<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_2128226</id>
	<title>World Copyright Summit and the Lies of the Copyright Industry</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244804880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has an incredibly in-depth look at two presentations in particular from the recent CISAC world copyright summit.  Rep. Robert Wexler and Senator Orrin Hatch both gave deeply troubling presentations <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090612/0850165209.shtml">calling opponents of stronger copyright "liars"</a> and suggesting that <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1235555213.shtml">copyright is the only way to make money</a> on creative works, respectively.  <i>"Does anyone else find it ironic that it's the so-called 'creative class' which copyright supporters insist are enabled by copyright supposedly have not been able to tell this 'great story?' Perhaps the problem is that there is no great story to tell. Perhaps the problem is that more and more people are recognizing that the 'great story' is one that suppresses the rights of everyday users, stifles innovation, holds back progress and stamps on our rights of free speech and communication? Has it occurred to Wexler that for the past decade, the industry has been telling this story over and over and over again &mdash; and every time they do, more and more people realize that it doesn't add up? "</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has an incredibly in-depth look at two presentations in particular from the recent CISAC world copyright summit .
Rep. Robert Wexler and Senator Orrin Hatch both gave deeply troubling presentations calling opponents of stronger copyright " liars " and suggesting that copyright is the only way to make money on creative works , respectively .
" Does anyone else find it ironic that it 's the so-called 'creative class ' which copyright supporters insist are enabled by copyright supposedly have not been able to tell this 'great story ?
' Perhaps the problem is that there is no great story to tell .
Perhaps the problem is that more and more people are recognizing that the 'great story ' is one that suppresses the rights of everyday users , stifles innovation , holds back progress and stamps on our rights of free speech and communication ?
Has it occurred to Wexler that for the past decade , the industry has been telling this story over and over and over again    and every time they do , more and more people realize that it does n't add up ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has an incredibly in-depth look at two presentations in particular from the recent CISAC world copyright summit.
Rep. Robert Wexler and Senator Orrin Hatch both gave deeply troubling presentations calling opponents of stronger copyright "liars" and suggesting that copyright is the only way to make money on creative works, respectively.
"Does anyone else find it ironic that it's the so-called 'creative class' which copyright supporters insist are enabled by copyright supposedly have not been able to tell this 'great story?
' Perhaps the problem is that there is no great story to tell.
Perhaps the problem is that more and more people are recognizing that the 'great story' is one that suppresses the rights of everyday users, stifles innovation, holds back progress and stamps on our rights of free speech and communication?
Has it occurred to Wexler that for the past decade, the industry has been telling this story over and over and over again — and every time they do, more and more people realize that it doesn't add up?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318187</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1244883720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you might, but in general, those here that think copyright should be strenghened seem to be in a small minority here, those few might just be sock puppets for companies in certain industries.</p><p>The only people I recall that might be construed as saying copyright should be more like regular property laws are those that want IP taxed, I think they mostly wanted that in part so that it encourages IP to be freed more quickly.</p><p>I don't think it's unfair to say that the prevailing opinion here is for copyright reform.  Maybe it was said in a clumsy way such that those with a tendency to argue would argue about it.  But just because there is a variety of opinions here doesn't mean that they are all represented with similar numbers or similar level of interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you might , but in general , those here that think copyright should be strenghened seem to be in a small minority here , those few might just be sock puppets for companies in certain industries.The only people I recall that might be construed as saying copyright should be more like regular property laws are those that want IP taxed , I think they mostly wanted that in part so that it encourages IP to be freed more quickly.I do n't think it 's unfair to say that the prevailing opinion here is for copyright reform .
Maybe it was said in a clumsy way such that those with a tendency to argue would argue about it .
But just because there is a variety of opinions here does n't mean that they are all represented with similar numbers or similar level of interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you might, but in general, those here that think copyright should be strenghened seem to be in a small minority here, those few might just be sock puppets for companies in certain industries.The only people I recall that might be construed as saying copyright should be more like regular property laws are those that want IP taxed, I think they mostly wanted that in part so that it encourages IP to be freed more quickly.I don't think it's unfair to say that the prevailing opinion here is for copyright reform.
Maybe it was said in a clumsy way such that those with a tendency to argue would argue about it.
