<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_07_0248201</id>
	<title>Lies, Damned Lies, and the UK Copyright Industry</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244398080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>artg writes <i>"Ben Goldacre writes about invalid and misleading 'science' in the Guardian. Here's
 his  <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/ben-goldacre-bad-science-music-downloads">report on the statistics behind a recent press story</a> that reported illegal downloading to involve 120 billion pounds worth of material."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>artg writes " Ben Goldacre writes about invalid and misleading 'science ' in the Guardian .
Here 's his report on the statistics behind a recent press story that reported illegal downloading to involve 120 billion pounds worth of material .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>artg writes "Ben Goldacre writes about invalid and misleading 'science' in the Guardian.
Here's
 his  report on the statistics behind a recent press story that reported illegal downloading to involve 120 billion pounds worth of material.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239507</id>
	<title>Full story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full article is posted on Ben's blog at http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/ (sorry Ben for the slashdotting) - the guardian tends to remove bits of his writing in print/on their website (for space reasons I assume).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full article is posted on Ben 's blog at http : //www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/ ( sorry Ben for the slashdotting ) - the guardian tends to remove bits of his writing in print/on their website ( for space reasons I assume ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full article is posted on Ben's blog at http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/ (sorry Ben for the slashdotting) - the guardian tends to remove bits of his writing in print/on their website (for space reasons I assume).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239987</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>aamcf</author>
	<datestamp>1244369520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen a few songs on YouTube, and I've gone on to buy them (often the whole album). If I like something enough to listen to it, I think it is only fair that I pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a few songs on YouTube , and I 've gone on to buy them ( often the whole album ) .
If I like something enough to listen to it , I think it is only fair that I pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a few songs on YouTube, and I've gone on to buy them (often the whole album).
If I like something enough to listen to it, I think it is only fair that I pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239823</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>Keeper Of Keys</author>
	<datestamp>1244365380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why indeed, except that some of us do:</p><p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music (linked form the original version on Ben Goldacre's blog)</p><p>I actually feel guilty for buying physical product, though, when most of the cost won't even go to the artist, and all it will do is sit on a shelf. (Here's <a href="http://thepeer.blogspot.com/2006/03/guilt-edged-stock.html" title="blogspot.com">an ancient blog post of mine</a> [blogspot.com] about this.) I'd rather make a direct donation to the artist, but many artist sites still don't have provision for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why indeed , except that some of us do : http : //www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music ( linked form the original version on Ben Goldacre 's blog ) I actually feel guilty for buying physical product , though , when most of the cost wo n't even go to the artist , and all it will do is sit on a shelf .
( Here 's an ancient blog post of mine [ blogspot.com ] about this .
) I 'd rather make a direct donation to the artist , but many artist sites still do n't have provision for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why indeed, except that some of us do:http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music (linked form the original version on Ben Goldacre's blog)I actually feel guilty for buying physical product, though, when most of the cost won't even go to the artist, and all it will do is sit on a shelf.
(Here's an ancient blog post of mine [blogspot.com] about this.
) I'd rather make a direct donation to the artist, but many artist sites still don't have provision for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239977</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1244369220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They also conveniently don't take into account the sales they receive when someone actually likes what they've downloaded enough to go buy the CD/DVD/Whatever. It's all a black pity hole of lost sales...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also conveniently do n't take into account the sales they receive when someone actually likes what they 've downloaded enough to go buy the CD/DVD/Whatever .
It 's all a black pity hole of lost sales.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also conveniently don't take into account the sales they receive when someone actually likes what they've downloaded enough to go buy the CD/DVD/Whatever.
It's all a black pity hole of lost sales...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241003</id>
	<title>I think you're the one that doesn't understand</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1244386620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An individual may spend their money on something else. What exactly is the person who has lost their job and has no money going to be spending?</p><p>Even if they are able to quickly get a job in a different industry (a big ask for people with specialised jobs) they'll have still been unemployed for a while and not spending much during that time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An individual may spend their money on something else .
What exactly is the person who has lost their job and has no money going to be spending ? Even if they are able to quickly get a job in a different industry ( a big ask for people with specialised jobs ) they 'll have still been unemployed for a while and not spending much during that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An individual may spend their money on something else.
What exactly is the person who has lost their job and has no money going to be spending?Even if they are able to quickly get a job in a different industry (a big ask for people with specialised jobs) they'll have still been unemployed for a while and not spending much during that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242367</id>
	<title>Make It Stop</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1244398920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take this list (from CIBER site):</p><p>Dr Andrew Boyd      Associate      Research associate, information flow<br>David Brown     Founding Director     British Library. Journal publishing<br>Elizabeth A. Chapman     Associate     Deputy Director of Library Services, UCL<br>Andy Dawson     Researcher     UCL<br>Dr Tom Dobrowolski     Founding Director     University of Warsaw, web policy<br>Professor Barrie Gunter     Director     University of Leicester, mass communications<br>John Haynes     Director     Institute of Physics Publishing<br>Paul Huntington     Senior Research Fellow     UCL, data mining and web metrics<br>Hamid R. Jamali     Researcher     UCL, virtual scholar, digital information seeking<br>Professor Michael Mabe     Founding Director     Director, Elsevier Science, publishing strategy<br>Professor Michel Menou     Associate     Founding Director Consultant, information and development<br>Dr Rob Miller     Researcher     UCL<br>Professor David Nicholas     Managing Director     UCL, deep log analysis, digital information seeking and the evaluation of digital information systems/libraries<br>Dr Ian Rowlands     Managing Director     City University, information policy.<br>Bill Russell     Founding Director     Director, Emerald - marketing and sales<br>Chris Russell     Associate     Co-founder, eDigitalResearch.com<br>Dr Iain Stevenson     Associate     City University, publishing strategy<br>Dr Carol Tenopir     Honorary senior research fellow     University of Tennessee, Knoxville.<br>Milverton Wallace     Associate     Consultant, NetMedia, new media<br>Professor Anthony Watkinson     Founding Director     Consultant, digital transition<br>Dr Berenika Webster     Researcher     University of Wellington, bibliometrics<br>Peter Williams     Senior Research Fellow     UCL, consumer health information<br>Richard Withey     Director     Independent Digital, new media strategies</p><p>Find bios/vitae for each. Find out what professional organizations each belong to.<br>Get the ethics policies from each.<br>For each that has an ethics statement regarding fabrication, submit a complaint about that person, attaching the work in question and subsequent research showing the falsifications.</p><p>Make copies of each such complaint and compile them into two volumes. Send one to the UCL ethic committee at <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/committees/ethics/" title="ucl.ac.uk">https://www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/committees/ethics/</a> [ucl.ac.uk] and one to the provost <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/provost/" title="ucl.ac.uk">http://www.ucl.ac.uk/provost/</a> [ucl.ac.uk] . Send copies to media outlets that display some leanings towards ethical behavior (as opposed to simply publishing expose type junk stories; you don't want to poison your own well). If they publish this, make copies of each and send them as follow ups to the ethics committee and provost as above.</p><p>Of course this requires that people care enough to do something more than simply publish stories about it saying how awful it is, and publish links and summaries elsewhere so those people can 'discuss' how awful it is. The proportion of stories and discussions regarding such awfulisms compared to submissions to ethics committees on science/journalism fraud indicates that damn near all people care more about talking about it than making it stop. Doing something about it doesn't require academic/scientific credentials, just a bit of work with careful attention to getting the facts right (ie. researching the sources back to the original). It needs to be good enough that the probable threats of libel lawsuits can be countered with accusations of barratry, as the facts presented serve as proof no libel occurred.</p><p>Regarding the Guardian's article: there was no science done here. Research, yes (very poor, yes) but science, no. The numbers tossed about are just that, not statistics in the scientific (inferential stats) sense. There's a tendency to call numbers used in support of statements 'statistics'. Such weak connotations do not add up to the denotation no matter how many times it is repeated. Even had there</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take this list ( from CIBER site ) : Dr Andrew Boyd Associate Research associate , information flowDavid Brown Founding Director British Library .
Journal publishingElizabeth A. Chapman Associate Deputy Director of Library Services , UCLAndy Dawson Researcher UCLDr Tom Dobrowolski Founding Director University of Warsaw , web policyProfessor Barrie Gunter Director University of Leicester , mass communicationsJohn Haynes Director Institute of Physics PublishingPaul Huntington Senior Research Fellow UCL , data mining and web metricsHamid R. Jamali Researcher UCL , virtual scholar , digital information seekingProfessor Michael Mabe Founding Director Director , Elsevier Science , publishing strategyProfessor Michel Menou Associate Founding Director Consultant , information and developmentDr Rob Miller Researcher UCLProfessor David Nicholas Managing Director UCL , deep log analysis , digital information seeking and the evaluation of digital information systems/librariesDr Ian Rowlands Managing Director City University , information policy.Bill Russell Founding Director Director , Emerald - marketing and salesChris Russell Associate Co-founder , eDigitalResearch.comDr Iain Stevenson Associate City University , publishing strategyDr Carol Tenopir Honorary senior research fellow University of Tennessee , Knoxville.Milverton Wallace Associate Consultant , NetMedia , new mediaProfessor Anthony Watkinson Founding Director Consultant , digital transitionDr Berenika Webster Researcher University of Wellington , bibliometricsPeter Williams Senior Research Fellow UCL , consumer health informationRichard Withey Director Independent Digital , new media strategiesFind bios/vitae for each .
Find out what professional organizations each belong to.Get the ethics policies from each.For each that has an ethics statement regarding fabrication , submit a complaint about that person , attaching the work in question and subsequent research showing the falsifications.Make copies of each such complaint and compile them into two volumes .
Send one to the UCL ethic committee at https : //www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/committees/ethics/ [ ucl.ac.uk ] and one to the provost http : //www.ucl.ac.uk/provost/ [ ucl.ac.uk ] .
Send copies to media outlets that display some leanings towards ethical behavior ( as opposed to simply publishing expose type junk stories ; you do n't want to poison your own well ) .
If they publish this , make copies of each and send them as follow ups to the ethics committee and provost as above.Of course this requires that people care enough to do something more than simply publish stories about it saying how awful it is , and publish links and summaries elsewhere so those people can 'discuss ' how awful it is .
The proportion of stories and discussions regarding such awfulisms compared to submissions to ethics committees on science/journalism fraud indicates that damn near all people care more about talking about it than making it stop .
Doing something about it does n't require academic/scientific credentials , just a bit of work with careful attention to getting the facts right ( ie .
researching the sources back to the original ) .
It needs to be good enough that the probable threats of libel lawsuits can be countered with accusations of barratry , as the facts presented serve as proof no libel occurred.Regarding the Guardian 's article : there was no science done here .
Research , yes ( very poor , yes ) but science , no .
The numbers tossed about are just that , not statistics in the scientific ( inferential stats ) sense .
There 's a tendency to call numbers used in support of statements 'statistics' .
Such weak connotations do not add up to the denotation no matter how many times it is repeated .
Even had there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take this list (from CIBER site):Dr Andrew Boyd      Associate      Research associate, information flowDavid Brown     Founding Director     British Library.
Journal publishingElizabeth A. Chapman     Associate     Deputy Director of Library Services, UCLAndy Dawson     Researcher     UCLDr Tom Dobrowolski     Founding Director     University of Warsaw, web policyProfessor Barrie Gunter     Director     University of Leicester, mass communicationsJohn Haynes     Director     Institute of Physics PublishingPaul Huntington     Senior Research Fellow     UCL, data mining and web metricsHamid R. Jamali     Researcher     UCL, virtual scholar, digital information seekingProfessor Michael Mabe     Founding Director     Director, Elsevier Science, publishing strategyProfessor Michel Menou     Associate     Founding Director Consultant, information and developmentDr Rob Miller     Researcher     UCLProfessor David Nicholas     Managing Director     UCL, deep log analysis, digital information seeking and the evaluation of digital information systems/librariesDr Ian Rowlands     Managing Director     City University, information policy.Bill Russell     Founding Director     Director, Emerald - marketing and salesChris Russell     Associate     Co-founder, eDigitalResearch.comDr Iain Stevenson     Associate     City University, publishing strategyDr Carol Tenopir     Honorary senior research fellow     University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Milverton Wallace     Associate     Consultant, NetMedia, new mediaProfessor Anthony Watkinson     Founding Director     Consultant, digital transitionDr Berenika Webster     Researcher     University of Wellington, bibliometricsPeter Williams     Senior Research Fellow     UCL, consumer health informationRichard Withey     Director     Independent Digital, new media strategiesFind bios/vitae for each.
Find out what professional organizations each belong to.Get the ethics policies from each.For each that has an ethics statement regarding fabrication, submit a complaint about that person, attaching the work in question and subsequent research showing the falsifications.Make copies of each such complaint and compile them into two volumes.
Send one to the UCL ethic committee at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/committees/ethics/ [ucl.ac.uk] and one to the provost http://www.ucl.ac.uk/provost/ [ucl.ac.uk] .
Send copies to media outlets that display some leanings towards ethical behavior (as opposed to simply publishing expose type junk stories; you don't want to poison your own well).
If they publish this, make copies of each and send them as follow ups to the ethics committee and provost as above.Of course this requires that people care enough to do something more than simply publish stories about it saying how awful it is, and publish links and summaries elsewhere so those people can 'discuss' how awful it is.
The proportion of stories and discussions regarding such awfulisms compared to submissions to ethics committees on science/journalism fraud indicates that damn near all people care more about talking about it than making it stop.
Doing something about it doesn't require academic/scientific credentials, just a bit of work with careful attention to getting the facts right (ie.
researching the sources back to the original).
It needs to be good enough that the probable threats of libel lawsuits can be countered with accusations of barratry, as the facts presented serve as proof no libel occurred.Regarding the Guardian's article: there was no science done here.
Research, yes (very poor, yes) but science, no.
The numbers tossed about are just that, not statistics in the scientific (inferential stats) sense.
There's a tendency to call numbers used in support of statements 'statistics'.
Such weak connotations do not add up to the denotation no matter how many times it is repeated.
Even had there</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28246569</id>
	<title>Re:It hurts to see your trade being abused.</title>
	<author>mrogers</author>
	<datestamp>1244390340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It was printed in the SUN. Dunno about you, but I've made up my mind about the fact checking abilities of their reporters...</i>
<p>
That's a dreadful and potentially libelous thing to say. Every article in The Sun is rigorously checked for facts by a highly skilled editorial team, and if any are found they're removed before publication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was printed in the SUN .
Dunno about you , but I 've made up my mind about the fact checking abilities of their reporters.. . That 's a dreadful and potentially libelous thing to say .
Every article in The Sun is rigorously checked for facts by a highly skilled editorial team , and if any are found they 're removed before publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was printed in the SUN.
Dunno about you, but I've made up my mind about the fact checking abilities of their reporters...

That's a dreadful and potentially libelous thing to say.
Every article in The Sun is rigorously checked for facts by a highly skilled editorial team, and if any are found they're removed before publication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241017</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1244386740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model without taking the obvious into account is hard!</p></div><p>You could start by explaining what alternative you propose, if the current model is "obsolete" and its flaws are "obvious".</p><p>You can certainly criticise some of the current pricing, aggressive legal strategies and industry propaganda. However, you can't deny that ultimately, it does cost a lot of money to make movies, software, etc., and that some of these products are valued by a lot of people. Moreover, there has to be some return on investment for those who back the successful projects, because a lot of the others make big losses, and no-one would back a new project if the best it was going to do was break even. This is basic economics, and the fact that the <em>marginal</em> cost of distributing a work can be close to zero in the Internet age is not the whole equation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model without taking the obvious into account is hard ! You could start by explaining what alternative you propose , if the current model is " obsolete " and its flaws are " obvious " .You can certainly criticise some of the current pricing , aggressive legal strategies and industry propaganda .
