<?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: PayPerPost Now Requires Disclosure</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/</link>
	<description>High Tech News Today!!</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Curry</title>
		<link>http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/#comment-24598</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Curry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/#comment-24598</guid>
		<description>Um.. nothing in the Constitution or the First Amendment prohibits a private enterprise (PayPerPost) from requiring participants' disclosure as a condition of use of the service.  

The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government power.  It says nothing about interactions between other parties.  How does "Congress shall pass no law..." prohibit PayPerPost from requiring disclosure?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um.. nothing in the Constitution or the First Amendment prohibits a private enterprise (PayPerPost) from requiring participants&#8217; disclosure as a condition of use of the service.  </p>
<p>The First Amendment is merely a restraint on government power.  It says nothing about interactions between other parties.  How does &#8220;Congress shall pass no law&#8230;&#8221; prohibit PayPerPost from requiring disclosure?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tonya Thomas</title>
		<link>http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/#comment-21201</link>
		<dc:creator>Tonya Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 01:25:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/#comment-21201</guid>
		<description>Regarding PayPerPost disclosure mandate: 
I'm certain blogging posts, as other type of web content, is protected in the United States Constitution under Free Speech.  Such a protection may even bring with it a blog owner's right to limit disclosure and permit editing of such a paid post. Further, as a freelance writer, many times I work in a "ghost writer" capacity for my clients.  Some of which are quite well known on the internet. To disclose such information, in my opinion, is contrary to the outsourced task. It would be a direct conflict of interest given the hiring party owns the work product once I am paid. Of course, this leads me to question whether or not PayPerPost is proper in mandating such disclosure. I'm not certain the law and this mandate are in keeping with the interest of a certain right to privacy which generally in respect to freelance work product is accompanied by a nondisclosure clause.  I am curious as to what a court of law might rule. This debate will likely evolve into a legal battle, of course, this will be further down the super information highway but it will certainly be sooner than later.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding PayPerPost disclosure mandate:<br />
I&#8217;m certain blogging posts, as other type of web content, is protected in the United States Constitution under Free Speech.  Such a protection may even bring with it a blog owner&#8217;s right to limit disclosure and permit editing of such a paid post. Further, as a freelance writer, many times I work in a &#8220;ghost writer&#8221; capacity for my clients.  Some of which are quite well known on the internet. To disclose such information, in my opinion, is contrary to the outsourced task. It would be a direct conflict of interest given the hiring party owns the work product once I am paid. Of course, this leads me to question whether or not PayPerPost is proper in mandating such disclosure. I&#8217;m not certain the law and this mandate are in keeping with the interest of a certain right to privacy which generally in respect to freelance work product is accompanied by a nondisclosure clause.  I am curious as to what a court of law might rule. This debate will likely evolve into a legal battle, of course, this will be further down the super information highway but it will certainly be sooner than later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PPC Keyword Tool</title>
		<link>http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/#comment-19240</link>
		<dc:creator>PPC Keyword Tool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:33:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.v7n.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-now-requires-disclosure/#comment-19240</guid>
		<description>I wondered how long till we saw PayPerPost change their disclosure rules. Theres been a great deal of controversy over non-disclosed paid blogging lately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wondered how long till we saw PayPerPost change their disclosure rules. Theres been a great deal of controversy over non-disclosed paid blogging lately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
