<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_28_185259</id>
	<title>Conference Board Admits Plagiarism, Pulls Copyright Report</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243534020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The Conference Board of Canada has <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4009/125/">withdrawn
all three reports</a> on intellectual property after <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/05/26/1425252/Canadas-Conference-Board-Found-Plagiarizing-Copyright-Report?art\_pos=1">allegations this week by Michael Geist of plagiarism</a>. The organization now admits that its report on copyright was plagiarized from US copyright lobby groups."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Conference Board of Canada has withdrawn all three reports on intellectual property after allegations this week by Michael Geist of plagiarism .
The organization now admits that its report on copyright was plagiarized from US copyright lobby groups .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Conference Board of Canada has withdrawn
all three reports on intellectual property after allegations this week by Michael Geist of plagiarism.
The organization now admits that its report on copyright was plagiarized from US copyright lobby groups.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126835</id>
	<title>LMAO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post--</p><p>And pure irony on the part of the article!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post--And pure irony on the part of the article !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post--And pure irony on the part of the article!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28129033</id>
	<title>RE: The Conference Board of Canada</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1243544040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Hulk,</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SMASH!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Regards,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DarthVain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Hulk ,             SMASH !
                      Regards ,                                   DarthVain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Hulk,
            SMASH!
                      Regards,
                                  DarthVain</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127385</id>
	<title>Seriously???</title>
	<author>TbB\_thund3rp33l</author>
	<datestamp>1243539420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously Conference Board of Canada, seriously? Did they think that people wouldn't check up on this??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously Conference Board of Canada , seriously ?
Did they think that people would n't check up on this ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously Conference Board of Canada, seriously?
Did they think that people wouldn't check up on this?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126853</id>
	<title>Internal Review FTW!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had these reports been subject to "Internal Review", they never would have been released. What they really meant to say was: "We look like money grabbing hypocritical lobby group puppets and need to do some damage control before our reputation is permanently scarred." Yeah... thats what they *really* meant to say. I work at a company where all externally released documents are subject to internal review. That means that before the document can be released, at least 2 other people are required to review the document and sign off on it before it is released. The author and reviewers names are on the cover, and their signatures are captured and stored in a tracking system to show that they approved the documents. *Thats* an internal review process. To say that the Conf. Board of Canada did an internal review? Thats utterly laughable.</p><p><b>Good work Mr. Geist for spotting this and stepping on it very early. </b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had these reports been subject to " Internal Review " , they never would have been released .
What they really meant to say was : " We look like money grabbing hypocritical lobby group puppets and need to do some damage control before our reputation is permanently scarred .
" Yeah... thats what they * really * meant to say .
I work at a company where all externally released documents are subject to internal review .
That means that before the document can be released , at least 2 other people are required to review the document and sign off on it before it is released .
The author and reviewers names are on the cover , and their signatures are captured and stored in a tracking system to show that they approved the documents .
* Thats * an internal review process .
To say that the Conf .
Board of Canada did an internal review ?
Thats utterly laughable.Good work Mr. Geist for spotting this and stepping on it very early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had these reports been subject to "Internal Review", they never would have been released.
What they really meant to say was: "We look like money grabbing hypocritical lobby group puppets and need to do some damage control before our reputation is permanently scarred.
" Yeah... thats what they *really* meant to say.
I work at a company where all externally released documents are subject to internal review.
That means that before the document can be released, at least 2 other people are required to review the document and sign off on it before it is released.
The author and reviewers names are on the cover, and their signatures are captured and stored in a tracking system to show that they approved the documents.
*Thats* an internal review process.
To say that the Conf.
Board of Canada did an internal review?