But just because there is a variety of opinions here doesn't mean that they are all represented with similar numbers or similar level of interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318503</id>
	<title>What you should do.</title>
	<author>sam\_nead</author>
	<datestamp>1244889600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am also an academic (in mathematics).  Aside from the first three or four journal articles I wrote, out of currently about 25, all the rest are in the public domain.  After I explain this to the copy editor, and rewrite their copyright agreement, I usually don't have a problem.  Every once and I while I have to push a bit to get my way.  Only once did a journal refuse to understand (Comm Helv) and they insisted that I either
</p><p>a) give them the copyright
</p><p>b) retain it for myself or
</p><p>c) withdraw the paper.
</p><p>I chose b, with a bit of a sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am also an academic ( in mathematics ) .
Aside from the first three or four journal articles I wrote , out of currently about 25 , all the rest are in the public domain .
After I explain this to the copy editor , and rewrite their copyright agreement , I usually do n't have a problem .
Every once and I while I have to push a bit to get my way .
Only once did a journal refuse to understand ( Comm Helv ) and they insisted that I either a ) give them the copyright b ) retain it for myself or c ) withdraw the paper .
I chose b , with a bit of a sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am also an academic (in mathematics).
Aside from the first three or four journal articles I wrote, out of currently about 25, all the rest are in the public domain.
After I explain this to the copy editor, and rewrite their copyright agreement, I usually don't have a problem.
Every once and I while I have to push a bit to get my way.
Only once did a journal refuse to understand (Comm Helv) and they insisted that I either
a) give them the copyright
b) retain it for myself or
c) withdraw the paper.
I chose b, with a bit of a sigh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317695</id>
	<title>Hatching a story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wexler and Hatch are paid lobbiests for the entertainment industry, most directly Disney.  They sponsor him.  He is paid by them.  He is their man in the bag.  He will lie, cheat and steal for them.  Bob Wexler and Orrin Hatch shill for the **AA's every chance they can.  Big greedy corporations wanting everyone elses ideas and suing people for their ideas is what Hatch and Wexler are pressing for.  I'm disgusted by them.  They disgust me.  They suppress peoples ideas, steal private citizens innovations, and line pockets of large corporations (who give them a cut).  In a way, their greed is reflected from their masters (not voters, but corporations).  In a way, they are being paid twice, except citizens are not getting as big a return as their corporate masters.  I look forward to the day when their greed gets them indited on bribery charges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wexler and Hatch are paid lobbiests for the entertainment industry , most directly Disney .
They sponsor him .
He is paid by them .
He is their man in the bag .
He will lie , cheat and steal for them .
Bob Wexler and Orrin Hatch shill for the * * AA 's every chance they can .
Big greedy corporations wanting everyone elses ideas and suing people for their ideas is what Hatch and Wexler are pressing for .
I 'm disgusted by them .
They disgust me .
They suppress peoples ideas , steal private citizens innovations , and line pockets of large corporations ( who give them a cut ) .
In a way , their greed is reflected from their masters ( not voters , but corporations ) .
In a way , they are being paid twice , except citizens are not getting as big a return as their corporate masters .
I look forward to the day when their greed gets them indited on bribery charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wexler and Hatch are paid lobbiests for the entertainment industry, most directly Disney.
They sponsor him.
He is paid by them.
He is their man in the bag.
He will lie, cheat and steal for them.
Bob Wexler and Orrin Hatch shill for the **AA's every chance they can.
Big greedy corporations wanting everyone elses ideas and suing people for their ideas is what Hatch and Wexler are pressing for.
I'm disgusted by them.
They disgust me.
They suppress peoples ideas, steal private citizens innovations, and line pockets of large corporations (who give them a cut).
In a way, their greed is reflected from their masters (not voters, but corporations).
In a way, they are being paid twice, except citizens are not getting as big a return as their corporate masters.
I look forward to the day when their greed gets them indited on bribery charges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318871</id>
	<title>Re:Explain the reason for copyright expansion</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1244896560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright is all about control.  You only need to look at one little fact to see that that is the only reason for it to exist:</p><p>The fact that Copyright extensions are retro-active.</p><p>I mean, they extend copyright, but it does not only apply to new works (billed as an extra incentive of course), but it also applies to works already made???  Do you mean that those works would not have been created if 50 years in the future there wouldn't have been a retro-active extension?  Of course not, those works were created and they knew full well what they were getting in to -- and now they want more.  They're simply a tax on society, creating wealth out of thin air for older works by doing nothing other than lobbying for a retro-active copyright extension.</p><p>If they really were doing this all to benefit society with more an better creative works, there would no need for these extensions to be retro-active (after all, these works have been produced already).  They could give us a well-thought out argument that by extending copyright so-and-so long would encourage more NEW works to be created.  They haven't though, and that's where you can clearly see the corporate greed shining through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is all about control .
