<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Case 3: Yellow Group  Responses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/2009/09/28/case-3-yellow-group-responses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/2009/09/28/case-3-yellow-group-responses/</link>
	<description>Just another P2PU Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:18:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrewrens</title>
		<link>http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/2009/09/28/case-3-yellow-group-responses/comment-page-1/#comment-87</link>
		<dc:creator>andrewrens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:29:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/?p=109#comment-87</guid>
		<description>Assessment 10/10</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assessment 10/10</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrewrens</title>
		<link>http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/2009/09/28/case-3-yellow-group-responses/comment-page-1/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>andrewrens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/?p=109#comment-80</guid>
		<description>A good point was made in respect of the percentage of the work which is used. In South Africa a similar situation prevails as in Australia, that insubstantial copying does not amount to copying in terms of the copyright statute.

For the answer on South Africa it would also be useful to have spent more time on the aspect of fair dealing/fair practise. Despite the ambiguity of the South African education exceptions it seems that at least a teacher should be able to make a single copy to display in class. If that is not permitted then the question arises what is permitted, or is there no factual scenario in which copying which is useful to the education process falls into the putative exception. What is more contested is whether Francesca is allowed to give out a hand out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good point was made in respect of the percentage of the work which is used. In South Africa a similar situation prevails as in Australia, that insubstantial copying does not amount to copying in terms of the copyright statute.</p>
<p>For the answer on South Africa it would also be useful to have spent more time on the aspect of fair dealing/fair practise. Despite the ambiguity of the South African education exceptions it seems that at least a teacher should be able to make a single copy to display in class. If that is not permitted then the question arises what is permitted, or is there no factual scenario in which copying which is useful to the education process falls into the putative exception. What is more contested is whether Francesca is allowed to give out a hand out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomcaswell</title>
		<link>http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/2009/09/28/case-3-yellow-group-responses/comment-page-1/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>tomcaswell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.p2pu.org/copy/?p=109#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Assessment of Yellow Group&#039;s Case 3 by Pink Group
Overall score 10/10
Comments: The yellow group was once again quite thourough in its response to case study 3. Three separate responses described Australian, Indian, and South African view on the licensing implications for Francesca&#039;s case. I appreciate the extra time taken to show the diversity of perspectives for the different countries. Very interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Assessment of Yellow Group&#8217;s Case 3 by Pink Group<br />
Overall score 10/10<br />
Comments: The yellow group was once again quite thourough in its response to case study 3. Three separate responses described Australian, Indian, and South African view on the licensing implications for Francesca&#8217;s case. I appreciate the extra time taken to show the diversity of perspectives for the different countries. Very interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