However , you ca n't deny that ultimately , it does cost a lot of money to make movies , software , etc. , and that some of these products are valued by a lot of people .
Moreover , there has to be some return on investment for those who back the successful projects , because a lot of the others make big losses , and no-one would back a new project if the best it was going to do was break even .
This is basic economics , and the fact that the marginal cost of distributing a work can be close to zero in the Internet age is not the whole equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model without taking the obvious into account is hard!You could start by explaining what alternative you propose, if the current model is "obsolete" and its flaws are "obvious".You can certainly criticise some of the current pricing, aggressive legal strategies and industry propaganda.
However, you can't deny that ultimately, it does cost a lot of money to make movies, software, etc., and that some of these products are valued by a lot of people.
Moreover, there has to be some return on investment for those who back the successful projects, because a lot of the others make big losses, and no-one would back a new project if the best it was going to do was break even.
This is basic economics, and the fact that the marginal cost of distributing a work can be close to zero in the Internet age is not the whole equation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240273</id>
	<title>Lost income from a film download?</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1244375280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, the "lost income" from a downloaded movie is about &pound;.40 (the rental price of the movie), which seems a bit high - a postal video-rental account at tesco or lovefilm costs about  &pound;1.50 per DVD rented (plus they're spending  &pound;0.50 of bandwidth to download it, which is money going into the British economy and supporting the government's broadband strategy).</p><p>However, these figures (assisted by the assumption that every file downloaded from a "file-sharing site" is a commercial movie that they'd otherwise have rented) imply that downloaders <i>are watching 3,600 movies per year</i>.  Ehh?  Given the length of each film (and these people have to be at school or work or sleeping most of the time) I wonder if those figures are even physically possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , the " lost income " from a downloaded movie is about   .40 ( the rental price of the movie ) , which seems a bit high - a postal video-rental account at tesco or lovefilm costs about   1.50 per DVD rented ( plus they 're spending   0.50 of bandwidth to download it , which is money going into the British economy and supporting the government 's broadband strategy ) .However , these figures ( assisted by the assumption that every file downloaded from a " file-sharing site " is a commercial movie that they 'd otherwise have rented ) imply that downloaders are watching 3,600 movies per year .
Ehh ? Given the length of each film ( and these people have to be at school or work or sleeping most of the time ) I wonder if those figures are even physically possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, the "lost income" from a downloaded movie is about £.40 (the rental price of the movie), which seems a bit high - a postal video-rental account at tesco or lovefilm costs about  £1.50 per DVD rented (plus they're spending  £0.50 of bandwidth to download it, which is money going into the British economy and supporting the government's broadband strategy).However, these figures (assisted by the assumption that every file downloaded from a "file-sharing site" is a commercial movie that they'd otherwise have rented) imply that downloaders are watching 3,600 movies per year.
Ehh?  Given the length of each film (and these people have to be at school or work or sleeping most of the time) I wonder if those figures are even physically possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241509</id>
	<title>Esoteric Units of Measurement</title>
	<author>daryl\_and\_daryl</author>
	<datestamp>1244391840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But only in the USA are we still crazy enough to still use the Brit's units of measure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But only in the USA are we still crazy enough to still use the Brit 's units of measure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But only in the USA are we still crazy enough to still use the Brit's units of measure</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242101</id>
	<title>Not Industry -- Her Majesty's Government</title>
	<author>JakartaDean</author>
	<datestamp>1244396820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Big surprise. Everything that has come from this industry has been at best broad guesstimates, at worst intentionally spread lies.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If you RTFA, you'll see that the inflated figure came, exaggerated by a factor of 10 due to a typo, from a government agency.  It says "The report was commissioned by a government body called Sabip, the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property. On the billions lost it says: 'Estimates as to the overall lost revenues if we include all creative industries whose products can be copied digitally, or counterfeited, reach &pound;10bn (IP rights, 2004), conservatively, as our figure is from 2004, and a loss of 4,000 jobs.'"</p><p>

And, later, "Sabip refused to answer questions in emails, insisted on a phone call, told me that they had taken steps but wouldn't say what and explained something about how they couldn't be held responsible for lazy journalism, then, bizarrely, after 10 minutes, tried to tell me retrospectively that the call was off the record."</p><p>
I think that's the true tragedy, that the media companies have been able to get even government think tanks lying for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big surprise .
Everything that has come from this industry has been at best broad guesstimates , at worst intentionally spread lies .
If you RTFA , you 'll see that the inflated figure came , exaggerated by a factor of 10 due to a typo , from a government agency .
It says " The report was commissioned by a government body called Sabip , the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property .
On the billions lost it says : 'Estimates as to the overall lost revenues if we include all creative industries whose products can be copied digitally , or counterfeited , reach   10bn ( IP rights , 2004 ) , conservatively , as our figure is from 2004 , and a loss of 4,000 jobs .
' " And , later , " Sabip refused to answer questions in emails , insisted on a phone call , told me that they had taken steps but would n't say what and explained something about how they could n't be held responsible for lazy journalism , then , bizarrely , after 10 minutes , tried to tell me retrospectively that the call was off the record .
" I think that 's the true tragedy , that the media companies have been able to get even government think tanks lying for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big surprise.
Everything that has come from this industry has been at best broad guesstimates, at worst intentionally spread lies.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the inflated figure came, exaggerated by a factor of 10 due to a typo, from a government agency.
It says "The report was commissioned by a government body called Sabip, the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property.
On the billions lost it says: 'Estimates as to the overall lost revenues if we include all creative industries whose products can be copied digitally, or counterfeited, reach £10bn (IP rights, 2004), conservatively, as our figure is from 2004, and a loss of 4,000 jobs.
'"

And, later, "Sabip refused to answer questions in emails, insisted on a phone call, told me that they had taken steps but wouldn't say what and explained something about how they couldn't be held responsible for lazy journalism, then, bizarrely, after 10 minutes, tried to tell me retrospectively that the call was off the record.
"
I think that's the true tragedy, that the media companies have been able to get even government think tanks lying for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241643</id>
	<title>Why is this news?</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1244393400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that Big Media are greedy, disrespectful, lying scum, who'll say and do anything to attempt to capture regulators and game the legal system.</p><p>We saw this decades ago with BSA, and their deceitful, riscible and stupid fake claims of multi-billion dollar "losses" from piracy.  These people are the same bastards who market cigarettes to kids in Third World countries, and deny global warming.</p><p>It's always the same people, peddling the same lies, the same moral bankruptcy, and the same insane, mindless greed.</p><p>With all due respect to Dr Goldacre, why is this news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that Big Media are greedy , disrespectful , lying scum , who 'll say and do anything to attempt to capture regulators and game the legal system.We saw this decades ago with BSA , and their deceitful , riscible and stupid fake claims of multi-billion dollar " losses " from piracy .
These people are the same bastards who market cigarettes to kids in Third World countries , and deny global warming.It 's always the same people , peddling the same lies , the same moral bankruptcy , and the same insane , mindless greed.With all due respect to Dr Goldacre , why is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that Big Media are greedy, disrespectful, lying scum, who'll say and do anything to attempt to capture regulators and game the legal system.We saw this decades ago with BSA, and their deceitful, riscible and stupid fake claims of multi-billion dollar "losses" from piracy.
These people are the same bastards who market cigarettes to kids in Third World countries, and deny global warming.It's always the same people, peddling the same lies, the same moral bankruptcy, and the same insane, mindless greed.With all due respect to Dr Goldacre, why is this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240467</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Zumbs</author>
	<datestamp>1244378460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except, off cause, that the study were referenced wrong in the press releases. From TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, but the figures were wrong: it was actually 473m items and &#194;&pound;12bn (so the item value was still &#194;&pound;25) but the wrong figures were in the original executive summary, and the press release. They changed them quietly, after the errors were pointed out by a BBC journalist.</p></div><p>When asked why they did not take steps to notify journalists of the error, they first tried to avoid answering, but they</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...explained something about how they couldn't be held responsible for lazy journalism, then, bizarrely, after 10 minutes, tried to tell me retrospectively that the call was off the record,</p></div><p>They do sound very trustworthy!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , off cause , that the study were referenced wrong in the press releases .
From TFA : Oh , but the figures were wrong : it was actually 473m items and     12bn ( so the item value was still     25 ) but the wrong figures were in the original executive summary , and the press release .
They changed them quietly , after the errors were pointed out by a BBC journalist.When asked why they did not take steps to notify journalists of the error , they first tried to avoid answering , but they ...explained something about how they could n't be held responsible for lazy journalism , then , bizarrely , after 10 minutes , tried to tell me retrospectively that the call was off the record,They do sound very trustworthy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, off cause, that the study were referenced wrong in the press releases.
From TFA:Oh, but the figures were wrong: it was actually 473m items and Â£12bn (so the item value was still Â£25) but the wrong figures were in the original executive summary, and the press release.
They changed them quietly, after the errors were pointed out by a BBC journalist.When asked why they did not take steps to notify journalists of the error, they first tried to avoid answering, but they ...explained something about how they couldn't be held responsible for lazy journalism, then, bizarrely, after 10 minutes, tried to tell me retrospectively that the call was off the record,They do sound very trustworthy!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240027</id>
	<title>Re:I think someone does not understand economics.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244370240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn, are you sure? And I thought I had the perfect plan to topple the music industry: buy 1M cheap 1TB hard drives and fill all of them with illegal copies of songs, and then send those to random people. That's about 200 billion songs (at 5MB per piece) and at 99c per song would cause the recording industry losses of about 198 billions!</p><p>Mwahahahaa! Tremble at my wrath RIAA, your days are numbered!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , are you sure ?
And I thought I had the perfect plan to topple the music industry : buy 1M cheap 1TB hard drives and fill all of them with illegal copies of songs , and then send those to random people .
That 's about 200 billion songs ( at 5MB per piece ) and at 99c per song would cause the recording industry losses of about 198 billions ! Mwahahahaa !
Tremble at my wrath RIAA , your days are numbered !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, are you sure?
And I thought I had the perfect plan to topple the music industry: buy 1M cheap 1TB hard drives and fill all of them with illegal copies of songs, and then send those to random people.
That's about 200 billion songs (at 5MB per piece) and at 99c per song would cause the recording industry losses of about 198 billions!Mwahahahaa!
Tremble at my wrath RIAA, your days are numbered!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241269</id>
	<title>Re:Downloading keeping "billions" inside the UK</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1244389560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What bullshit.<br>The UK has a huge IP industry, movies, books, TV, software, games...<br>HAs it occured to you that we lose out as a nation by people outside the UK pirating that content rather than buying it?<br>Sorry to interrupt your "content producers are evil" bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What bullshit.The UK has a huge IP industry , movies , books , TV , software , games...HAs it occured to you that we lose out as a nation by people outside the UK pirating that content rather than buying it ? Sorry to interrupt your " content producers are evil " bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bullshit.The UK has a huge IP industry, movies, books, TV, software, games...HAs it occured to you that we lose out as a nation by people outside the UK pirating that content rather than buying it?Sorry to interrupt your "content producers are evil" bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28243755</id>
	<title>Re:I, too, am impressed by these figures.</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1244366520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The burning question that remains: Was the fairy dust from freshly-picked Cornish pixies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The burning question that remains : Was the fairy dust from freshly-picked Cornish pixies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The burning question that remains: Was the fairy dust from freshly-picked Cornish pixies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28244627</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244373180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to save the economy $10 by shoplifting a CD from Walmart.  That money that I would've spent on the media doesn't just disappear - I've still got it!  Thus, the economy hasn't suffered at all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to save the economy $ 10 by shoplifting a CD from Walmart .
That money that I would 've spent on the media does n't just disappear - I 've still got it !
Thus , the economy has n't suffered at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to save the economy $10 by shoplifting a CD from Walmart.
That money that I would've spent on the media doesn't just disappear - I've still got it!
Thus, the economy hasn't suffered at all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240701</id>
	<title>80\% of Countries have a GDP Lower than this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244381880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(nominal)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(nominal)</a> [wikipedia.org], there were only about 40 countries with GDP higher than 120 billion pounds.</p><p>This number is ridiculous. It's like something Dr. Evil would demand because he's been frozen and doesn't know what money is worth anymore.</p><p>I would say that the UK music industry was delusional even if they tried to argue that their <b>entire</b> industry was worth 120 billion pounds (7\% of UK GDP).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _countries \ _by \ _GDP \ _ ( nominal ) [ wikipedia.org ] , there were only about 40 countries with GDP higher than 120 billion pounds.This number is ridiculous .
It 's like something Dr. Evil would demand because he 's been frozen and does n't know what money is worth anymore.I would say that the UK music industry was delusional even if they tried to argue that their entire industry was worth 120 billion pounds ( 7 \ % of UK GDP ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(nominal) [wikipedia.org], there were only about 40 countries with GDP higher than 120 billion pounds.This number is ridiculous.
It's like something Dr. Evil would demand because he's been frozen and doesn't know what money is worth anymore.I would say that the UK music industry was delusional even if they tried to argue that their entire industry was worth 120 billion pounds (7\% of UK GDP).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519</id>
	<title>Doh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Ben Goldacre writes about invalid and misleading 'science' in the Guardian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... behind a recent press story that reported illegal downloading to involve 120 billion pounds worth of material."</p></div><p>Everyone knows bits don't weigh anything!<br>Those Brits better get with it, the correct unit of measure is LoC - Libraries of Congress!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ben Goldacre writes about invalid and misleading 'science ' in the Guardian ... behind a recent press story that reported illegal downloading to involve 120 billion pounds worth of material .
" Everyone knows bits do n't weigh anything ! Those Brits better get with it , the correct unit of measure is LoC - Libraries of Congress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ben Goldacre writes about invalid and misleading 'science' in the Guardian ... behind a recent press story that reported illegal downloading to involve 120 billion pounds worth of material.
"Everyone knows bits don't weigh anything!Those Brits better get with it, the correct unit of measure is LoC - Libraries of Congress!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239641</id>
	<title>Re:"pounds of material"</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1244405040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean their Internet tubes aren't that big after all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean their Internet tubes are n't that big after all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean their Internet tubes aren't that big after all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239737</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244406840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever pay</p></div><p>I can get poo for free as a manure for my Garden.<br>Why do i go and buy manure, red soil, natural fertilizer and all that crap from Home Depot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have to disagree , after all if I can get the music for free , why would anyone ever payI can get poo for free as a manure for my Garden.Why do i go and buy manure , red soil , natural fertilizer and all that crap from Home Depot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever payI can get poo for free as a manure for my Garden.Why do i go and buy manure, red soil, natural fertilizer and all that crap from Home Depot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1244368980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, by making up unlikely numbers they divert attention from the even more insidious propaganda buried in the claim.</p><p>It's not money \_lost\_, it's money \_saved\_.</p><p>Downloading \_saves\_ the economy &pound;120 Billion.</p><p>The money that doesn't get spent on media doesn't magically disappear. It's spent on other things instead. Jobs aren't lost, in fact, I'd wager the money saved creates more jobs in the local economy than money to the media industry which to a large extent doesn't go towards labour intensive activity, and in many cases simply goes out of the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , by making up unlikely numbers they divert attention from the even more insidious propaganda buried in the claim.It 's not money \ _lost \ _ , it 's money \ _saved \ _.Downloading \ _saves \ _ the economy   120 Billion.The money that does n't get spent on media does n't magically disappear .