Thats utterly laughable.Good work Mr. Geist for spotting this and stepping on it very early. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28128025</id>
	<title>Crime and Punishment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok... the title above is obviously lifted, but it comes very handy and no longer under copyright protection, hopefully.</p><p>Let's see then the story here:</p><p>1) US copyright groups want to send people to jail in the US and around the world for downloading music, etc. for their own listening, viewing, etc. pleasure.</p><p>2) Conference Board of Canada was downloading documents from US copyright lobby groups, lifted them partially into a paid, for profit report to support the Canadian government to formulate laws, reflecting the interests of US copyright lobby groups.</p><p>3) How about feeding the US lobby groups recommended medicine to Conference Board of Canada as a test? Suing the hell out of the Conference Board of Canada? Demanding jail term for the head of the organization?</p><p>4) How about commissioning a report, on how US copyright lobby groups are influencing or directly rig the legislation process in other countries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok... the title above is obviously lifted , but it comes very handy and no longer under copyright protection , hopefully.Let 's see then the story here : 1 ) US copyright groups want to send people to jail in the US and around the world for downloading music , etc .
for their own listening , viewing , etc .
pleasure.2 ) Conference Board of Canada was downloading documents from US copyright lobby groups , lifted them partially into a paid , for profit report to support the Canadian government to formulate laws , reflecting the interests of US copyright lobby groups.3 ) How about feeding the US lobby groups recommended medicine to Conference Board of Canada as a test ?
Suing the hell out of the Conference Board of Canada ?
Demanding jail term for the head of the organization ? 4 ) How about commissioning a report , on how US copyright lobby groups are influencing or directly rig the legislation process in other countries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok... the title above is obviously lifted, but it comes very handy and no longer under copyright protection, hopefully.Let's see then the story here:1) US copyright groups want to send people to jail in the US and around the world for downloading music, etc.
for their own listening, viewing, etc.
pleasure.2) Conference Board of Canada was downloading documents from US copyright lobby groups, lifted them partially into a paid, for profit report to support the Canadian government to formulate laws, reflecting the interests of US copyright lobby groups.3) How about feeding the US lobby groups recommended medicine to Conference Board of Canada as a test?
Suing the hell out of the Conference Board of Canada?
Demanding jail term for the head of the organization?4) How about commissioning a report, on how US copyright lobby groups are influencing or directly rig the legislation process in other countries?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127419</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1243539540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're all supposed to laugh at the "irony" of this because we all hate intellectual property and copyright, remember?  Even though the GPL depends on it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all supposed to laugh at the " irony " of this because we all hate intellectual property and copyright , remember ?
Even though the GPL depends on it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all supposed to laugh at the "irony" of this because we all hate intellectual property and copyright, remember?
Even though the GPL depends on it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127651</id>
	<title>Too bad they weren't the PirateBay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if they were the pirate bay, they could call plagarism "sharing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if they were the pirate bay , they could call plagarism " sharing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if they were the pirate bay, they could call plagarism "sharing".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127213</id>
	<title>Do as I say.....</title>
	<author>MacColossus</author>
	<datestamp>1243538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not as I do!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not as I do !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not as I do!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127763</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1243540440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though the GPL depends on it...</p></div><p>And you really probably thought you got a gotcha! moment with this but you clearly don't understand that if the day comes where copyright no longer exists there would be no need for the GPL and as such it wouldn't matter that the GPL depends on copyright or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though the GPL depends on it...And you really probably thought you got a gotcha !
moment with this but you clearly do n't understand that if the day comes where copyright no longer exists there would be no need for the GPL and as such it would n't matter that the GPL depends on copyright or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though the GPL depends on it...And you really probably thought you got a gotcha!
moment with this but you clearly don't understand that if the day comes where copyright no longer exists there would be no need for the GPL and as such it wouldn't matter that the GPL depends on copyright or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126899</id>
	<title>Irony thy name is The Conference Board of Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who are meeting up to discuss piracy and theft are in fact stealing themselves.</p><p>Highly amusing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are meeting up to discuss piracy and theft are in fact stealing themselves.Highly amusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are meeting up to discuss piracy and theft are in fact stealing themselves.Highly amusing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127933</id>
	<title>This proves it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada even pirates their own research!  They must be stopped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada even pirates their own research !
They must be stopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada even pirates their own research!
