derived works still have a &#8220;perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright)&#8221; license. I&#8217;m not a lawyer, but I interpret it as: &#8220;as long as the orignal work is copyrighted, and has been released under the CC, a perpetual license is granted to the Licensee.&#8221; I could be wrong, but they can&#8217;t come back and ask for royalities, because it a perpetual license.<br />
<span class="mt-export2wp"></span><br />
My $.02USD&#8230;<br />
<span class="mt-export2wp"></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