It 's spent on other things instead .
Jobs are n't lost , in fact , I 'd wager the money saved creates more jobs in the local economy than money to the media industry which to a large extent does n't go towards labour intensive activity , and in many cases simply goes out of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, by making up unlikely numbers they divert attention from the even more insidious propaganda buried in the claim.It's not money \_lost\_, it's money \_saved\_.Downloading \_saves\_ the economy £120 Billion.The money that doesn't get spent on media doesn't magically disappear.
It's spent on other things instead.
Jobs aren't lost, in fact, I'd wager the money saved creates more jobs in the local economy than money to the media industry which to a large extent doesn't go towards labour intensive activity, and in many cases simply goes out of the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28244889</id>
	<title>The newspaper suicide pact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244375220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great blog post:<br><i>I think I'll remember last week as the moment when I finally knew, with a certainty approaching fatigue, that the newspaper industry - the business and passion that both shaped and warped me over the past 20 years - had chosen ritual suicide. The choice appears grimly reached and irrevocable. <br><a href="http://xark.typepad.com/my\_weblog/2009/06/the-newspaper-suicide-pact.html" title="typepad.com" rel="nofollow">http://xark.typepad.com/my\_weblog/2009/06/the-newspaper-suicide-pact.html</a> [typepad.com]</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great blog post : I think I 'll remember last week as the moment when I finally knew , with a certainty approaching fatigue , that the newspaper industry - the business and passion that both shaped and warped me over the past 20 years - had chosen ritual suicide .
The choice appears grimly reached and irrevocable .
http : //xark.typepad.com/my \ _weblog/2009/06/the-newspaper-suicide-pact.html [ typepad.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great blog post:I think I'll remember last week as the moment when I finally knew, with a certainty approaching fatigue, that the newspaper industry - the business and passion that both shaped and warped me over the past 20 years - had chosen ritual suicide.
The choice appears grimly reached and irrevocable.
http://xark.typepad.com/my\_weblog/2009/06/the-newspaper-suicide-pact.html [typepad.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241717</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1244394420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you can't find anything to disagree with in the facts "abigsmurf" presented, you decide to attack the messenger - guess you just proved everything "abigsmurf" said is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you ca n't find anything to disagree with in the facts " abigsmurf " presented , you decide to attack the messenger - guess you just proved everything " abigsmurf " said is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you can't find anything to disagree with in the facts "abigsmurf" presented, you decide to attack the messenger - guess you just proved everything "abigsmurf" said is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241239</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244389080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>spoken by someone whose job isnt on the line as people take their work for free, I'm sure...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>spoken by someone whose job isnt on the line as people take their work for free , I 'm sure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>spoken by someone whose job isnt on the line as people take their work for free, I'm sure...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239923</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>ILongForDarkness</author>
	<datestamp>1244368020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I for one am like that. I'll download an album from a band because a friend said they were good, but I wouldn't buy it. I'll download a ton of T.V. shows, but I'd just watch them on cable when they were on, or heaven forbid use a VCR to record the shows so I can watch them when I want. How about the porn industry too? How many people download a 4GB movie only to find out they don't like it and download something else? They probably would be much much less likely to buy because they would have to either have the order on their credit card if they got it delivered to their house or face the stigma of going to the adult shop.
<p>
Also, another thought: if everyone was spending 25 pounds, or 125 depending on the version of the story a week on content there would be a lot of legal content floating around too. Wouldn't people quickly start borrowing stuff from someone that already has it rather than buy it themselves? When my friends have the complete set of Star Trek TNG I can borrow it from them not buy a copy myself. So the number of downloaders includes: people that would buy, people that would borrow, people that are trying because a friend recommended but wouldn't buy it to try it etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I for one am like that .
I 'll download an album from a band because a friend said they were good , but I would n't buy it .
I 'll download a ton of T.V .
shows , but I 'd just watch them on cable when they were on , or heaven forbid use a VCR to record the shows so I can watch them when I want .
How about the porn industry too ?
How many people download a 4GB movie only to find out they do n't like it and download something else ?
They probably would be much much less likely to buy because they would have to either have the order on their credit card if they got it delivered to their house or face the stigma of going to the adult shop .
Also , another thought : if everyone was spending 25 pounds , or 125 depending on the version of the story a week on content there would be a lot of legal content floating around too .
Would n't people quickly start borrowing stuff from someone that already has it rather than buy it themselves ?
When my friends have the complete set of Star Trek TNG I can borrow it from them not buy a copy myself .
So the number of downloaders includes : people that would buy , people that would borrow , people that are trying because a friend recommended but would n't buy it to try it etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I for one am like that.
I'll download an album from a band because a friend said they were good, but I wouldn't buy it.
I'll download a ton of T.V.
shows, but I'd just watch them on cable when they were on, or heaven forbid use a VCR to record the shows so I can watch them when I want.
How about the porn industry too?
How many people download a 4GB movie only to find out they don't like it and download something else?
They probably would be much much less likely to buy because they would have to either have the order on their credit card if they got it delivered to their house or face the stigma of going to the adult shop.
Also, another thought: if everyone was spending 25 pounds, or 125 depending on the version of the story a week on content there would be a lot of legal content floating around too.
Wouldn't people quickly start borrowing stuff from someone that already has it rather than buy it themselves?
When my friends have the complete set of Star Trek TNG I can borrow it from them not buy a copy myself.
So the number of downloaders includes: people that would buy, people that would borrow, people that are trying because a friend recommended but wouldn't buy it to try it etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239571</id>
	<title>Nearly 10\% of GDP!</title>
	<author>msgmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244317200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there I was thinking it was the credit crunch that has caused our economic problems, it's obvious now that the real problem are the millions of teenage girls downloading britney spears albums (or who ever is in at the moment).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there I was thinking it was the credit crunch that has caused our economic problems , it 's obvious now that the real problem are the millions of teenage girls downloading britney spears albums ( or who ever is in at the moment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there I was thinking it was the credit crunch that has caused our economic problems, it's obvious now that the real problem are the millions of teenage girls downloading britney spears albums (or who ever is in at the moment).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239951</id>
	<title>Re:Doh!</title>
	<author>sa1lnr</author>
	<datestamp>1244368680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows we Brits have our very own esoteric units of measurement.</p><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture\_central\_standards/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture\_central\_standards/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows we Brits have our very own esoteric units of measurement.http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture \ _central \ _standards/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows we Brits have our very own esoteric units of measurement.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture\_central\_standards/ [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240317</id>
	<title>Re:I, too, am impressed by these figures.</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1244375880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they added up all the bittorrent users on one file in the afternoon, waved some magic fairly dust to extrapolate that to everyone for a year, multiplied the figure by &#194;&pound;25 as the 'average' price per file, and then multipled *that* figure by 10 (from &#194;&pound;12 billion to &#194;&pound;120 billion) in the press release by accident, then quietly changed it when challenged by a BBC reporter. Not that they issued a retraction.</p><p>It's such a useless figure for anything it's laughable. Well, apart from whipping up a moral panic in the government so they pass yet more draconian legislation forcing ISPs to act as some sort of panopticon against their own userbase at their own cost. I'm sure it's pretty good at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they added up all the bittorrent users on one file in the afternoon , waved some magic fairly dust to extrapolate that to everyone for a year , multiplied the figure by     25 as the 'average ' price per file , and then multipled * that * figure by 10 ( from     12 billion to     120 billion ) in the press release by accident , then quietly changed it when challenged by a BBC reporter .
Not that they issued a retraction.It 's such a useless figure for anything it 's laughable .
Well , apart from whipping up a moral panic in the government so they pass yet more draconian legislation forcing ISPs to act as some sort of panopticon against their own userbase at their own cost .
I 'm sure it 's pretty good at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they added up all the bittorrent users on one file in the afternoon, waved some magic fairly dust to extrapolate that to everyone for a year, multiplied the figure by Â£25 as the 'average' price per file, and then multipled *that* figure by 10 (from Â£12 billion to Â£120 billion) in the press release by accident, then quietly changed it when challenged by a BBC reporter.
Not that they issued a retraction.It's such a useless figure for anything it's laughable.
Well, apart from whipping up a moral panic in the government so they pass yet more draconian legislation forcing ISPs to act as some sort of panopticon against their own userbase at their own cost.
I'm sure it's pretty good at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483</id>
	<title>"pounds of material"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Britain, they use "pounds" as a measure of money. That's why "X pounds of material" makes sense in this case.</p><p>They aren't talking about the weight of the material, they are talking about its price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Britain , they use " pounds " as a measure of money .
That 's why " X pounds of material " makes sense in this case.They are n't talking about the weight of the material , they are talking about its price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Britain, they use "pounds" as a measure of money.
That's why "X pounds of material" makes sense in this case.They aren't talking about the weight of the material, they are talking about its price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240607</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1244380620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the issue, you download a 4gb movie and find that you don't like it, so you delete it.<br>They would rather you bought it, thus wasting your money before you realized it's crap. They also don't like the fact that modern communications such as the internet and sms messages allow people to spread the word about a lousy movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the issue , you download a 4gb movie and find that you do n't like it , so you delete it.They would rather you bought it , thus wasting your money before you realized it 's crap .
They also do n't like the fact that modern communications such as the internet and sms messages allow people to spread the word about a lousy movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the issue, you download a 4gb movie and find that you don't like it, so you delete it.They would rather you bought it, thus wasting your money before you realized it's crap.
They also don't like the fact that modern communications such as the internet and sms messages allow people to spread the word about a lousy movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240271</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1244375280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Music is my number one hobby and I download a hell of a lot of it on BitTorrent - but only because I consider &pound;10 to be a perfectly reasonable price for a great album but a total rip-off for a bad one. In reality, because I listen mostly to classic rock and blues music and buy new or secondhand on line, I probably pay an average of &pound;5-&pound;6 for a CD.</p><p>However, with that said, I own somewhere in the region of 1500 music CDs and with that size of collection, if something I download is crap then I delete it once I've listened to it because there's no point hoarding something I won't ever listen to again.</p><p>The point of my argument is that because I listen before I buy and then buy what I've liked, then I never buy a CD I consider to be bad value for money. (For example, if I've paid &pound;4 for a CD with only 4 good tracks on it, then I still think that's good value.) Therefore, I keep buying them and, in actual fact, I won't ever pay for a digital download because as an album (rather than track by track) fan, I believe "pick n mix" music will ultimately kill the type of music I like anyway. (Incidentally, this is the reason why a world class band like AC/DC doesn't release compilation albums and doesn't make their albums available for digital download.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Music is my number one hobby and I download a hell of a lot of it on BitTorrent - but only because I consider   10 to be a perfectly reasonable price for a great album but a total rip-off for a bad one .
In reality , because I listen mostly to classic rock and blues music and buy new or secondhand on line , I probably pay an average of   5-   6 for a CD.However , with that said , I own somewhere in the region of 1500 music CDs and with that size of collection , if something I download is crap then I delete it once I 've listened to it because there 's no point hoarding something I wo n't ever listen to again.The point of my argument is that because I listen before I buy and then buy what I 've liked , then I never buy a CD I consider to be bad value for money .
( For example , if I 've paid   4 for a CD with only 4 good tracks on it , then I still think that 's good value .
) Therefore , I keep buying them and , in actual fact , I wo n't ever pay for a digital download because as an album ( rather than track by track ) fan , I believe " pick n mix " music will ultimately kill the type of music I like anyway .
( Incidentally , this is the reason why a world class band like AC/DC does n't release compilation albums and does n't make their albums available for digital download .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music is my number one hobby and I download a hell of a lot of it on BitTorrent - but only because I consider £10 to be a perfectly reasonable price for a great album but a total rip-off for a bad one.
In reality, because I listen mostly to classic rock and blues music and buy new or secondhand on line, I probably pay an average of £5-£6 for a CD.However, with that said, I own somewhere in the region of 1500 music CDs and with that size of collection, if something I download is crap then I delete it once I've listened to it because there's no point hoarding something I won't ever listen to again.The point of my argument is that because I listen before I buy and then buy what I've liked, then I never buy a CD I consider to be bad value for money.
(For example, if I've paid £4 for a CD with only 4 good tracks on it, then I still think that's good value.
) Therefore, I keep buying them and, in actual fact, I won't ever pay for a digital download because as an album (rather than track by track) fan, I believe "pick n mix" music will ultimately kill the type of music I like anyway.
(Incidentally, this is the reason why a world class band like AC/DC doesn't release compilation albums and doesn't make their albums available for digital download.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501</id>
	<title>Oh, really?</title>
	<author>G-forze</author>
	<datestamp>1244316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big surprise. Everything that has come from this industry has been at best broad guesstimates, at worst intentionally spread lies. Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model without taking the obvious into account is hard!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big surprise .
Everything that has come from this industry has been at best broad guesstimates , at worst intentionally spread lies .
Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model without taking the obvious into account is hard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big surprise.
Everything that has come from this industry has been at best broad guesstimates, at worst intentionally spread lies.
Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model without taking the obvious into account is hard!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683</id>
	<title>Downloading keeping "billions" inside the UK</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1244405760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>More than seven million Britons use illegal downloading sites that keep billions of pounds circulating inside the British economy rather than being sent overseas to US media companies or obscure tax havens, despite almost everything on offer being appalling rubbish no sane person would pay a penny for, according to unnamed researchers copying <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/06/downloading-keeping-billions-inside-the-uk/" title="today.com">a passing number found in a 2004 press release</a> [today.com] from music industry lawyers trying to drum up business.

<p>Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy said the report brought home the impact illegal downloads had on the UK economy as a whole. "If we take as read the music industry's assumption that every download is a lost sale, then billions of pounds are freed up for ordinary people to spend of things of actual economic substance to keep local businesses healthy, rather than chasing phantom pseudo-value from things that have an inherent cost of production of zero. This makes the whole economy more efficient and lets money go where it is actually useful, rather than to Bono's numbered account in the Virgin Islands."

</p><p>The government says it will be hard to change attitudes to free downloading, particularly from the entrenched old media parasites. "Studies consistently show that downloaders buy more music. We have to stop this and get them downloading dodgy rips from BitTorrent, rather than official high-quality versions from iTunes."

</p><p>The report also noted that new, faster broadband services could increase file-sharing, which was already more than half of net traffic in the UK. The ISPs modestly declined credit for their part in helping Britain's financial future, noting that it was their customers, the great British public, who had voted with their browsers to do the hard work of keeping the country afloat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than seven million Britons use illegal downloading sites that keep billions of pounds circulating inside the British economy rather than being sent overseas to US media companies or obscure tax havens , despite almost everything on offer being appalling rubbish no sane person would pay a penny for , according to unnamed researchers copying a passing number found in a 2004 press release [ today.com ] from music industry lawyers trying to drum up business .
Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy said the report brought home the impact illegal downloads had on the UK economy as a whole .
" If we take as read the music industry 's assumption that every download is a lost sale , then billions of pounds are freed up for ordinary people to spend of things of actual economic substance to keep local businesses healthy , rather than chasing phantom pseudo-value from things that have an inherent cost of production of zero .
This makes the whole economy more efficient and lets money go where it is actually useful , rather than to Bono 's numbered account in the Virgin Islands .
" The government says it will be hard to change attitudes to free downloading , particularly from the entrenched old media parasites .
" Studies consistently show that downloaders buy more music .
We have to stop this and get them downloading dodgy rips from BitTorrent , rather than official high-quality versions from iTunes .
" The report also noted that new , faster broadband services could increase file-sharing , which was already more than half of net traffic in the UK .