They must be stopped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28139607</id>
	<title>Creative Commons</title>
	<author>Bob Loblaw</author>
	<datestamp>1243615740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ironic thing about this is if they had used some sort of copyleft license on the original lobbying material, this kind of sharing wouldn't have been an issue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ironic thing about this is if they had used some sort of copyleft license on the original lobbying material , this kind of sharing would n't have been an issue : ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ironic thing about this is if they had used some sort of copyleft license on the original lobbying material, this kind of sharing wouldn't have been an issue :]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126801</id>
	<title>hyperbole time</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1243537740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess they will pull it just long enough for a period of rewording and concept massaging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess they will pull it just long enough for a period of rewording and concept massaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess they will pull it just long enough for a period of rewording and concept massaging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127243</id>
	<title>I've decided to post the entire report here.</title>
	<author>neo</author>
	<datestamp>1243539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait.  I can't because of copyright.  Man, this made so much more sense when there were printing presses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait .
I ca n't because of copyright .
Man , this made so much more sense when there were printing presses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait.
I can't because of copyright.
Man, this made so much more sense when there were printing presses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127125</id>
	<title>Tsk Tsk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243538700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is honestly pathetic and i hope these asshats get more then a slap on the wrist for pulling U.S. propaganda into canada!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is honestly pathetic and i hope these asshats get more then a slap on the wrist for pulling U.S. propaganda into canada !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is honestly pathetic and i hope these asshats get more then a slap on the wrist for pulling U.S. propaganda into canada!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28128063</id>
	<title>Conference Boards of Canada?</title>
	<author>Briareos</author>
	<datestamp>1243541280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Admitting plagiarism?</p><p>Wasn't it exactly them who said that music had the right to children?</p><p><i>np: Autechre - Teartear (Amber)</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Admitting plagiarism ? Was n't it exactly them who said that music had the right to children ? np : Autechre - Teartear ( Amber )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admitting plagiarism?Wasn't it exactly them who said that music had the right to children?np: Autechre - Teartear (Amber)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28132195</id>
	<title>Now that's irony</title>
	<author>TaeKwonDood</author>
	<datestamp>1243514640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They hate plagiarizers.
But they are plagiarizers.
And they hate irony!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They hate plagiarizers .
But they are plagiarizers .
And they hate irony !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They hate plagiarizers.
But they are plagiarizers.
And they hate irony!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126935</id>
	<title>Canada has a blacklist?</title>
	<author>Piata</author>
	<datestamp>1243538100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>First I've heard of it. I've never had troubles accessing any site ever. This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are in the use of our internet and information technology in general. (i.e. we don't have a DMCA)</htmltext>
<tokenext>First I 've heard of it .
I 've never had troubles accessing any site ever .
This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are in the use of our internet and information technology in general .
( i.e. we do n't have a DMCA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First I've heard of it.
I've never had troubles accessing any site ever.
This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are in the use of our internet and information technology in general.
(i.e. we don't have a DMCA)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127111</id>
	<title>What this doesn't say...</title>
	<author>revjtanton</author>
	<datestamp>1243538640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that the Canadian's downloaded the plagiarized reports via BitTorrent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that the Canadian 's downloaded the plagiarized reports via BitTorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that the Canadian's downloaded the plagiarized reports via BitTorrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28131115</id>
	<title>The Conference Board of Canada is a lobby group.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243509120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really shouldn't be much of a surprise.  Check out the people involved in their conference on Intellectual Property they are having tomorrow in Toronto.</p><p><a href="http://www.conferenceboard.ca/conf/09-0120/brochure.aspx" title="conferenceboard.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.conferenceboard.ca/conf/09-0120/brochure.aspx</a> [conferenceboard.ca]</p><p>The president of the CRIA is the chair of the conference for crying out loud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really should n't be much of a surprise .
Check out the people involved in their conference on Intellectual Property they are having tomorrow in Toronto.http : //www.conferenceboard.ca/conf/09-0120/brochure.aspx [ conferenceboard.ca ] The president of the CRIA is the chair of the conference for crying out loud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really shouldn't be much of a surprise.
