<?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: 6th Circuit distinguishes &#8220;bare corporate receipt&#8221; from the corporate receipt doctrine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/03/6th-circuit-distinguishes-bare-corporate-receipt-from-the-corporate-receipt-doctrine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/03/6th-circuit-distinguishes-bare-corporate-receipt-from-the-corporate-receipt-doctrine/</link>
	<description>A copyright law blog covering litigation, policy and academia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:29:41 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JOLT Digest &#187; Jones v. Blige &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</title>
		<link>http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/03/6th-circuit-distinguishes-bare-corporate-receipt-from-the-corporate-receipt-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-30388</link>
		<dc:creator>JOLT Digest &#187; Jones v. Blige &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exclusiverights.net/?p=1009#comment-30388</guid>
		<description>[...] to establish Defendants’ access to their work under the “corporate receipt” doctrine. Exclusive Rights offers commentary, focusing on the distinction made in this case between the corporate receipt [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to establish Defendants’ access to their work under the “corporate receipt” doctrine. Exclusive Rights offers commentary, focusing on the distinction made in this case between the corporate receipt [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