The ISPs modestly declined credit for their part in helping Britain 's financial future , noting that it was their customers , the great British public , who had voted with their browsers to do the hard work of keeping the country afloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than seven million Britons use illegal downloading sites that keep billions of pounds circulating inside the British economy rather than being sent overseas to US media companies or obscure tax havens, despite almost everything on offer being appalling rubbish no sane person would pay a penny for, according to unnamed researchers copying a passing number found in a 2004 press release [today.com] from music industry lawyers trying to drum up business.
Intellectual Property Minister David Lammy said the report brought home the impact illegal downloads had on the UK economy as a whole.
"If we take as read the music industry's assumption that every download is a lost sale, then billions of pounds are freed up for ordinary people to spend of things of actual economic substance to keep local businesses healthy, rather than chasing phantom pseudo-value from things that have an inherent cost of production of zero.
This makes the whole economy more efficient and lets money go where it is actually useful, rather than to Bono's numbered account in the Virgin Islands.
"

The government says it will be hard to change attitudes to free downloading, particularly from the entrenched old media parasites.
"Studies consistently show that downloaders buy more music.
We have to stop this and get them downloading dodgy rips from BitTorrent, rather than official high-quality versions from iTunes.
"

The report also noted that new, faster broadband services could increase file-sharing, which was already more than half of net traffic in the UK.
The ISPs modestly declined credit for their part in helping Britain's financial future, noting that it was their customers, the great British public, who had voted with their browsers to do the hard work of keeping the country afloat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240351</id>
	<title>Absolutely Nothing Is Lost</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1244376660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed - the TV I've downloaded is material I've already paid for, in that it's produced by the BBC which I pay for via compulsory licence/tax, or it's shown on the channels that I pay for on cable, and I simply decided to download rather than watch on the TV. As an even more explicit example, I discovered yesterday that one of my Rome DVDs that I bought was damaged. I suppose I could take it back, try to argue because I don't have the receipt anymore, then even if they accept it, I have to give the whole package back, wait ages for the replacement, and then hope the new one works. Or I'll just download it, and have it to watch straight away.</p><p>But furthermore, <i>even if every download was a lost sale</i>, whilst it would be a "loss" to them, it still wouldn't be a loss to the economy. No money is lost, the money still exists, and can be spent on other things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed - the TV I 've downloaded is material I 've already paid for , in that it 's produced by the BBC which I pay for via compulsory licence/tax , or it 's shown on the channels that I pay for on cable , and I simply decided to download rather than watch on the TV .
As an even more explicit example , I discovered yesterday that one of my Rome DVDs that I bought was damaged .
I suppose I could take it back , try to argue because I do n't have the receipt anymore , then even if they accept it , I have to give the whole package back , wait ages for the replacement , and then hope the new one works .
Or I 'll just download it , and have it to watch straight away.But furthermore , even if every download was a lost sale , whilst it would be a " loss " to them , it still would n't be a loss to the economy .
No money is lost , the money still exists , and can be spent on other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed - the TV I've downloaded is material I've already paid for, in that it's produced by the BBC which I pay for via compulsory licence/tax, or it's shown on the channels that I pay for on cable, and I simply decided to download rather than watch on the TV.
As an even more explicit example, I discovered yesterday that one of my Rome DVDs that I bought was damaged.
I suppose I could take it back, try to argue because I don't have the receipt anymore, then even if they accept it, I have to give the whole package back, wait ages for the replacement, and then hope the new one works.
Or I'll just download it, and have it to watch straight away.But furthermore, even if every download was a lost sale, whilst it would be a "loss" to them, it still wouldn't be a loss to the economy.
No money is lost, the money still exists, and can be spent on other things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239745</id>
	<title>Re:"pounds of material"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244406960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you don't realise, though, is that a pound coin actually weighs a pound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you do n't realise , though , is that a pound coin actually weighs a pound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you don't realise, though, is that a pound coin actually weighs a pound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240919</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1244385540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe, people who download are naturally people with an interest in music/movies/games and would spend more on these things anyway? Perhaps if they did a comparison between movie lovers who download movies and those who don't it would be a fair study.</p><p>Someone who downloads a lot of movies/games/music is someone with an active interest. You are comparing a randomised sample (general population of buyers) to the spending habbits of a relatively non random, selective population. If the study was carried out in that way, the results are relatively meaningless (or at least the conclusion is)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe , people who download are naturally people with an interest in music/movies/games and would spend more on these things anyway ?
Perhaps if they did a comparison between movie lovers who download movies and those who do n't it would be a fair study.Someone who downloads a lot of movies/games/music is someone with an active interest .
You are comparing a randomised sample ( general population of buyers ) to the spending habbits of a relatively non random , selective population .
If the study was carried out in that way , the results are relatively meaningless ( or at least the conclusion is )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe, people who download are naturally people with an interest in music/movies/games and would spend more on these things anyway?
Perhaps if they did a comparison between movie lovers who download movies and those who don't it would be a fair study.Someone who downloads a lot of movies/games/music is someone with an active interest.
You are comparing a randomised sample (general population of buyers) to the spending habbits of a relatively non random, selective population.
If the study was carried out in that way, the results are relatively meaningless (or at least the conclusion is)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28252261</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1244482440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ever studied ancient history?  We have very limited direct reports of a whole lot of important things.  Moreover, we have strong reason to believe that there's a heck of a lot of misunderstanding and lies in those records.  Given that, you'd think that historians would be suspicious of what was written.
</p><p>
Wrong.  Any event covered by one source is assumed to have gone more or less according to that source.  This assumption can be challenged for individual cases, but it needs to be challenged over and over and over again.
</p><p>
Ever read about the 1.7 million man army Persia invaded Greece with?  That is, very simply, impossible.  However, there's no other number given by anybody who's something of a contemporary, and so it gets repeated over and over.
</p><p>
So, we've got something of the same thing here.  We've got numbers on one side, and a lot of intelligent people saying those numbers are meaningless and wrong and lies on the other.  The result is that the media goes with the numbers, because that's something hard and tangible, even when they're dead wrong.
</p><p>
To get the message out, we'd have to provide our own estimates, and make them as easy to use as industry press releases.  At that point, news media might decide to go with "estimated variously at about X and about Y", instead of "losses of Y".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever studied ancient history ?
We have very limited direct reports of a whole lot of important things .
Moreover , we have strong reason to believe that there 's a heck of a lot of misunderstanding and lies in those records .
Given that , you 'd think that historians would be suspicious of what was written .
Wrong. Any event covered by one source is assumed to have gone more or less according to that source .
This assumption can be challenged for individual cases , but it needs to be challenged over and over and over again .
Ever read about the 1.7 million man army Persia invaded Greece with ?
That is , very simply , impossible .
However , there 's no other number given by anybody who 's something of a contemporary , and so it gets repeated over and over .
So , we 've got something of the same thing here .
We 've got numbers on one side , and a lot of intelligent people saying those numbers are meaningless and wrong and lies on the other .
The result is that the media goes with the numbers , because that 's something hard and tangible , even when they 're dead wrong .
To get the message out , we 'd have to provide our own estimates , and make them as easy to use as industry press releases .
At that point , news media might decide to go with " estimated variously at about X and about Y " , instead of " losses of Y " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ever studied ancient history?
We have very limited direct reports of a whole lot of important things.
Moreover, we have strong reason to believe that there's a heck of a lot of misunderstanding and lies in those records.
Given that, you'd think that historians would be suspicious of what was written.
Wrong.  Any event covered by one source is assumed to have gone more or less according to that source.
This assumption can be challenged for individual cases, but it needs to be challenged over and over and over again.
Ever read about the 1.7 million man army Persia invaded Greece with?
That is, very simply, impossible.
However, there's no other number given by anybody who's something of a contemporary, and so it gets repeated over and over.
So, we've got something of the same thing here.
We've got numbers on one side, and a lot of intelligent people saying those numbers are meaningless and wrong and lies on the other.
The result is that the media goes with the numbers, because that's something hard and tangible, even when they're dead wrong.
To get the message out, we'd have to provide our own estimates, and make them as easy to use as industry press releases.
At that point, news media might decide to go with "estimated variously at about X and about Y", instead of "losses of Y".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28255647</id>
	<title>Re:Downloading keeping "billions" inside the UK</title>
	<author>theanorak</author>
	<datestamp>1244452560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you write for the Daily Mash (www.dailymash.co.uk)?</p><p>You should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you write for the Daily Mash ( www.dailymash.co.uk ) ? You should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you write for the Daily Mash (www.dailymash.co.uk)?You should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240325</id>
	<title>mod parent down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244376060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lern 2 inglish -  I could barely understand that.</p><p>If I can block Idle I should surely be able to block badly written posts.</p><p>But then we don't even have unicode here..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lern 2 inglish - I could barely understand that.If I can block Idle I should surely be able to block badly written posts.But then we do n't even have unicode here. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lern 2 inglish -  I could barely understand that.If I can block Idle I should surely be able to block badly written posts.But then we don't even have unicode here..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239491</id>
	<title>For god's sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the scumbags like RIAA gives lies a bad name.  Lies keep marriage in tact, family together, friendship, gov't, you name it.  Along comes RIAA and ruins lie's good name.  Shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the scumbags like RIAA gives lies a bad name .
Lies keep marriage in tact , family together , friendship , gov't , you name it .
Along comes RIAA and ruins lie 's good name .
Shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the scumbags like RIAA gives lies a bad name.
Lies keep marriage in tact, family together, friendship, gov't, you name it.
Along comes RIAA and ruins lie's good name.
Shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240583</id>
	<title>Re:Doh!</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1244380440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely it should be measured in British Libraries or National Libraries of Scotland etc rather than Libraries of Congress?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely it should be measured in British Libraries or National Libraries of Scotland etc rather than Libraries of Congress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely it should be measured in British Libraries or National Libraries of Scotland etc rather than Libraries of Congress?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239613</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>FailedTheTuringTest</author>
	<datestamp>1244318100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comments to TFA (I guess I'm not a real<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./er either) include links to a properly rigorous academic study (and some news articles) that shows that downloaders spend more money, not less: for every CD downloaded, they buy 0.4 additional CDs.  The study's authors also "find evidence that purchases of other forms of entertainment such as cinema and concert tickets, and video games tend to increase with music purchases."</p><p><a href="http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html" title="ic.gc.ca">http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html</a> [ic.gc.ca]<br><a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6418.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6418.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]<br><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comments to TFA ( I guess I 'm not a real ./er either ) include links to a properly rigorous academic study ( and some news articles ) that shows that downloaders spend more money , not less : for every CD downloaded , they buy 0.4 additional CDs .
The study 's authors also " find evidence that purchases of other forms of entertainment such as cinema and concert tickets , and video games tend to increase with music purchases .
" http : //www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html [ ic.gc.ca ] http : //arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6418.ars [ arstechnica.com ] http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comments to TFA (I guess I'm not a real ./er either) include links to a properly rigorous academic study (and some news articles) that shows that downloaders spend more money, not less: for every CD downloaded, they buy 0.4 additional CDs.
The study's authors also "find evidence that purchases of other forms of entertainment such as cinema and concert tickets, and video games tend to increase with music purchases.
"http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html [ic.gc.ca]http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6418.ars [arstechnica.com]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240613</id>
	<title>Re:Compare with $100 bill, just paper</title>
	<author>Missing\_dc</author>
	<datestamp>1244380620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what childhood issue caused this rant?</p><p>You get caught stealing, publicly embarassed and then privately beaten?</p><p>repress much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what childhood issue caused this rant ? You get caught stealing , publicly embarassed and then privately beaten ? repress much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what childhood issue caused this rant?You get caught stealing, publicly embarassed and then privately beaten?repress much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240903</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244385360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model..</p></div><p>The movie Dark knight cost about 185 million to make and took in a total revenue of over 1billion. Thats more than five times the original investment. Iron Man cost 140 million and made over 500 million. Transformers cost 151 million and made over 700 million. The list goes on. <br> <br>
That does not look like a demise of an industry to me. That looks like bloody good business. You can find similar statistics for music, however its somewhat harder to do. For example black eyed peas "Monkey Business" sold about 300k copies in its first week alone.
<br> <br>
I think obsolete does not mean what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model..The movie Dark knight cost about 185 million to make and took in a total revenue of over 1billion .
Thats more than five times the original investment .
Iron Man cost 140 million and made over 500 million .
Transformers cost 151 million and made over 700 million .
The list goes on .
That does not look like a demise of an industry to me .
That looks like bloody good business .
You can find similar statistics for music , however its somewhat harder to do .
For example black eyed peas " Monkey Business " sold about 300k copies in its first week alone .
I think obsolete does not mean what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to explain the demise of an obsolete business model..The movie Dark knight cost about 185 million to make and took in a total revenue of over 1billion.
Thats more than five times the original investment.
Iron Man cost 140 million and made over 500 million.
Transformers cost 151 million and made over 700 million.
The list goes on.
That does not look like a demise of an industry to me.
That looks like bloody good business.
You can find similar statistics for music, however its somewhat harder to do.
For example black eyed peas "Monkey Business" sold about 300k copies in its first week alone.
I think obsolete does not mean what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240063</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>vectorious</author>
	<datestamp>1244370900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at his website version of the article, he actually provides a link which reports a study showing this very fact - so I can hardly accuse him of hypocracy, for this at least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at his website version of the article , he actually provides a link which reports a study showing this very fact - so I can hardly accuse him of hypocracy , for this at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at his website version of the article, he actually provides a link which reports a study showing this very fact - so I can hardly accuse him of hypocracy, for this at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239935</id>
	<title>a couple orders of magnitude is nothing . . .</title>
	<author>Alan R Light</author>
	<datestamp>1244368200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the first number was off by a factor of ten, not counting the silly estimate of 25 Pounds when even 2.5 Pounds was doubtless too much - meaning that the original number was off by at least a factor of one hundred.</p><p>Still nothing compared to what government and government-related groups can come up with to scare people.  Anyone remember how we were all told in the '80s that 1.5 million children were kidnapped each year in the United States, when the real relevant figure (kidnappings by strangers) was closer to 150?  That was off by a factor of 10,000.</p><p>And how about those Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?  We're going to find them any day now.</p><p>Yes, what this proves to us once again is that as bad and unethical as industry can be, they still can't compete with government and the do-gooders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the first number was off by a factor of ten , not counting the silly estimate of 25 Pounds when even 2.5 Pounds was doubtless too much - meaning that the original number was off by at least a factor of one hundred.Still nothing compared to what government and government-related groups can come up with to scare people .
Anyone remember how we were all told in the '80s that 1.5 million children were kidnapped each year in the United States , when the real relevant figure ( kidnappings by strangers ) was closer to 150 ?
That was off by a factor of 10,000.And how about those Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq ?
We 're going to find them any day now.Yes , what this proves to us once again is that as bad and unethical as industry can be , they still ca n't compete with government and the do-gooders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the first number was off by a factor of ten, not counting the silly estimate of 25 Pounds when even 2.5 Pounds was doubtless too much - meaning that the original number was off by at least a factor of one hundred.Still nothing compared to what government and government-related groups can come up with to scare people.
Anyone remember how we were all told in the '80s that 1.5 million children were kidnapped each year in the United States, when the real relevant figure (kidnappings by strangers) was closer to 150?
That was off by a factor of 10,000.And how about those Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?