Check out the people involved in their conference on Intellectual Property they are having tomorrow in Toronto.http://www.conferenceboard.ca/conf/09-0120/brochure.aspx [conferenceboard.ca]The president of the CRIA is the chair of the conference for crying out loud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127633</id>
	<title>Is this bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like en excuse to shuffle their feet even longer on the issue. Really I could care less. Whoops just did.</p><p>As shameful as this is, it's good news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like en excuse to shuffle their feet even longer on the issue .
Really I could care less .
Whoops just did.As shameful as this is , it 's good news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like en excuse to shuffle their feet even longer on the issue.
Really I could care less.
Whoops just did.As shameful as this is, it's good news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28132007</id>
	<title>Where's the dismissal?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1243513680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Conference Board of Canada is really just a private company that <i>claims</i> to be independent and not to represent industry interests (it says so right on their about us page).  If they really mean that then they must also know that in academia plagiarism is a crime, and the punishment is dismissal and black listing.  I look forward to hearing that the senior people responsible for this report have been fired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Conference Board of Canada is really just a private company that claims to be independent and not to represent industry interests ( it says so right on their about us page ) .
If they really mean that then they must also know that in academia plagiarism is a crime , and the punishment is dismissal and black listing .
I look forward to hearing that the senior people responsible for this report have been fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Conference Board of Canada is really just a private company that claims to be independent and not to represent industry interests (it says so right on their about us page).
If they really mean that then they must also know that in academia plagiarism is a crime, and the punishment is dismissal and black listing.
I look forward to hearing that the senior people responsible for this report have been fired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127745</id>
	<title>You just don't get it do you?</title>
	<author>Romancer</author>
	<datestamp>1243540380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference between hating what some people do with a concept and the actual concept itself.</p><p>The one on copyright and intellectual property is as divided a perspective as abortion.<br>At issue is the different groups interpretation of what they should be allowed to do with a commodity.<br>One sells it and thinks that they should be allowed to control how their product is used once sold.<br>The other thinks that it has purchased a product and since they now own it, they should be able to do anything with it that they want.</p><p>The first group puts in place digital rights management controls to stop the "illegal" copying of their product.<br>The second group gets mad since they aren't able to use the product as they want now and think it's ok to break the "protection" in order to get at the goods they paid for.</p><p>This leads to an easy market for file sharing to flourish. The first group having left a gaping hole in the market for high quality digital downloads at low prices from the savings on physical packaging, shipping, and floorspace in stores. Only now with itunes and the other online outlets catching up to the ease and variety of the online file sharing services, they missed the boat on delivering to the masses what they wanted and could have given but didn't.</p><p>So when an organization comes along promoting the ideas that people should respect the copyright and intellectual property of others and then finds themselves on the wrong end of that spectrum. Yes, we get to laugh at them. Just as we should laugh at the file sharing people they claim that they are not taking something that doesn't belong to them unless they have purchased the song legitimately. Fair is fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between hating what some people do with a concept and the actual concept itself.The one on copyright and intellectual property is as divided a perspective as abortion.At issue is the different groups interpretation of what they should be allowed to do with a commodity.One sells it and thinks that they should be allowed to control how their product is used once sold.The other thinks that it has purchased a product and since they now own it , they should be able to do anything with it that they want.The first group puts in place digital rights management controls to stop the " illegal " copying of their product.The second group gets mad since they are n't able to use the product as they want now and think it 's ok to break the " protection " in order to get at the goods they paid for.This leads to an easy market for file sharing to flourish .
The first group having left a gaping hole in the market for high quality digital downloads at low prices from the savings on physical packaging , shipping , and floorspace in stores .
Only now with itunes and the other online outlets catching up to the ease and variety of the online file sharing services , they missed the boat on delivering to the masses what they wanted and could have given but did n't.So when an organization comes along promoting the ideas that people should respect the copyright and intellectual property of others and then finds themselves on the wrong end of that spectrum .
Yes , we get to laugh at them .
