<?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: Court reconsiders &#8220;making available&#8221; in file-sharing case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/05/16/court-reconsiders-making-available-in-file-sharing-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/05/16/court-reconsiders-making-available-in-file-sharing-case/</link>
	<description>Covering law and the Internet since 2005.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ray Beckerman</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/05/16/court-reconsiders-making-available-in-file-sharing-case/#comment-12560</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Beckerman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=428#comment-12560</guid>
		<description>Little does Judge Davis know that the decision which he says has "since" been  vacated was actually vacated BEFORE the Capitol v. Thomas trial, and the RIAA lawyers "forgot" to tell him that. Boy will he be upset when he finds that out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Little does Judge Davis know that the decision which he says has &#8220;since&#8221; been  vacated was actually vacated BEFORE the Capitol v. Thomas trial, and the RIAA lawyers &#8220;forgot&#8221; to tell him that. Boy will he be upset when he finds that out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