We're going to find them any day now.Yes, what this proves to us once again is that as bad and unethical as industry can be, they still can't compete with government and the do-gooders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</id>
	<title>Lost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read TFA in the paper (yeah, i'll hand my geek card in on the way out...) and it struck me that the most important thing that he doesn't mention is that there's no evidence that anyone downloading a pirate copy of anything would actually <em>buy</em> it if they couldn't download it for free. Therefore nothing is actually <em>lost</em>.</p><p>My guess is that 99\% of the stuff "illegally" downloaded would never actually be bought if it wasn't there to download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read TFA in the paper ( yeah , i 'll hand my geek card in on the way out... ) and it struck me that the most important thing that he does n't mention is that there 's no evidence that anyone downloading a pirate copy of anything would actually buy it if they could n't download it for free .
Therefore nothing is actually lost.My guess is that 99 \ % of the stuff " illegally " downloaded would never actually be bought if it was n't there to download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read TFA in the paper (yeah, i'll hand my geek card in on the way out...) and it struck me that the most important thing that he doesn't mention is that there's no evidence that anyone downloading a pirate copy of anything would actually buy it if they couldn't download it for free.
Therefore nothing is actually lost.My guess is that 99\% of the stuff "illegally" downloaded would never actually be bought if it wasn't there to download.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241673</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1244393940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My guess is that 99\% of the stuff "illegally" downloaded would never actually be bought if it wasn't there to download.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I was gonna say you can't buy Coronation Street, but they list it on Amazon.com for 50 cents an episode.  I doubt they have all the episodes from '61 when it started, since The Beeb used to recycle tapes (which is why you just can't find early Dr Who episodes that easily), but you can still watch it if you're that strung out on it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that 99 \ % of the stuff " illegally " downloaded would never actually be bought if it was n't there to download .
I was gon na say you ca n't buy Coronation Street , but they list it on Amazon.com for 50 cents an episode .
I doubt they have all the episodes from '61 when it started , since The Beeb used to recycle tapes ( which is why you just ca n't find early Dr Who episodes that easily ) , but you can still watch it if you 're that strung out on it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that 99\% of the stuff "illegally" downloaded would never actually be bought if it wasn't there to download.
I was gonna say you can't buy Coronation Street, but they list it on Amazon.com for 50 cents an episode.
I doubt they have all the episodes from '61 when it started, since The Beeb used to recycle tapes (which is why you just can't find early Dr Who episodes that easily), but you can still watch it if you're that strung out on it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239559</id>
	<title>Re:"pounds of material"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244317020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was the word "worth" between "pounds" and "of". Next time you want to quote something use copy-paste to get it correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was the word " worth " between " pounds " and " of " .
Next time you want to quote something use copy-paste to get it correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was the word "worth" between "pounds" and "of".
Next time you want to quote something use copy-paste to get it correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240291</id>
	<title>Broken Window Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244375520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly - this is basically the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable\_of\_the\_broken\_window" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">parable of the broken window</a> [wikipedia.org]. Also see: <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/06/downloading-keeping-billions-inside-the-uk/" title="today.com" rel="nofollow">http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/06/downloading-keeping-billions-inside-the-uk/</a> [today.com] .</p><p>Of course, I'm not surprised that the RIAA twist the truth, but to hear <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8073068.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Government advisers</a> [bbc.co.uk] falling for the fallacy? Either they are ignorant of basic economics, or they are intentionally being deceitful on economic matters. Either way, it's no wonder the economy is going down the tubes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly - this is basically the parable of the broken window [ wikipedia.org ] .
Also see : http : //notnews.today.com/2009/06/06/downloading-keeping-billions-inside-the-uk/ [ today.com ] .Of course , I 'm not surprised that the RIAA twist the truth , but to hear Government advisers [ bbc.co.uk ] falling for the fallacy ?
Either they are ignorant of basic economics , or they are intentionally being deceitful on economic matters .
Either way , it 's no wonder the economy is going down the tubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly - this is basically the parable of the broken window [wikipedia.org].
Also see: http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/06/downloading-keeping-billions-inside-the-uk/ [today.com] .Of course, I'm not surprised that the RIAA twist the truth, but to hear Government advisers [bbc.co.uk] falling for the fallacy?
Either they are ignorant of basic economics, or they are intentionally being deceitful on economic matters.
Either way, it's no wonder the economy is going down the tubes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239521</id>
	<title>Noobs</title>
	<author>slummy</author>
	<datestamp>1244316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An advisory board formed in just <a href="http://www.sabip.org.uk/home/aboutus.htm" title="sabip.org.uk">2008</a> [sabip.org.uk] is still wet behind the ears.  The UK is relying on a revolving door advisory panel.  It's a shite state of affairs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An advisory board formed in just 2008 [ sabip.org.uk ] is still wet behind the ears .
The UK is relying on a revolving door advisory panel .
It 's a shite state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An advisory board formed in just 2008 [sabip.org.uk] is still wet behind the ears.
The UK is relying on a revolving door advisory panel.
It's a shite state of affairs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239873</id>
	<title>slashdot will take care of it ;)</title>
	<author>karl3</author>
	<datestamp>1244366760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the page has comments after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the page has comments after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the page has comments after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241321</id>
	<title>Lies, Damned Lies, and the UK Copyright Industry?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244390040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was expecting to see Apple advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was expecting to see Apple advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was expecting to see Apple advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239813</id>
	<title>Re:Downloading keeping "billions" inside the UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244408220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! Rationalize much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Rationalize much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Rationalize much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240009</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?  Already been sold, again and again.</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1244369940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, much of what I download I bough many years ago on vinyl, then again on tape (sometimes twice on tape for a favorite) and even again on CDROM.  I mean how many times am I supposed to pay for Abbey Road, Dark Side of the Moon, Ziggy, etc.?
The fact is I still have the CD's but its easier to download the good rips that others do correctly, instead of my poorly tagged and labeled rendition.  I know my favorite artists get my $$ so we need to eliminate the middle men.  RIAA and the payola music network can go pimp someone else.  Its time to take these clowns down, and its up to the artist to do it.  Artist well know that they never see a dime of all of that money they've extorted from soccer moms, and if anything it costs them sales overall.  Eat the rich.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , much of what I download I bough many years ago on vinyl , then again on tape ( sometimes twice on tape for a favorite ) and even again on CDROM .
I mean how many times am I supposed to pay for Abbey Road , Dark Side of the Moon , Ziggy , etc. ?
The fact is I still have the CD 's but its easier to download the good rips that others do correctly , instead of my poorly tagged and labeled rendition .
I know my favorite artists get my $ $ so we need to eliminate the middle men .
RIAA and the payola music network can go pimp someone else .
Its time to take these clowns down , and its up to the artist to do it .
Artist well know that they never see a dime of all of that money they 've extorted from soccer moms , and if anything it costs them sales overall .
Eat the rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, much of what I download I bough many years ago on vinyl, then again on tape (sometimes twice on tape for a favorite) and even again on CDROM.
I mean how many times am I supposed to pay for Abbey Road, Dark Side of the Moon, Ziggy, etc.?
The fact is I still have the CD's but its easier to download the good rips that others do correctly, instead of my poorly tagged and labeled rendition.
I know my favorite artists get my $$ so we need to eliminate the middle men.
RIAA and the payola music network can go pimp someone else.
Its time to take these clowns down, and its up to the artist to do it.
Artist well know that they never see a dime of all of that money they've extorted from soccer moms, and if anything it costs them sales overall.
Eat the rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28245763</id>
	<title>Re:Full story</title>
	<author>Blankw</author>
	<datestamp>1244382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd hope it was for "space reasons", because since when has the media been unbiased and genuinely informative in every aspect?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hope it was for " space reasons " , because since when has the media been unbiased and genuinely informative in every aspect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hope it was for "space reasons", because since when has the media been unbiased and genuinely informative in every aspect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239783</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>msormune</author>
	<datestamp>1244407740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that's correct. Which means in "corporate speak" there would be a \%1 increase in sales if there aren't downloads available. Which is why the companies want downloading to stop. Even the \%1 is a pretty hefty sum of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 's correct .
Which means in " corporate speak " there would be a \ % 1 increase in sales if there are n't downloads available .
Which is why the companies want downloading to stop .
Even the \ % 1 is a pretty hefty sum of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that's correct.
Which means in "corporate speak" there would be a \%1 increase in sales if there aren't downloads available.
Which is why the companies want downloading to stop.
Even the \%1 is a pretty hefty sum of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239797</id>
	<title>Re:Doh!</title>
	<author>Faylone</author>
	<datestamp>1244407980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, do Brits use Libraries of Parliament?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , do Brits use Libraries of Parliament ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, do Brits use Libraries of Parliament?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239619</id>
	<title>More on Goldacre's blog</title>
	<author>oldelpaso</author>
	<datestamp>1244318220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/#more-1163" title="badscience.net" rel="nofollow">version of TFA on Goldacre's blog</a> [badscience.net] is slightly longer (the Guardian version must have been subedited for dead tree format), and contains links to the sources of the material he's talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The version of TFA on Goldacre 's blog [ badscience.net ] is slightly longer ( the Guardian version must have been subedited for dead tree format ) , and contains links to the sources of the material he 's talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The version of TFA on Goldacre's blog [badscience.net] is slightly longer (the Guardian version must have been subedited for dead tree format), and contains links to the sources of the material he's talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240429</id>
	<title>It hurts to see your trade being abused.</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244377980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly offtopic, I admit it, but please read it regardless.</p><p>"Lies, damn lies and statistics". "Don't trust statistics you didn't forge yourself". "70\% of statistics are made up, 80\% of all people know that".</p><p>And so on.</p><p>There's a reason for those jokes, and it's shoddy statistics. Often, it's not even malice, it's simple inaptness. Ok, far too often it's also malice. Numbers are just too impressive, and they have authority. People believe them. They are regarded as "hard facts". They are not "a lot", they're not "a few", they are a million, a billion, and so on.</p><p>Funny about it is, though, that people believe those statistics. Not much differently than they believe the fuzzy "a few" and "a lot" statements. Because they're unable to test them. Even if it is as easy to throw the "numbers" out the window as in this example. 25 pounds "damage" per infringment. Nuts? 25 pounds ain't even what a current blockbuster costs when you buy it on DVD (legally, ok? Not talking about those flying Chinese traders where you know you're buying a bootleg copy). But did anyone care to check?</p><p>Probably no. It was numbers. It was hard facts. Hey, they wouldn't dare to release information like this if they didn't fact check, do they?</p><p>Heh. It was printed in the SUN. Dunno about you, but I've made up my mind about the fact checking abilities of their reporters...</p><p>Anyway. It does hurt to see my original trade being abused that way. I'm a statistician, at least according to my degree. I was, and still am, fascinated with the ability to aggregate a whole lot of samples into a simple, understandable statement. Statistics can serve a valuable purpose if, and only if, they are used sensibly and earnestly. And NOT "creatively".</p><p>So here's a little guide how to use statistics and how to gauge their credibility:</p><p>If you don't get to see the sample or don't get any information about how the sample was gathered, throw it to the dump. I can easily "prove" that every single listener to music buys it and that no copying is going on if I pick my sample "right". It's easy to "prove" every computer gamer is a potential addict if I only look at people playing 10+ hours a day. If you don't get told what's the source of the data and what data they worked with, chances are good that the whole deal is rigged.</p><p>If it's a "voluntary", "opt-in" sample, throw it out. All those statistics based on online questionaires where people can sign up and go to to fill out forms if they're "interested enough" are worthless. You'll get samples filled out by people who have a strong opinion about the subject already. When there is an online questionaire regarding "too much internet use", what kind of answers do you expect to get? Worse, what kind of people do you think will participate at all? It's a rigged sample from the start.</p><p>If you don't get to see the sample size, throw it out. The sample size gives you a fairly good idea how much of an error you may expect. 1/N^2 is a good rule of thumb (with N being the sample size) for the statistical error. That doesn't mean that a small sample automatically leads to a huge error margin, 200 samples may be already good enough if they are picked well, and if they're not "hand picked" (see above).</p><p>If you don't get to see a mean, a median and a standard deviation, throw it out. It's easy to prove that everyone's doing quite fine on average, even in this economy, because on average everyone has enough money to live well. The mean says so (the "average"). Without standard deviation, you won't get to see that the average is nothing but an artificial number that has no reflection in reality. It's not that everyone has the average, there's some who have a TON more and many that have a LOT less. The median would easily tell you so (that's the "middle number" of the sample). Comparing mean ("average") and median ("middle") tells you a lot about whether your sample was homogenous or whether you have a few VERY different bits in the sample (which should have been cut from the stati</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly offtopic , I admit it , but please read it regardless .
" Lies , damn lies and statistics " .
" Do n't trust statistics you did n't forge yourself " .
" 70 \ % of statistics are made up , 80 \ % of all people know that " .And so on.There 's a reason for those jokes , and it 's shoddy statistics .
Often , it 's not even malice , it 's simple inaptness .
Ok , far too often it 's also malice .
Numbers are just too impressive , and they have authority .
People believe them .
They are regarded as " hard facts " .
They are not " a lot " , they 're not " a few " , they are a million , a billion , and so on.Funny about it is , though , that people believe those statistics .
Not much differently than they believe the fuzzy " a few " and " a lot " statements .
Because they 're unable to test them .
Even if it is as easy to throw the " numbers " out the window as in this example .
25 pounds " damage " per infringment .
Nuts ? 25 pounds ai n't even what a current blockbuster costs when you buy it on DVD ( legally , ok ?
Not talking about those flying Chinese traders where you know you 're buying a bootleg copy ) .
But did anyone care to check ? Probably no .
It was numbers .
It was hard facts .
Hey , they would n't dare to release information like this if they did n't fact check , do they ? Heh .
It was printed in the SUN .
Dunno about you , but I 've made up my mind about the fact checking abilities of their reporters...Anyway .
It does hurt to see my original trade being abused that way .
I 'm a statistician , at least according to my degree .
I was , and still am , fascinated with the ability to aggregate a whole lot of samples into a simple , understandable statement .
Statistics can serve a valuable purpose if , and only if , they are used sensibly and earnestly .
And NOT " creatively " .So here 's a little guide how to use statistics and how to gauge their credibility : If you do n't get to see the sample or do n't get any information about how the sample was gathered , throw it to the dump .
I can easily " prove " that every single listener to music buys it and that no copying is going on if I pick my sample " right " .
It 's easy to " prove " every computer gamer is a potential addict if I only look at people playing 10 + hours a day .
If you do n't get told what 's the source of the data and what data they worked with , chances are good that the whole deal is rigged.If it 's a " voluntary " , " opt-in " sample , throw it out .
All those statistics based on online questionaires where people can sign up and go to to fill out forms if they 're " interested enough " are worthless .
You 'll get samples filled out by people who have a strong opinion about the subject already .
When there is an online questionaire regarding " too much internet use " , what kind of answers do you expect to get ?
Worse , what kind of people do you think will participate at all ?
It 's a rigged sample from the start.If you do n't get to see the sample size , throw it out .
The sample size gives you a fairly good idea how much of an error you may expect .
1/N ^ 2 is a good rule of thumb ( with N being the sample size ) for the statistical error .
That does n't mean that a small sample automatically leads to a huge error margin , 200 samples may be already good enough if they are picked well , and if they 're not " hand picked " ( see above ) .If you do n't get to see a mean , a median and a standard deviation , throw it out .
It 's easy to prove that everyone 's doing quite fine on average , even in this economy , because on average everyone has enough money to live well .
The mean says so ( the " average " ) .
Without standard deviation , you wo n't get to see that the average is nothing but an artificial number that has no reflection in reality .
It 's not that everyone has the average , there 's some who have a TON more and many that have a LOT less .