Just as we should laugh at the file sharing people they claim that they are not taking something that does n't belong to them unless they have purchased the song legitimately .
Fair is fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between hating what some people do with a concept and the actual concept itself.The one on copyright and intellectual property is as divided a perspective as abortion.At issue is the different groups interpretation of what they should be allowed to do with a commodity.One sells it and thinks that they should be allowed to control how their product is used once sold.The other thinks that it has purchased a product and since they now own it, they should be able to do anything with it that they want.The first group puts in place digital rights management controls to stop the "illegal" copying of their product.The second group gets mad since they aren't able to use the product as they want now and think it's ok to break the "protection" in order to get at the goods they paid for.This leads to an easy market for file sharing to flourish.
The first group having left a gaping hole in the market for high quality digital downloads at low prices from the savings on physical packaging, shipping, and floorspace in stores.
Only now with itunes and the other online outlets catching up to the ease and variety of the online file sharing services, they missed the boat on delivering to the masses what they wanted and could have given but didn't.So when an organization comes along promoting the ideas that people should respect the copyright and intellectual property of others and then finds themselves on the wrong end of that spectrum.
Yes, we get to laugh at them.
Just as we should laugh at the file sharing people they claim that they are not taking something that doesn't belong to them unless they have purchased the song legitimately.
Fair is fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28128427</id>
	<title>Letter to Conference Board of Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243542240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under their <a href="http://www.conferenceboard.ca/contact/default.aspx" title="conferenceboard.ca">retraction</a> [conferenceboard.ca] they provide a contact link. I clicked on that link and gave them my thoughts as pasted below, and the acknowledgement promises a response. Will get back to you on upon their reply.</p><p>Dear Sir/Madam,</p><p>After almost selling out Canada to the USA via your plagiarized reports on intellectual property, I would strongly suggest that you contract Prof. Michael Geist or at least work closely with him in the next effort. Michael is well know, extremely knowledgeable on the subject, and trusted by a large number of Canadians. Only in this way will you regain the prestige you once had.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under their retraction [ conferenceboard.ca ] they provide a contact link .
I clicked on that link and gave them my thoughts as pasted below , and the acknowledgement promises a response .
Will get back to you on upon their reply.Dear Sir/Madam,After almost selling out Canada to the USA via your plagiarized reports on intellectual property , I would strongly suggest that you contract Prof. Michael Geist or at least work closely with him in the next effort .
Michael is well know , extremely knowledgeable on the subject , and trusted by a large number of Canadians .
Only in this way will you regain the prestige you once had.Sincerely,.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under their retraction [conferenceboard.ca] they provide a contact link.
I clicked on that link and gave them my thoughts as pasted below, and the acknowledgement promises a response.
Will get back to you on upon their reply.Dear Sir/Madam,After almost selling out Canada to the USA via your plagiarized reports on intellectual property, I would strongly suggest that you contract Prof. Michael Geist or at least work closely with him in the next effort.
Michael is well know, extremely knowledgeable on the subject, and trusted by a large number of Canadians.
