<?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: Editing Embargo Ends</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 10:58:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mrs Tilton</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-54756</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrs Tilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2666#comment-54756</guid>
		<description>&#039;U.S. person&#039; means something rather different for American securities law purposes. Or perhaps it&#039;s not different: if that&#039;s the case, then US citizens resident abroad could have edited Iranians, whilst foreigners resident in America could not have done. Random House in America would have had to leave its hands off, but a branch office in London, so long as established for legitimate business purposes and not to circumvent the rule, would have been free to edit.To know what &#039;U.S. person&#039; really meant in the context of this rule, I suppose I&#039;d have to have a look at the text, and hope they&#039;d been good enough to define the term. But I&#039;m far too lazy to do that, all the more so now that it is a moot point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8216;U.S. person&#8217; means something rather different for American securities law purposes. Or perhaps it&#8217;s not different: if that&#8217;s the case, then US citizens resident abroad could have edited Iranians, whilst foreigners resident in America could not have done. Random House in America would have had to leave its hands off, but a branch office in London, so long as established for legitimate business purposes and not to circumvent the rule, would have been free to edit.To know what &#8216;U.S. person&#8217; really meant in the context of this rule, I suppose I&#8217;d have to have a look at the text, and hope they&#8217;d been good enough to define the term. But I&#8217;m far too lazy to do that, all the more so now that it is a moot point.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rvman</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-54755</link>
		<dc:creator>rvman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2666#comment-54755</guid>
		<description>&quot;U.S. Person&quot; includes both actual human beings and corporate entities in the US.  Thus, Random House can&#039;t edit a Cuban manuscript, even if they outsource it to Europe.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;U.S. Person&#8221; includes both actual human beings and corporate entities in the US.  Thus, Random House can&#8217;t edit a Cuban manuscript, even if they outsource it to Europe.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david k.</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-54754</link>
		<dc:creator>david k.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2666#comment-54754</guid>
		<description>Completely tangential question: What&#039;s a &quot;U.S. person&quot;?  Is this a technical category?  If so, is it broader than &quot;citizen&quot;?  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Completely tangential question: What&#8217;s a &#8220;U.S. person&#8221;?  Is this a technical category?  If so, is it broader than &#8220;citizen&#8221;?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Mandle</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-54753</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Mandle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2666#comment-54753</guid>
		<description>Yes - Shirin Ebadi joined four other paintiffs in a suit that forced the issue. The others were: The Association of American Publishers&#039; Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division, the Association of American University Presses, the PEN American Center, and Arcade Publishing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Yes &#8211; Shirin Ebadi joined four other paintiffs in a suit that forced the issue. The others were: The Association of American Publishers&#8217; Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division, the Association of American University Presses, the <span class="caps">PEN </span>American Center, and Arcade Publishing.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amardeep</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-54752</link>
		<dc:creator>Amardeep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2666#comment-54752</guid>
		<description>This sounds like it&#039;s in response to the lawsuit Shirin Ebadi was threatening to file.I&#039;ll be curious to hear her description of the Iranian theocracy. Though she is obviously a dissident, it sounds like what she &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/opinion/16ebadi.html?oref=login&amp;ex=1258347600&amp;en=9eec32b9203d946b&amp;ei=5088&amp;partner=rssnyt&quot;&gt;has in mind&lt;/a&gt; is a bit of a defense of the Iranian way:&lt;blockquote&gt;For many years now, I have wanted to write my memoir - a book that would help correct Western stereotypes of Islam, especially the image of Muslim women as docile, forlorn creatures. Sixty-three percent of Iran&#039;s university students and 43 percent of its salaried workers are women. I have wanted to tell the story of how women in Islamic countries, even one run by a theocratic regime as in Iran, can be active politically and professionally. &lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This sounds like it&#8217;s in response to the lawsuit Shirin Ebadi was threatening to file.I&#8217;ll be curious to hear her description of the Iranian theocracy. Though she is obviously a dissident, it sounds like what she <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/opinion/16ebadi.html?oref=login&#038;ex=1258347600&#038;en=9eec32b9203d946b&#038;ei=5088&#038;partner=rssnyt">has in mind</a> is a bit of a defense of the Iranian way:<blockquote>For many years now, I have wanted to write my memoir &#8211; a book that would help correct Western stereotypes of Islam, especially the image of Muslim women as docile, forlorn creatures. Sixty-three percent of Iran&#8217;s university students and 43 percent of its salaried workers are women. I have wanted to tell the story of how women in Islamic countries, even one run by a theocratic regime as in Iran, can be active politically and professionally. </blockquote></p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cleek</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/16/editing-embargo-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-54751</link>
		<dc:creator>cleek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:52:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2666#comment-54751</guid>
		<description>Freedom is on the march.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Freedom is on the march.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