The median would easily tell you so ( that 's the " middle number " of the sample ) .
Comparing mean ( " average " ) and median ( " middle " ) tells you a lot about whether your sample was homogenous or whether you have a few VERY different bits in the sample ( which should have been cut from the stati</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly offtopic, I admit it, but please read it regardless.
"Lies, damn lies and statistics".
"Don't trust statistics you didn't forge yourself".
"70\% of statistics are made up, 80\% of all people know that".And so on.There's a reason for those jokes, and it's shoddy statistics.
Often, it's not even malice, it's simple inaptness.
Ok, far too often it's also malice.
Numbers are just too impressive, and they have authority.
People believe them.
They are regarded as "hard facts".
They are not "a lot", they're not "a few", they are a million, a billion, and so on.Funny about it is, though, that people believe those statistics.
Not much differently than they believe the fuzzy "a few" and "a lot" statements.
Because they're unable to test them.
Even if it is as easy to throw the "numbers" out the window as in this example.
25 pounds "damage" per infringment.
Nuts? 25 pounds ain't even what a current blockbuster costs when you buy it on DVD (legally, ok?
Not talking about those flying Chinese traders where you know you're buying a bootleg copy).
But did anyone care to check?Probably no.
It was numbers.
It was hard facts.
Hey, they wouldn't dare to release information like this if they didn't fact check, do they?Heh.
It was printed in the SUN.
Dunno about you, but I've made up my mind about the fact checking abilities of their reporters...Anyway.
It does hurt to see my original trade being abused that way.
I'm a statistician, at least according to my degree.
I was, and still am, fascinated with the ability to aggregate a whole lot of samples into a simple, understandable statement.
Statistics can serve a valuable purpose if, and only if, they are used sensibly and earnestly.
And NOT "creatively".So here's a little guide how to use statistics and how to gauge their credibility:If you don't get to see the sample or don't get any information about how the sample was gathered, throw it to the dump.
I can easily "prove" that every single listener to music buys it and that no copying is going on if I pick my sample "right".
It's easy to "prove" every computer gamer is a potential addict if I only look at people playing 10+ hours a day.
If you don't get told what's the source of the data and what data they worked with, chances are good that the whole deal is rigged.If it's a "voluntary", "opt-in" sample, throw it out.
All those statistics based on online questionaires where people can sign up and go to to fill out forms if they're "interested enough" are worthless.
You'll get samples filled out by people who have a strong opinion about the subject already.
When there is an online questionaire regarding "too much internet use", what kind of answers do you expect to get?
Worse, what kind of people do you think will participate at all?
It's a rigged sample from the start.If you don't get to see the sample size, throw it out.
The sample size gives you a fairly good idea how much of an error you may expect.
1/N^2 is a good rule of thumb (with N being the sample size) for the statistical error.
That doesn't mean that a small sample automatically leads to a huge error margin, 200 samples may be already good enough if they are picked well, and if they're not "hand picked" (see above).If you don't get to see a mean, a median and a standard deviation, throw it out.
It's easy to prove that everyone's doing quite fine on average, even in this economy, because on average everyone has enough money to live well.
The mean says so (the "average").
Without standard deviation, you won't get to see that the average is nothing but an artificial number that has no reflection in reality.
It's not that everyone has the average, there's some who have a TON more and many that have a LOT less.
The median would easily tell you so (that's the "middle number" of the sample).
Comparing mean ("average") and median ("middle") tells you a lot about whether your sample was homogenous or whether you have a few VERY different bits in the sample (which should have been cut from the stati</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239563</id>
	<title>Compare with $100 bill, just paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244317080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$100 bill is just paper. It costs maybe a few cents to make.  I suppose you would steal those too (counterfit) if you thought you wouldn't get caught.  Damn, just don't fucking steal.  Is that too hard for you to understand?  I'd kick your ass if I was in front of you, asswipe! and then shove all the DVDs I could find down your throat, after first cutting them in half, because knowing you, you'd try and shit them so you could copy them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 100 bill is just paper .
It costs maybe a few cents to make .
I suppose you would steal those too ( counterfit ) if you thought you would n't get caught .
Damn , just do n't fucking steal .
Is that too hard for you to understand ?
I 'd kick your ass if I was in front of you , asswipe !
and then shove all the DVDs I could find down your throat , after first cutting them in half , because knowing you , you 'd try and shit them so you could copy them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$100 bill is just paper.
It costs maybe a few cents to make.
I suppose you would steal those too (counterfit) if you thought you wouldn't get caught.
Damn, just don't fucking steal.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
I'd kick your ass if I was in front of you, asswipe!
and then shove all the DVDs I could find down your throat, after first cutting them in half, because knowing you, you'd try and shit them so you could copy them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239763</id>
	<title>Can we stop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244407320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we stop using the whole "lies, damn lies, and blah" quote every time there's an article about lying?</p><p>It was cute the first time or two, and yes, I know the origin, but it's not even a remotely funny or relatable quote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we stop using the whole " lies , damn lies , and blah " quote every time there 's an article about lying ? It was cute the first time or two , and yes , I know the origin , but it 's not even a remotely funny or relatable quote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we stop using the whole "lies, damn lies, and blah" quote every time there's an article about lying?It was cute the first time or two, and yes, I know the origin, but it's not even a remotely funny or relatable quote.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28278535</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1244644020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never downloaded a film or TV show in my life (takes too long, and I'd have to watch it by myself on a tiny screen) but I do check them out from the library.  If I couldn't get them at the library, there are many shows and films I'd never have watched at all.</p><p>On a somewhat related note, I'm kind of curious as to why the *AA doesn't see lending out a DVD or CD isn't the same as obtaining a copy from someone online.  Whether it's a library or a friend dropping it off at someone's house, it's basically the same process, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never downloaded a film or TV show in my life ( takes too long , and I 'd have to watch it by myself on a tiny screen ) but I do check them out from the library .
If I could n't get them at the library , there are many shows and films I 'd never have watched at all.On a somewhat related note , I 'm kind of curious as to why the * AA does n't see lending out a DVD or CD is n't the same as obtaining a copy from someone online .
Whether it 's a library or a friend dropping it off at someone 's house , it 's basically the same process , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never downloaded a film or TV show in my life (takes too long, and I'd have to watch it by myself on a tiny screen) but I do check them out from the library.
If I couldn't get them at the library, there are many shows and films I'd never have watched at all.On a somewhat related note, I'm kind of curious as to why the *AA doesn't see lending out a DVD or CD isn't the same as obtaining a copy from someone online.
Whether it's a library or a friend dropping it off at someone's house, it's basically the same process, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240509</id>
	<title>Anti-factual opinion alert!</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1244379120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although I agree with his point, Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music." I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever pay?</p></div><p>Let's see what you're saying.</p><p>You're saying that a particular <em>factual</em> claim, "downloaders buy more", is made up.</p><p>Your <em>argument</em> is "I disagree", and a theoretical explanation of why.</p><p>Your position would have been much more well-argued (and thus credible) if you had provided <em>factual</em> observations, i.e. evidence, to back up your theoretical assertion.</p><p>A sibling poster has linked to evidence for Goldacre's position.  Read it and make up your own mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I agree with his point , Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts , like this one " ...for example , people who download more also buy more music .
" I would have to disagree , after all if I can get the music for free , why would anyone ever pay ? Let 's see what you 're saying.You 're saying that a particular factual claim , " downloaders buy more " , is made up.Your argument is " I disagree " , and a theoretical explanation of why.Your position would have been much more well-argued ( and thus credible ) if you had provided factual observations , i.e .
evidence , to back up your theoretical assertion.A sibling poster has linked to evidence for Goldacre 's position .
Read it and make up your own mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I agree with his point, Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music.
" I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever pay?Let's see what you're saying.You're saying that a particular factual claim, "downloaders buy more", is made up.Your argument is "I disagree", and a theoretical explanation of why.Your position would have been much more well-argued (and thus credible) if you had provided factual observations, i.e.
evidence, to back up your theoretical assertion.A sibling poster has linked to evidence for Goldacre's position.
Read it and make up your own mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240877</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1244384940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a horrible approach to economics and simply isn't true.</p><p>Imagine you've a city of 100,000 or so where 90\% of people earn their money working at a massive copper or supplying that copper mine. Imagine demand for copper falls by half and they have to cut production (and jobs) by half to remain profitable.</p><p>In terms of GDP copper mining may be something like 0.1\% and it wouldn't seem like that would have a huge effect if it went down to 0.05\% of GDP.</p><p>In that town though, there are now 45,000 out of work, people who've only ever known mining or who the mine was their main customer. There isn't any other industry to support these people, they're untrained in other areas and they can't afford to move as their house values have plummeted.</p><p>Poverty increases, Crime increases, kids start performing worse at school and the town, without massive external investment, would very quickly become either a ghost town or a slum. The cost to the economy becomes huge either way.</p><p>For a stable economy, you not only need the money to be spent, you need to money to be spent in the right areas so you can maintain the various local economies. Look what's happened when people have gone "lets cut back on how much we spend on cars". Sudden, drastic shifts in buying behaviour can have massive consequences, even if people are seemingly spending the same amount of money and it's often not possible for businesses to react fast enough to head these changes off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a horrible approach to economics and simply is n't true.Imagine you 've a city of 100,000 or so where 90 \ % of people earn their money working at a massive copper or supplying that copper mine .
Imagine demand for copper falls by half and they have to cut production ( and jobs ) by half to remain profitable.In terms of GDP copper mining may be something like 0.1 \ % and it would n't seem like that would have a huge effect if it went down to 0.05 \ % of GDP.In that town though , there are now 45,000 out of work , people who 've only ever known mining or who the mine was their main customer .
There is n't any other industry to support these people , they 're untrained in other areas and they ca n't afford to move as their house values have plummeted.Poverty increases , Crime increases , kids start performing worse at school and the town , without massive external investment , would very quickly become either a ghost town or a slum .
The cost to the economy becomes huge either way.For a stable economy , you not only need the money to be spent , you need to money to be spent in the right areas so you can maintain the various local economies .
Look what 's happened when people have gone " lets cut back on how much we spend on cars " .
Sudden , drastic shifts in buying behaviour can have massive consequences , even if people are seemingly spending the same amount of money and it 's often not possible for businesses to react fast enough to head these changes off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a horrible approach to economics and simply isn't true.Imagine you've a city of 100,000 or so where 90\% of people earn their money working at a massive copper or supplying that copper mine.
Imagine demand for copper falls by half and they have to cut production (and jobs) by half to remain profitable.In terms of GDP copper mining may be something like 0.1\% and it wouldn't seem like that would have a huge effect if it went down to 0.05\% of GDP.In that town though, there are now 45,000 out of work, people who've only ever known mining or who the mine was their main customer.
There isn't any other industry to support these people, they're untrained in other areas and they can't afford to move as their house values have plummeted.Poverty increases, Crime increases, kids start performing worse at school and the town, without massive external investment, would very quickly become either a ghost town or a slum.
The cost to the economy becomes huge either way.For a stable economy, you not only need the money to be spent, you need to money to be spent in the right areas so you can maintain the various local economies.
Look what's happened when people have gone "lets cut back on how much we spend on cars".
Sudden, drastic shifts in buying behaviour can have massive consequences, even if people are seemingly spending the same amount of money and it's often not possible for businesses to react fast enough to head these changes off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239753</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1244407020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>do you even know what a hypocrite is???</htmltext>
<tokenext>do you even know what a hypocrite is ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do you even know what a hypocrite is??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239651</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1244405220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but since there's no way of knowing how much was actually illegal material in the first place, we have no way of knowing how to weight that remaining 1\%.  Since there are non-zero legal downloads (no matter how few), the real figure must be strictly less than this by an unquantifiable amount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but since there 's no way of knowing how much was actually illegal material in the first place , we have no way of knowing how to weight that remaining 1 \ % .
Since there are non-zero legal downloads ( no matter how few ) , the real figure must be strictly less than this by an unquantifiable amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but since there's no way of knowing how much was actually illegal material in the first place, we have no way of knowing how to weight that remaining 1\%.
Since there are non-zero legal downloads (no matter how few), the real figure must be strictly less than this by an unquantifiable amount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240017</id>
	<title>Re:For god's sake</title>
	<author>Ezrymyrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244370120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the beat goes on. So be Sonny &amp; Cher with your friends. This news makes me feel Wanted dead or Alive, I say its time to Turn The Page  on this bull And Whip It, Whip It in to shape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the beat goes on .
So be Sonny &amp; Cher with your friends .
This news makes me feel Wanted dead or Alive , I say its time to Turn The Page on this bull And Whip It , Whip It in to shape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the beat goes on.
So be Sonny &amp; Cher with your friends.
This news makes me feel Wanted dead or Alive, I say its time to Turn The Page  on this bull And Whip It, Whip It in to shape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239557</id>
	<title>I think someone does not understand economics.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>People don't spend less money because they get something that they would have payed for for free, they just spend it on something else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't spend less money because they get something that they would have payed for for free , they just spend it on something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't spend less money because they get something that they would have payed for for free, they just spend it on something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28244991</id>
	<title>Re:a couple orders of magnitude is nothing . . .</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1244375880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, the first number was off by a factor of ten, not counting the silly estimate of 25 Pounds when even 2.5 Pounds was doubtless too much</p></div><p>In the UK top music tracks from Tesco, et al., are 80p-&#194;&pound;1 IIRC?</p><p>PPV movies (Sky, Virgin, etc.) are &#194;&pound;2-&#194;&pound;4 according to Which? consumer magazine.</p><p>So there's probably at least another factor of 10 right there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the first number was off by a factor of ten , not counting the silly estimate of 25 Pounds when even 2.5 Pounds was doubtless too muchIn the UK top music tracks from Tesco , et al. , are 80p-     1 IIRC ? PPV movies ( Sky , Virgin , etc .
) are     2-     4 according to Which ?
consumer magazine.So there 's probably at least another factor of 10 right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the first number was off by a factor of ten, not counting the silly estimate of 25 Pounds when even 2.5 Pounds was doubtless too muchIn the UK top music tracks from Tesco, et al., are 80p-Â£1 IIRC?PPV movies (Sky, Virgin, etc.
) are Â£2-Â£4 according to Which?
consumer magazine.So there's probably at least another factor of 10 right there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241591</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1244392860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.7 million people downloading Coronation Street?  Why bother?  I'm not much for Brit soaps.  I downloaded a couple once to get my ratio up on <a href="http://thebox.bz/main.php" title="thebox.bz">The Box</a> [thebox.bz], but nobody hooked into me when I seeded them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1.7 million people downloading Coronation Street ?
Why bother ?
I 'm not much for Brit soaps .
I downloaded a couple once to get my ratio up on The Box [ thebox.bz ] , but nobody hooked into me when I seeded them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.7 million people downloading Coronation Street?
Why bother?
I'm not much for Brit soaps.
I downloaded a couple once to get my ratio up on The Box [thebox.bz], but nobody hooked into me when I seeded them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28265847</id>
	<title>Re:a couple orders of magnitude is nothing . . .</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244563140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you just want an example to list, but its diffucult to tell which people actually believe the WMD scare was a government-brewed hoax. Multiple countries believed Saddam had them, Saddam was known to have them in the past, and he acted every bit like he still had them. Based on the evidence the government hoax idea has the support of any other conspiracy theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you just want an example to list , but its diffucult to tell which people actually believe the WMD scare was a government-brewed hoax .
Multiple countries believed Saddam had them , Saddam was known to have them in the past , and he acted every bit like he still had them .