Only in this way will you regain the prestige you once had.Sincerely,...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28132761</id>
	<title>Re:Canada has a blacklist?</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1243517460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i.e. we don't have a DMCA.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Canada has both more and less restrictive copyright law than the US does; that it is "liberal" is simply spin by the usual suspects, which would come as no surprise to anyone following the modern copyright debate.</p><p>Regarding the DMCA, although it's somewhat strange to say "we don't have a [law enacted by a foreign government]" since sovereign nations always pass their own laws, virtually no two laws are identical between two nations (even basics like murder and theft legislation differs enough between any two given countries to be included there) and the US certainly never looks at Canadian legislation when crafting their own, I will accept your statement as if it were normal to have identical legislation, or for one country to copy another's laws verbatim.</p><p>The Copyright Act (Canada) makes it legal to create a backup of any software that you are otherwise legally entitled to own/use (or however you want to put it). That provision cannot be negated by a EULA, because illegal clauses in EULA cannot be enforced (in any nation), but does not affect the EULA otherwise, because any illegal clause does not invalidate any other otherwise legal provisions.</p><p>The DMCA (USA) would make certain backups illegal under all circumstances (although it would not affect every possible backup scenario).</p><p>The Copyright Act (Canada) makes it legal to create a personal copy of music from any source. Only the person who makes the copy can listen to it; it's illegal to lend it, sell it, play it in public or for an audience, or to make a copy for another person. The person who hopes to enjoy this exemption must make the copy himself, operate the equipment, software, etc personally. Artists are directly compensated by quarterly cash payments collected from sales of blank media and paid out based on radio airplay data.</p><p>Fair Use provisions (USA) allow you to make copies of music you otherwise have the right to play/use/etc. provided doing so would not violate the DMCA. Artists are not compensated for Fair Use copies. Other copies are prohibited.</p><p>The Copyright Act (Canada) makes the recording of any video content whatsoever illegal under all circumstances. Use of VCRs, DVRs to "time shift" TV shows, for example, is completely illegal in Canada, as is the copying of movies, TV shows, etc, regardless of whether you otherwise have the right to view such movies (ie own the DVD), etc.</p><p>Fair Use provisions (USA) for video content are similar to making music copies in the USA; allows for time shifting of TV shows, copying of movies that are not subject to the DMCA (video tapes), etc.</p><p>Canada (and virtually every nation on Earth) allow for "Fair Dealing" (which is not to be confused with "Fair Use", which exists only in the USA) which allows use of copyright material for bona fide news, research, citations, reviews, quotations, etc provided such use is brief, appropriate to the subject under examination, and does not constitute a significant portion of the work.</p><p>Quoting the entire article of a news story in a blog or forum, for example, would be illegal in Canada since it encompasses a significant portion of the work, and thus no Fair Dealing exemption could apply.</p><p>So, two examples where Canada is less restrictive (audio copying; software backups) and another where they are more restrictive (video copying) than US law.</p><p>Should the Private Copying provisions of the Copyright Act (Canada) be repealed, Canada would be more restrictive since there is no Fair Use exemption; all audio copying except for bona fide academic, etc use would be illegal, even if you owned the CD the copy was made from.</p><p>In other words, they are "different" and you can't take one provision out of context of the whole body of law in either country, or any country for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are ... i.e. we do n't have a DMCA .
... " Canada has both more and less restrictive copyright law than the US does ; that it is " liberal " is simply spin by the usual suspects , which would come as no surprise to anyone following the modern copyright debate.Regarding the DMCA , although it 's somewhat strange to say " we do n't have a [ law enacted by a foreign government ] " since sovereign nations always pass their own laws , virtually no two laws are identical between two nations ( even basics like murder and theft legislation differs enough between any two given countries to be included there ) and the US certainly never looks at Canadian legislation when crafting their own , I will accept your statement as if it were normal to have identical legislation , or for one country to copy another 's laws verbatim.The Copyright Act ( Canada ) makes it legal to create a backup of any software that you are otherwise legally entitled to own/use ( or however you want to put it ) .
That provision can not be negated by a EULA , because illegal clauses in EULA can not be enforced ( in any nation ) , but does not affect the EULA otherwise , because any illegal clause does not invalidate any other otherwise legal provisions.The DMCA ( USA ) would make certain backups illegal under all circumstances ( although it would not affect every possible backup scenario ) .The Copyright Act ( Canada ) makes it legal to create a personal copy of music from any source .
Only the person who makes the copy can listen to it ; it 's illegal to lend it , sell it , play it in public or for an audience , or to make a copy for another person .
The person who hopes to enjoy this exemption must make the copy himself , operate the equipment , software , etc personally .
Artists are directly compensated by quarterly cash payments collected from sales of blank media and paid out based on radio airplay data.Fair Use provisions ( USA ) allow you to make copies of music you otherwise have the right to play/use/etc .
provided doing so would not violate the DMCA .
Artists are not compensated for Fair Use copies .
