<?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: IFFBoston Documentary Shorts Reviews, &#8216;The Archive&#8217; Documents The Owner Of The World&#8217;s Largest Record Collection	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://staging2.theplaylist.net/iffboston-documentary-shorts-reviews-20090427/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://staging2.theplaylist.net/iffboston-documentary-shorts-reviews-20090427/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2020 07:00:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jonathan		</title>
		<link>https://staging2.theplaylist.net/iffboston-documentary-shorts-reviews-20090427/#comment-6567</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theplaylist.wpengine.com/?p=7722#comment-6567</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#034;aside from one track that they didn&#039;t clear which we won&#039;t mention in case someone tries to hit him with a C&#038;D (which they shouldn&#039;t, it&#039;s a little eight minute doc, there&#039;s not a lot, or any profit to be made). &#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The song&#039;s perceived profitability has absolutely no impact on the fact that they don&#039;t have the right to use that song without appropriate clearance.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Not that the playlist would care, as it has been outrightly offering illegal uncleared downloads of songs for some time now.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Really, the Playlist should be ashamed of itself for doing that.  Or, if I stand incorrect, then the Playlist should make a point of adding a legal disclaimer that the music downloads have been licensed.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;aside from one track that they didn&#39;t clear which we won&#39;t mention in case someone tries to hit him with a C&amp;D (which they shouldn&#39;t, it&#39;s a little eight minute doc, there&#39;s not a lot, or any profit to be made). &quot;</p>
<p>The song&#39;s perceived profitability has absolutely no impact on the fact that they don&#39;t have the right to use that song without appropriate clearance.</p>
<p>Not that the playlist would care, as it has been outrightly offering illegal uncleared downloads of songs for some time now.</p>
<p>Really, the Playlist should be ashamed of itself for doing that.  Or, if I stand incorrect, then the Playlist should make a point of adding a legal disclaimer that the music downloads have been licensed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