Based on the evidence the government hoax idea has the support of any other conspiracy theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you just want an example to list, but its diffucult to tell which people actually believe the WMD scare was a government-brewed hoax.
Multiple countries believed Saddam had them, Saddam was known to have them in the past, and he acted every bit like he still had them.
Based on the evidence the government hoax idea has the support of any other conspiracy theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241501</id>
	<title>The copyright industry is not the problem</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1244391780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike the topic title, TFA does not call out the UK Copyright Industry, it calls out shoddy research and shoddy journalism. </p><p>Repeatedly here on slashdot we call out on whatever copyright industry. Apparently it's insightful and/or informative to point out what everyone pretty much assumed before they finished reading the title - the figures are <i>obviously</i> total nonsense. Like it's any kind of surprise that the lobby of such an industry have their own motives. The real problem is the journalists and politicians recite this drivel as if they believe it to be fact, and the only plausable explanations for doing so are: <br>
- not doing any diligence at all and taking whatever "facts" anyone gives them at face value. <br>
- having not only no basic knowledge of economics, statistics or piracy, but frankly no common sense whatsoever.  <br>
- dishonesty and/or nor caring in their truth.</p><p>In journalism, I think many do not care aslong as it makes a few sales or pleases advertisers. Some seem content to mildy question the figures, but nonetheless imply agreement to their principle argument. The Guardian is one of few that seem surprised and reluctant when they are asked to eat this shit.</p><p>For politicians, given the current farce over their expenses claims in the UK, but in particular their inability to grasp what they have done wrong or how they have failed us,  I assume all of the above. Sadly, the Labour party are in the process of imploding, which may weaken the public's ability to express their fury and disgust at the next general election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike the topic title , TFA does not call out the UK Copyright Industry , it calls out shoddy research and shoddy journalism .
Repeatedly here on slashdot we call out on whatever copyright industry .
Apparently it 's insightful and/or informative to point out what everyone pretty much assumed before they finished reading the title - the figures are obviously total nonsense .
Like it 's any kind of surprise that the lobby of such an industry have their own motives .
The real problem is the journalists and politicians recite this drivel as if they believe it to be fact , and the only plausable explanations for doing so are : - not doing any diligence at all and taking whatever " facts " anyone gives them at face value .
- having not only no basic knowledge of economics , statistics or piracy , but frankly no common sense whatsoever .
- dishonesty and/or nor caring in their truth.In journalism , I think many do not care aslong as it makes a few sales or pleases advertisers .
Some seem content to mildy question the figures , but nonetheless imply agreement to their principle argument .
The Guardian is one of few that seem surprised and reluctant when they are asked to eat this shit.For politicians , given the current farce over their expenses claims in the UK , but in particular their inability to grasp what they have done wrong or how they have failed us , I assume all of the above .
Sadly , the Labour party are in the process of imploding , which may weaken the public 's ability to express their fury and disgust at the next general election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike the topic title, TFA does not call out the UK Copyright Industry, it calls out shoddy research and shoddy journalism.
Repeatedly here on slashdot we call out on whatever copyright industry.
Apparently it's insightful and/or informative to point out what everyone pretty much assumed before they finished reading the title - the figures are obviously total nonsense.
Like it's any kind of surprise that the lobby of such an industry have their own motives.
The real problem is the journalists and politicians recite this drivel as if they believe it to be fact, and the only plausable explanations for doing so are: 
- not doing any diligence at all and taking whatever "facts" anyone gives them at face value.
- having not only no basic knowledge of economics, statistics or piracy, but frankly no common sense whatsoever.
- dishonesty and/or nor caring in their truth.In journalism, I think many do not care aslong as it makes a few sales or pleases advertisers.
Some seem content to mildy question the figures, but nonetheless imply agreement to their principle argument.
The Guardian is one of few that seem surprised and reluctant when they are asked to eat this shit.For politicians, given the current farce over their expenses claims in the UK, but in particular their inability to grasp what they have done wrong or how they have failed us,  I assume all of the above.
Sadly, the Labour party are in the process of imploding, which may weaken the public's ability to express their fury and disgust at the next general election.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239631</id>
	<title>I, too, am impressed by these figures.</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1244404980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they added up all the bittorent users, multiplied the figure by 25, and assumed that was the total cost to the economy.</p><p>I'm sure the Blender team would LOVE to receive 25 pounds ($40) for every download of each and every one of their movies. Ms. Boyle would doubtless be substantially richer if she were given the same for every person who had ever downloaded (or watched on YouTube) a clip of her singing. More members of Ubuntu might be able to play space tourist if each and every file (whether it be a CD, DVD or just a patch) resulted in a $40 donation. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails would be over the moon if each individual song they've released for free got them that in checks received via fan mail.</p><p>I'm not saying that all the legit material added together make a substantial chunk of the corrected figure, but rather that the researchers never bothered to consider the fact that the material is not of equal value and that some items have a value of zero. They assumed everything was illegal and everything had identical worth.</p><p>That goes beyond Bad Science. How many of you, in elementary/primary school, got taught algebra by being given shopping lists? Pretty much everyone? Good. It would be a pointless exercise if apples and oranges had the same price ($40 each), so we can assume your class used different prices for different object, right? Right. So. Hands up who can tell me what you could do then that these researchers didn't do now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they added up all the bittorent users , multiplied the figure by 25 , and assumed that was the total cost to the economy.I 'm sure the Blender team would LOVE to receive 25 pounds ( $ 40 ) for every download of each and every one of their movies .
Ms. Boyle would doubtless be substantially richer if she were given the same for every person who had ever downloaded ( or watched on YouTube ) a clip of her singing .
More members of Ubuntu might be able to play space tourist if each and every file ( whether it be a CD , DVD or just a patch ) resulted in a $ 40 donation .
Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails would be over the moon if each individual song they 've released for free got them that in checks received via fan mail.I 'm not saying that all the legit material added together make a substantial chunk of the corrected figure , but rather that the researchers never bothered to consider the fact that the material is not of equal value and that some items have a value of zero .
They assumed everything was illegal and everything had identical worth.That goes beyond Bad Science .
How many of you , in elementary/primary school , got taught algebra by being given shopping lists ?
Pretty much everyone ?
Good. It would be a pointless exercise if apples and oranges had the same price ( $ 40 each ) , so we can assume your class used different prices for different object , right ?
Right. So .
Hands up who can tell me what you could do then that these researchers did n't do now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they added up all the bittorent users, multiplied the figure by 25, and assumed that was the total cost to the economy.I'm sure the Blender team would LOVE to receive 25 pounds ($40) for every download of each and every one of their movies.
Ms. Boyle would doubtless be substantially richer if she were given the same for every person who had ever downloaded (or watched on YouTube) a clip of her singing.
More members of Ubuntu might be able to play space tourist if each and every file (whether it be a CD, DVD or just a patch) resulted in a $40 donation.
Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails would be over the moon if each individual song they've released for free got them that in checks received via fan mail.I'm not saying that all the legit material added together make a substantial chunk of the corrected figure, but rather that the researchers never bothered to consider the fact that the material is not of equal value and that some items have a value of zero.
They assumed everything was illegal and everything had identical worth.That goes beyond Bad Science.
How many of you, in elementary/primary school, got taught algebra by being given shopping lists?
Pretty much everyone?
Good. It would be a pointless exercise if apples and oranges had the same price ($40 each), so we can assume your class used different prices for different object, right?
Right. So.
Hands up who can tell me what you could do then that these researchers didn't do now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239581</id>
	<title>Re:Lost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244317320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My guess is that 99\% of the stuff "illegally" downloaded would never actually be bought if it wasn't there to download.</p></div><p>Small pool among friends shows most of movie downloads are never played as well.<br>- 50\% is never burned to DVD<br>- no time to watch DVDs<br>- when we have time, DVDs do not play anymore (4 years later)</p><p>Maybe time for a pool on Slashdot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that 99 \ % of the stuff " illegally " downloaded would never actually be bought if it was n't there to download.Small pool among friends shows most of movie downloads are never played as well.- 50 \ % is never burned to DVD- no time to watch DVDs- when we have time , DVDs do not play anymore ( 4 years later ) Maybe time for a pool on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that 99\% of the stuff "illegally" downloaded would never actually be bought if it wasn't there to download.Small pool among friends shows most of movie downloads are never played as well.- 50\% is never burned to DVD- no time to watch DVDs- when we have time, DVDs do not play anymore (4 years later)Maybe time for a pool on Slashdot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239989</id>
	<title>The statistic they never give</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244369520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Suppose</b> therre is some truth in the story the RIAA (don't know if there is). I want to know what genres suffer the most from this "they download instead of buying" sindrome.</p><p>If the loss is made on empty pop music songs, then I'd say they weren't worth one eurocent anyway. 15 years ago teenagers bought hypes, not music. Now the hypes are found online. Too bad the music industry doesn't want to follow them online.</p><p>If the loss were in more artistic genres (a band named Metallica comes up in my mind), that could actually be seen as a loss. But I guess the music industry will never give us the real figures on this statistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose therre is some truth in the story the RIAA ( do n't know if there is ) .
I want to know what genres suffer the most from this " they download instead of buying " sindrome.If the loss is made on empty pop music songs , then I 'd say they were n't worth one eurocent anyway .
15 years ago teenagers bought hypes , not music .
Now the hypes are found online .
Too bad the music industry does n't want to follow them online.If the loss were in more artistic genres ( a band named Metallica comes up in my mind ) , that could actually be seen as a loss .
But I guess the music industry will never give us the real figures on this statistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose therre is some truth in the story the RIAA (don't know if there is).
I want to know what genres suffer the most from this "they download instead of buying" sindrome.If the loss is made on empty pop music songs, then I'd say they weren't worth one eurocent anyway.
15 years ago teenagers bought hypes, not music.
Now the hypes are found online.
Too bad the music industry doesn't want to follow them online.If the loss were in more artistic genres (a band named Metallica comes up in my mind), that could actually be seen as a loss.
But I guess the music industry will never give us the real figures on this statistic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28247037</id>
	<title>Re:mod parent down</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1244395020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its lrn 2 engrish or l2e</p><p>noob</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its lrn 2 engrish or l2enoob</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its lrn 2 engrish or l2enoob</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239795</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244407860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Guardian tends to edit his pieces a bit when they put them up. If you look at his blog post on badscience.net containing the original version you'll see that sentence links to another Guardian piece about a study showing that people who download more also buy more music - he's quoting from that rather than making it up...<br>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/ has the original and you'll see it links to http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music</p><p>Poor form of the Guardian to remove that link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Guardian tends to edit his pieces a bit when they put them up .
If you look at his blog post on badscience.net containing the original version you 'll see that sentence links to another Guardian piece about a study showing that people who download more also buy more music - he 's quoting from that rather than making it up...http : //www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/ has the original and you 'll see it links to http : //www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-musicPoor form of the Guardian to remove that link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Guardian tends to edit his pieces a bit when they put them up.
If you look at his blog post on badscience.net containing the original version you'll see that sentence links to another Guardian piece about a study showing that people who download more also buy more music - he's quoting from that rather than making it up...http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/ has the original and you'll see it links to http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-musicPoor form of the Guardian to remove that link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</id>
	<title>Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>Afforess</author>
	<datestamp>1244406240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I agree with his point, Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music." I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever pay?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I agree with his point , Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts , like this one " ...for example , people who download more also buy more music .
" I would have to disagree , after all if I can get the music for free , why would anyone ever pay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I agree with his point, Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music.
" I would have to disagree, after all if I can get the music for free, why would anyone ever pay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239965</id>
	<title>Competition</title>
	<author>namgge</author>
	<datestamp>1244369040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goldacre could have strengthened his analysis even further by considering the decline in entertainment industry revenue due to competition: not from downloads, but from social change. My parent's generation had no money and few options so they spent a lot of their spare time playing cards and reading books from the public library. In my day, a whole culture had developed around vinyl records, and they were the catalyst for most of a young person's social life. These days, young people spend roughly the same proportion of their disposable income (i.e. most of it) on mobile phone contracts as I used to spend on records/tapes. I can think of no reason to imagine that, if 'free' downloads suddenly stopped existing, people would give up their mobile phones and spend the money on CD/DVDs instead.
</p><p>
Namgge
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goldacre could have strengthened his analysis even further by considering the decline in entertainment industry revenue due to competition : not from downloads , but from social change .
My parent 's generation had no money and few options so they spent a lot of their spare time playing cards and reading books from the public library .
In my day , a whole culture had developed around vinyl records , and they were the catalyst for most of a young person 's social life .
These days , young people spend roughly the same proportion of their disposable income ( i.e .
most of it ) on mobile phone contracts as I used to spend on records/tapes .
I can think of no reason to imagine that , if 'free ' downloads suddenly stopped existing , people would give up their mobile phones and spend the money on CD/DVDs instead .
Namgge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goldacre could have strengthened his analysis even further by considering the decline in entertainment industry revenue due to competition: not from downloads, but from social change.
My parent's generation had no money and few options so they spent a lot of their spare time playing cards and reading books from the public library.
In my day, a whole culture had developed around vinyl records, and they were the catalyst for most of a young person's social life.
These days, young people spend roughly the same proportion of their disposable income (i.e.
most of it) on mobile phone contracts as I used to spend on records/tapes.
I can think of no reason to imagine that, if 'free' downloads suddenly stopped existing, people would give up their mobile phones and spend the money on CD/DVDs instead.
Namgge
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241617</id>
	<title>got to love the word games...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244393100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"consumed"? "intellectual property"?</p><p>i have heard about astroturfing, but this must be astrorealitying...</p><p>how can one consume something thats not tangible in the first place? or for that matter, how can it be property?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" consumed " ?
" intellectual property " ? i have heard about astroturfing , but this must be astrorealitying...how can one consume something thats not tangible in the first place ?
or for that matter , how can it be property ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"consumed"?
"intellectual property"?i have heard about astroturfing, but this must be astrorealitying...how can one consume something thats not tangible in the first place?
or for that matter, how can it be property?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239673</id>
	<title>"120 billion pounds of material"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244405640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly how many electrons is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly how many electrons is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly how many electrons is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239809</id>
	<title>Re:Hypocrite alert!</title>
	<author>Bazzargh</author>
	<datestamp>1244408100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music." </em></p><p>No, you're wrong.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p><em>People who illegally share music files online are also big spenders on legal music downloads, research suggests. Digital music research firm The Leading Question found that they spent four and a half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans.</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts , like this one " ...for example , people who download more also buy more music .
" No , you 're wrong.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] People who illegally share music files online are also big spenders on legal music downloads , research suggests .
Digital music research firm The Leading Question found that they spent four and a half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Goldacre also makes up some facts, like this one "...for example, people who download more also buy more music.
" No, you're wrong.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4718249.stm [bbc.co.uk]People who illegally share music files online are also big spenders on legal music downloads, research suggests.
Digital music research firm The Leading Question found that they spent four and a half times more on paid-for music downloads than average fans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242073</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>jthill</author>
	<datestamp>1244396760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's ignore the manipulative changes in that analogy, shall we, and focus on the substantive point.  So we'll skip over how you substituted uneducated laborers for college-educated finance and marketing and legal professionals, and put them in a low-income low-mobility location with no comparable alternative means of support anywhere rather than at the centers of the most vibrant and varied cities on the planet, full of enterprises that need related skills.We'll just pass over those in relatively merciful relative silence, 'kay?  Let's focus on the real situation.
</p><p>Once upon a time, media distribution required dedicated bricks and mortar and real estate and special-purpose precision machinery and manufacturing and transport and untold infrastructure and the management competence to orchestrate them all so enough of everything was in all those physical retail outlets in amounts that roughly matched their popularity.