Other copies are prohibited.The Copyright Act ( Canada ) makes the recording of any video content whatsoever illegal under all circumstances .
Use of VCRs , DVRs to " time shift " TV shows , for example , is completely illegal in Canada , as is the copying of movies , TV shows , etc , regardless of whether you otherwise have the right to view such movies ( ie own the DVD ) , etc.Fair Use provisions ( USA ) for video content are similar to making music copies in the USA ; allows for time shifting of TV shows , copying of movies that are not subject to the DMCA ( video tapes ) , etc.Canada ( and virtually every nation on Earth ) allow for " Fair Dealing " ( which is not to be confused with " Fair Use " , which exists only in the USA ) which allows use of copyright material for bona fide news , research , citations , reviews , quotations , etc provided such use is brief , appropriate to the subject under examination , and does not constitute a significant portion of the work.Quoting the entire article of a news story in a blog or forum , for example , would be illegal in Canada since it encompasses a significant portion of the work , and thus no Fair Dealing exemption could apply.So , two examples where Canada is less restrictive ( audio copying ; software backups ) and another where they are more restrictive ( video copying ) than US law.Should the Private Copying provisions of the Copyright Act ( Canada ) be repealed , Canada would be more restrictive since there is no Fair Use exemption ; all audio copying except for bona fide academic , etc use would be illegal , even if you owned the CD the copy was made from.In other words , they are " different " and you ca n't take one provision out of context of the whole body of law in either country , or any country for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are ... i.e. we don't have a DMCA.
..."Canada has both more and less restrictive copyright law than the US does; that it is "liberal" is simply spin by the usual suspects, which would come as no surprise to anyone following the modern copyright debate.Regarding the DMCA, although it's somewhat strange to say "we don't have a [law enacted by a foreign government]" since sovereign nations always pass their own laws, virtually no two laws are identical between two nations (even basics like murder and theft legislation differs enough between any two given countries to be included there) and the US certainly never looks at Canadian legislation when crafting their own, I will accept your statement as if it were normal to have identical legislation, or for one country to copy another's laws verbatim.The Copyright Act (Canada) makes it legal to create a backup of any software that you are otherwise legally entitled to own/use (or however you want to put it).
That provision cannot be negated by a EULA, because illegal clauses in EULA cannot be enforced (in any nation), but does not affect the EULA otherwise, because any illegal clause does not invalidate any other otherwise legal provisions.The DMCA (USA) would make certain backups illegal under all circumstances (although it would not affect every possible backup scenario).The Copyright Act (Canada) makes it legal to create a personal copy of music from any source.
Only the person who makes the copy can listen to it; it's illegal to lend it, sell it, play it in public or for an audience, or to make a copy for another person.
The person who hopes to enjoy this exemption must make the copy himself, operate the equipment, software, etc personally.
Artists are directly compensated by quarterly cash payments collected from sales of blank media and paid out based on radio airplay data.Fair Use provisions (USA) allow you to make copies of music you otherwise have the right to play/use/etc.
provided doing so would not violate the DMCA.
Artists are not compensated for Fair Use copies.
Other copies are prohibited.The Copyright Act (Canada) makes the recording of any video content whatsoever illegal under all circumstances.