</p><p>The *AA argument is apparently that all the people who used to be needed to do that should still be paid what their jobs used to be worth for some unspecified length of time after what they do has stopped providing any inherent value at all,  even though everyone on the planet with enough brains to breathe saw this coming long ago.
</p><p>But even that isn't absurd enough for these welfare queens.  They don't just want to be paid for nothing, they want to be paid double and triple and ten times the amount.  It used to be they got money when that product they worked so hard to manufacture  and distribute was bought.  Now they want money every time that product is <em>used</em>, even though their marginal effort for each use is the same as it ever was: zero.
</p><p>From each according to his now- and predictably-worthless means, to each according to his ridiculously- and predictably-inflated needs?  Let them get real jobs. Copper's still really valuable; maybe they could work in the copper mines?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's ignore the manipulative changes in that analogy , shall we , and focus on the substantive point .
So we 'll skip over how you substituted uneducated laborers for college-educated finance and marketing and legal professionals , and put them in a low-income low-mobility location with no comparable alternative means of support anywhere rather than at the centers of the most vibrant and varied cities on the planet , full of enterprises that need related skills.We 'll just pass over those in relatively merciful relative silence , 'kay ?
Let 's focus on the real situation .
Once upon a time , media distribution required dedicated bricks and mortar and real estate and special-purpose precision machinery and manufacturing and transport and untold infrastructure and the management competence to orchestrate them all so enough of everything was in all those physical retail outlets in amounts that roughly matched their popularity .
The * AA argument is apparently that all the people who used to be needed to do that should still be paid what their jobs used to be worth for some unspecified length of time after what they do has stopped providing any inherent value at all , even though everyone on the planet with enough brains to breathe saw this coming long ago .
But even that is n't absurd enough for these welfare queens .
They do n't just want to be paid for nothing , they want to be paid double and triple and ten times the amount .
It used to be they got money when that product they worked so hard to manufacture and distribute was bought .
Now they want money every time that product is used , even though their marginal effort for each use is the same as it ever was : zero .
From each according to his now- and predictably-worthless means , to each according to his ridiculously- and predictably-inflated needs ?
Let them get real jobs .
Copper 's still really valuable ; maybe they could work in the copper mines ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's ignore the manipulative changes in that analogy, shall we, and focus on the substantive point.
So we'll skip over how you substituted uneducated laborers for college-educated finance and marketing and legal professionals, and put them in a low-income low-mobility location with no comparable alternative means of support anywhere rather than at the centers of the most vibrant and varied cities on the planet, full of enterprises that need related skills.We'll just pass over those in relatively merciful relative silence, 'kay?
Let's focus on the real situation.
Once upon a time, media distribution required dedicated bricks and mortar and real estate and special-purpose precision machinery and manufacturing and transport and untold infrastructure and the management competence to orchestrate them all so enough of everything was in all those physical retail outlets in amounts that roughly matched their popularity.
The *AA argument is apparently that all the people who used to be needed to do that should still be paid what their jobs used to be worth for some unspecified length of time after what they do has stopped providing any inherent value at all,  even though everyone on the planet with enough brains to breathe saw this coming long ago.
But even that isn't absurd enough for these welfare queens.
They don't just want to be paid for nothing, they want to be paid double and triple and ten times the amount.
It used to be they got money when that product they worked so hard to manufacture  and distribute was bought.
Now they want money every time that product is used, even though their marginal effort for each use is the same as it ever was: zero.
From each according to his now- and predictably-worthless means, to each according to his ridiculously- and predictably-inflated needs?
Let them get real jobs.
Copper's still really valuable; maybe they could work in the copper mines?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28247087</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1244395500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's a horrible approach to economics and simply isn't true.</p><p>Imagine you've a city of 100,000 or so where 90\% of people earn their money working on a massive copper </p></div><p>If 90\% of the people in the town were working on a copper, wouldn't the bastard go down? I don't care how massive he is. Big chavs would be kicking and punching him, little chavspawn would jump on him and gnaw and <b>burrow</b>. I reckon the guy would be ex filth pretty quickly.</p><p>I saw the Staines massive attack a copper. They're much less than 90\% of the town and most of them are under 16 and they're so weeded up they can't run. Didn't take long.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a horrible approach to economics and simply is n't true.Imagine you 've a city of 100,000 or so where 90 \ % of people earn their money working on a massive copper If 90 \ % of the people in the town were working on a copper , would n't the bastard go down ?
I do n't care how massive he is .
Big chavs would be kicking and punching him , little chavspawn would jump on him and gnaw and burrow .
I reckon the guy would be ex filth pretty quickly.I saw the Staines massive attack a copper .
They 're much less than 90 \ % of the town and most of them are under 16 and they 're so weeded up they ca n't run .
Did n't take long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a horrible approach to economics and simply isn't true.Imagine you've a city of 100,000 or so where 90\% of people earn their money working on a massive copper If 90\% of the people in the town were working on a copper, wouldn't the bastard go down?
I don't care how massive he is.
Big chavs would be kicking and punching him, little chavspawn would jump on him and gnaw and burrow.
I reckon the guy would be ex filth pretty quickly.I saw the Staines massive attack a copper.
They're much less than 90\% of the town and most of them are under 16 and they're so weeded up they can't run.
Didn't take long.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28243753</id>
	<title>Re:Broken Window Fallacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244366520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think not.</p><p>In the "parable of the broken window" the window is a useful thing with a purpose.</p><p>In the "parable of the downloaded CD" the CD is a useless bit of plastic media, holding a series of bits which can be more efficiently obtained elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think not.In the " parable of the broken window " the window is a useful thing with a purpose.In the " parable of the downloaded CD " the CD is a useless bit of plastic media , holding a series of bits which can be more efficiently obtained elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think not.In the "parable of the broken window" the window is a useful thing with a purpose.In the "parable of the downloaded CD" the CD is a useless bit of plastic media, holding a series of bits which can be more efficiently obtained elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242087</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, really?</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1244396760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't pretend to be able to guide the whole of media into a better model, but i will (arroganty) claim I've thought about it enough to have some alternatives for the music part of that industry. First, pricing, especially on older content, needs to come down a lot more than they are willing to accept. Just the fact that we got to a date where most people who were going to replace older media with CDs had already done it, should have caused a price drop. Just the fact that when CDs first came in, the industry promised that prices would come down to where tape and vinyl were, should have caused a price drop (and redoing the standard contracts, as CDs soon stopped counting as an experimental medium). Competition from just legal online downloading should have caused a third price drop. That's all before we even debate if it is ethical to expect them to drop prices to offset free downloading or not. The pressure for those first three price drops exists whether there is a single illegal torrent or not. One reason I agree that the flaws are obvious is that there is nothing the industry can do that is actually aimed at 'pirates' (and not screwing their legitimate consumers and then raping them as taxpayers) which will do anything at all to address those first three problems.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So when you say we "can certainly criticize some of the current pricing", that's a bit like calling Tyson's ear biting 'unsportsmanlike' - true but a vast understatement. There are very good arguments for much larger price decreases than the industry is willing to even consider, and I, for one, suspect they haven't even looked at projected total profits for prices down in that range in at least the last twenty years or so, and don't actually know whether it would be a possible business model or not. Notice that if there's a legitimate lower price point that would preserve at least a fair margin of profit, it probably would decrease piracy as well - most pirate have some costs, if only for blank CDs or higher bandwidth caps on service, so it becomes a matter of how much is your time worth, etc. and for at least some pirates, that would translate to it being cheaper to buy some things.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There's probably much more reason now to decrease prices on digital downloads than on CDs, and I suspect there's people here who can make a better argument for it than I would. I'll just say that keeping CD prices high doesn't justify the high price of direct digital to most consumers, and lowering CDs wouldn't make any sense from that perspective either, so the industry is in a damned if they do, damned if the don't gridlock unless per track prices also come down on legal downloading.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; However, there's irrationality involved now - the industry may be crazy enough to spend far more trying to stop piracy than it is worth, trying to rub out every last remaining case, and the pirates may be slow to do what's in their own best interests, having come to literally hate and despise the industry.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now film is a somewhat different issue. Cheap sale DVDs of films that either did poorly at the box office or are just a tad older movies are much more common than the audio side of big media. There's probably a bit more honesty in advertising them too, as when a film comes on TV and there's a statement about how it has been modified from the original release. Those seem to be more straightforward than anything the RIAA members use. I could mention old examples of irrational behavior (the financial miss-handling of the original Planet of the Apes series, for one), but let's see if someone who knows the movie industry better will address this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't pretend to be able to guide the whole of media into a better model , but i will ( arroganty ) claim I 've thought about it enough to have some alternatives for the music part of that industry .
First , pricing , especially on older content , needs to come down a lot more than they are willing to accept .
Just the fact that we got to a date where most people who were going to replace older media with CDs had already done it , should have caused a price drop .
Just the fact that when CDs first came in , the industry promised that prices would come down to where tape and vinyl were , should have caused a price drop ( and redoing the standard contracts , as CDs soon stopped counting as an experimental medium ) .
Competition from just legal online downloading should have caused a third price drop .
That 's all before we even debate if it is ethical to expect them to drop prices to offset free downloading or not .
The pressure for those first three price drops exists whether there is a single illegal torrent or not .
One reason I agree that the flaws are obvious is that there is nothing the industry can do that is actually aimed at 'pirates ' ( and not screwing their legitimate consumers and then raping them as taxpayers ) which will do anything at all to address those first three problems .
        So when you say we " can certainly criticize some of the current pricing " , that 's a bit like calling Tyson 's ear biting 'unsportsmanlike ' - true but a vast understatement .
There are very good arguments for much larger price decreases than the industry is willing to even consider , and I , for one , suspect they have n't even looked at projected total profits for prices down in that range in at least the last twenty years or so , and do n't actually know whether it would be a possible business model or not .
Notice that if there 's a legitimate lower price point that would preserve at least a fair margin of profit , it probably would decrease piracy as well - most pirate have some costs , if only for blank CDs or higher bandwidth caps on service , so it becomes a matter of how much is your time worth , etc .
and for at least some pirates , that would translate to it being cheaper to buy some things .
        There 's probably much more reason now to decrease prices on digital downloads than on CDs , and I suspect there 's people here who can make a better argument for it than I would .
I 'll just say that keeping CD prices high does n't justify the high price of direct digital to most consumers , and lowering CDs would n't make any sense from that perspective either , so the industry is in a damned if they do , damned if the do n't gridlock unless per track prices also come down on legal downloading .
        However , there 's irrationality involved now - the industry may be crazy enough to spend far more trying to stop piracy than it is worth , trying to rub out every last remaining case , and the pirates may be slow to do what 's in their own best interests , having come to literally hate and despise the industry .
      Now film is a somewhat different issue .
Cheap sale DVDs of films that either did poorly at the box office or are just a tad older movies are much more common than the audio side of big media .
There 's probably a bit more honesty in advertising them too , as when a film comes on TV and there 's a statement about how it has been modified from the original release .
Those seem to be more straightforward than anything the RIAA members use .
I could mention old examples of irrational behavior ( the financial miss-handling of the original Planet of the Apes series , for one ) , but let 's see if someone who knows the movie industry better will address this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't pretend to be able to guide the whole of media into a better model, but i will (arroganty) claim I've thought about it enough to have some alternatives for the music part of that industry.
First, pricing, especially on older content, needs to come down a lot more than they are willing to accept.
Just the fact that we got to a date where most people who were going to replace older media with CDs had already done it, should have caused a price drop.
Just the fact that when CDs first came in, the industry promised that prices would come down to where tape and vinyl were, should have caused a price drop (and redoing the standard contracts, as CDs soon stopped counting as an experimental medium).
Competition from just legal online downloading should have caused a third price drop.
That's all before we even debate if it is ethical to expect them to drop prices to offset free downloading or not.
The pressure for those first three price drops exists whether there is a single illegal torrent or not.
One reason I agree that the flaws are obvious is that there is nothing the industry can do that is actually aimed at 'pirates' (and not screwing their legitimate consumers and then raping them as taxpayers) which will do anything at all to address those first three problems.
        So when you say we "can certainly criticize some of the current pricing", that's a bit like calling Tyson's ear biting 'unsportsmanlike' - true but a vast understatement.
There are very good arguments for much larger price decreases than the industry is willing to even consider, and I, for one, suspect they haven't even looked at projected total profits for prices down in that range in at least the last twenty years or so, and don't actually know whether it would be a possible business model or not.
Notice that if there's a legitimate lower price point that would preserve at least a fair margin of profit, it probably would decrease piracy as well - most pirate have some costs, if only for blank CDs or higher bandwidth caps on service, so it becomes a matter of how much is your time worth, etc.
and for at least some pirates, that would translate to it being cheaper to buy some things.
        There's probably much more reason now to decrease prices on digital downloads than on CDs, and I suspect there's people here who can make a better argument for it than I would.
I'll just say that keeping CD prices high doesn't justify the high price of direct digital to most consumers, and lowering CDs wouldn't make any sense from that perspective either, so the industry is in a damned if they do, damned if the don't gridlock unless per track prices also come down on legal downloading.
        However, there's irrationality involved now - the industry may be crazy enough to spend far more trying to stop piracy than it is worth, trying to rub out every last remaining case, and the pirates may be slow to do what's in their own best interests, having come to literally hate and despise the industry.
      Now film is a somewhat different issue.
Cheap sale DVDs of films that either did poorly at the box office or are just a tad older movies are much more common than the audio side of big media.
There's probably a bit more honesty in advertising them too, as when a film comes on TV and there's a statement about how it has been modified from the original release.
Those seem to be more straightforward than anything the RIAA members use.
I could mention old examples of irrational behavior (the financial miss-handling of the original Planet of the Apes series, for one), but let's see if someone who knows the movie industry better will address this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239929</id>
	<title>Re:Downloading keeping "billions" inside the UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244368080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the rips off itunes are the dogey ones, what no flac apple?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the rips off itunes are the dogey ones , what no flac apple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the rips off itunes are the dogey ones, what no flac apple?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242931</id>
	<title>Re:Not Industry -- Her Majesty's Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244403060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you RTFA, you'll see that the inflated figure came, exaggerated by a factor of 10 due to a typo, from a government agency.</p></div><p>Except that if you RTFA, you'll see that not one but <b>two</b> figures were inflated, both by the same factor of 10. One type was &pound;120bn instead of &pound;12bn. The other was 4.73bn instead of 473 million. Two separate typos for the exact same magnitude?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you RTFA , you 'll see that the inflated figure came , exaggerated by a factor of 10 due to a typo , from a government agency.Except that if you RTFA , you 'll see that not one but two figures were inflated , both by the same factor of 10 .
One type was   120bn instead of   12bn .
The other was 4.73bn instead of 473 million .
Two separate typos for the exact same magnitude ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you RTFA, you'll see that the inflated figure came, exaggerated by a factor of 10 due to a typo, from a government agency.Except that if you RTFA, you'll see that not one but two figures were inflated, both by the same factor of 10.
One type was £120bn instead of £12bn.
The other was 4.73bn instead of 473 million.
Two separate typos for the exact same magnitude?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242101</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28245763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28247087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28246569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28255647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28252261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28247037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28243755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28265847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28278535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28244627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28244991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_07_0248201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28243753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28247037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28243755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28245763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28278535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28246569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28255647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28265847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28244991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241239
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28244627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240291
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28243753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240877
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28247087
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28252261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28242931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_07_0248201.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28240583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28241509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_07_0248201.28239797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