Use of VCRs, DVRs to "time shift" TV shows, for example, is completely illegal in Canada, as is the copying of movies, TV shows, etc, regardless of whether you otherwise have the right to view such movies (ie own the DVD), etc.Fair Use provisions (USA) for video content are similar to making music copies in the USA; allows for time shifting of TV shows, copying of movies that are not subject to the DMCA (video tapes), etc.Canada (and virtually every nation on Earth) allow for "Fair Dealing" (which is not to be confused with "Fair Use", which exists only in the USA) which allows use of copyright material for bona fide news, research, citations, reviews, quotations, etc provided such use is brief, appropriate to the subject under examination, and does not constitute a significant portion of the work.Quoting the entire article of a news story in a blog or forum, for example, would be illegal in Canada since it encompasses a significant portion of the work, and thus no Fair Dealing exemption could apply.So, two examples where Canada is less restrictive (audio copying; software backups) and another where they are more restrictive (video copying) than US law.Should the Private Copying provisions of the Copyright Act (Canada) be repealed, Canada would be more restrictive since there is no Fair Use exemption; all audio copying except for bona fide academic, etc use would be illegal, even if you owned the CD the copy was made from.In other words, they are "different" and you can't take one provision out of context of the whole body of law in either country, or any country for that matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127315</id>
	<title>Too... much... irony...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243539180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And... too... obvious...!</p><p>Must... control... myself...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And... too... obvious... ! Must... control... myself... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And... too... obvious...!Must... control... myself... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127275</id>
	<title>I just feel sorry</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1243539120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for the poor chickens that had to work overtime to lay all those eggs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for the poor chickens that had to work overtime to lay all those eggs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the poor chickens that had to work overtime to lay all those eggs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28128425</id>
	<title>Prestige</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1243542240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Previous story/ies decorated the Conference Board of Canada with "prestigious".  In which circle does the prestige hold sway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Previous story/ies decorated the Conference Board of Canada with " prestigious " .
In which circle does the prestige hold sway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Previous story/ies decorated the Conference Board of Canada with "prestigious".
In which circle does the prestige hold sway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127051</id>
	<title>Conferance..?  What's that?</title>
	<author>Captain Centropyge</author>
	<datestamp>1243538460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's a "conferance" board?  Spell-check, anyone..?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a " conferance " board ?
Spell-check , anyone.. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a "conferance" board?
Spell-check, anyone..?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127249</id>
	<title>not much to say</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1243539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, am speechless....maybe they should have been too.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , am speechless....maybe they should have been too.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, am speechless....maybe they should have been too.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28133997</id>
	<title>Is it really plagiarism...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243525620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if the author's of the original text have the same end-goal and don't care who copies their writing?

</p><p>I'd be willing to bet that the author's of the U.S. report were secretly thrilled that the Canadian report used the same arguments in their recommendations to make the Canadian copyright laws tougher. Why would the American copyright lobby care what text the Canadians used so long as their ultimate goal of "harmonized" copyright laws are achieved?

</p><p>OK, people <i>should</i> care, I know. Especially the Canadians whose rights were going to be affected by whe recommendations of these so-called "experts". Experts who were so lazy that they couldn't even <i>try</i> to paraphrase the American copyright cabal's talking points instead of copying them verbatim (or nearly so). (I mean, geez, folks. You just look like puppets. Have you <i>no</i> dignity? )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if the author 's of the original text have the same end-goal and do n't care who copies their writing ?
I 'd be willing to bet that the author 's of the U.S. report were secretly thrilled that the Canadian report used the same arguments in their recommendations to make the Canadian copyright laws tougher .
Why would the American copyright lobby care what text the Canadians used so long as their ultimate goal of " harmonized " copyright laws are achieved ?
OK , people should care , I know .
Especially the Canadians whose rights were going to be affected by whe recommendations of these so-called " experts " .
Experts who were so lazy that they could n't even try to paraphrase the American copyright cabal 's talking points instead of copying them verbatim ( or nearly so ) .
( I mean , geez , folks .
You just look like puppets .
Have you no dignity ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if the author's of the original text have the same end-goal and don't care who copies their writing?
I'd be willing to bet that the author's of the U.S. report were secretly thrilled that the Canadian report used the same arguments in their recommendations to make the Canadian copyright laws tougher.
Why would the American copyright lobby care what text the Canadians used so long as their ultimate goal of "harmonized" copyright laws are achieved?
OK, people should care, I know.
Especially the Canadians whose rights were going to be affected by whe recommendations of these so-called "experts".
Experts who were so lazy that they couldn't even try to paraphrase the American copyright cabal's talking points instead of copying them verbatim (or nearly so).
(I mean, geez, folks.
You just look like puppets.
Have you no dignity?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_185259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_185259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28132761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_28_185259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28128427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28126935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28132761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28127651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_28_185259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_28_185259.28132007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