You only need to look at one little fact to see that that is the only reason for it to exist : The fact that Copyright extensions are retro-active.I mean , they extend copyright , but it does not only apply to new works ( billed as an extra incentive of course ) , but it also applies to works already made ? ? ?
Do you mean that those works would not have been created if 50 years in the future there would n't have been a retro-active extension ?
Of course not , those works were created and they knew full well what they were getting in to -- and now they want more .
They 're simply a tax on society , creating wealth out of thin air for older works by doing nothing other than lobbying for a retro-active copyright extension.If they really were doing this all to benefit society with more an better creative works , there would no need for these extensions to be retro-active ( after all , these works have been produced already ) .
They could give us a well-thought out argument that by extending copyright so-and-so long would encourage more NEW works to be created .
They have n't though , and that 's where you can clearly see the corporate greed shining through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is all about control.
You only need to look at one little fact to see that that is the only reason for it to exist:The fact that Copyright extensions are retro-active.I mean, they extend copyright, but it does not only apply to new works (billed as an extra incentive of course), but it also applies to works already made???
Do you mean that those works would not have been created if 50 years in the future there wouldn't have been a retro-active extension?
Of course not, those works were created and they knew full well what they were getting in to -- and now they want more.
They're simply a tax on society, creating wealth out of thin air for older works by doing nothing other than lobbying for a retro-active copyright extension.If they really were doing this all to benefit society with more an better creative works, there would no need for these extensions to be retro-active (after all, these works have been produced already).
They could give us a well-thought out argument that by extending copyright so-and-so long would encourage more NEW works to be created.
They haven't though, and that's where you can clearly see the corporate greed shining through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317385</id>
	<title>Re:Laid out bare</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1244828040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While I don't think anyone's been delusional about it, this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations, or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm always a little disturbed about what passes for proof of this proposition these days. The whole case against them is heaps upon heaps of here-say, conspiracy theories, and opinions borne of ignorance or a lack of perspective when viewing the facts.</p><p>For example, your "proof" here could more easily and sensibly be explained by the government wanting to protect entertainment, due to the fact that the vast majority of their constituents actually <i>like</i> entertainment. Republicans and Democrats are far too smart to jeopardise their position with the people by following something like that.</p><p>That's not to necessarily say your theories aren't true, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't think anyone 's been delusional about it , this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations , or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests.I 'm always a little disturbed about what passes for proof of this proposition these days .
The whole case against them is heaps upon heaps of here-say , conspiracy theories , and opinions borne of ignorance or a lack of perspective when viewing the facts.For example , your " proof " here could more easily and sensibly be explained by the government wanting to protect entertainment , due to the fact that the vast majority of their constituents actually like entertainment .
Republicans and Democrats are far too smart to jeopardise their position with the people by following something like that.That 's not to necessarily say your theories are n't true , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't think anyone's been delusional about it, this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations, or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests.I'm always a little disturbed about what passes for proof of this proposition these days.
The whole case against them is heaps upon heaps of here-say, conspiracy theories, and opinions borne of ignorance or a lack of perspective when viewing the facts.For example, your "proof" here could more easily and sensibly be explained by the government wanting to protect entertainment, due to the fact that the vast majority of their constituents actually like entertainment.
Republicans and Democrats are far too smart to jeopardise their position with the people by following something like that.That's not to necessarily say your theories aren't true, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315907</id>
	<title>Kill all the greedy f'in bastards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244812380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kill all the greedy f'in bastards. Firing squad style. Problem solved. Economy problems...line 'em up. BANG!!! S&amp;L BANG!!!   Housing market crashing...BANG!!! Orrin Hatch and Robert Wexler, BANG, BANG!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kill all the greedy f'in bastards .
Firing squad style .
Problem solved .
Economy problems...line 'em up .
BANG ! ! ! S&amp;L BANG ! ! !
Housing market crashing...BANG ! ! !
Orrin Hatch and Robert Wexler , BANG , BANG !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kill all the greedy f'in bastards.
Firing squad style.
Problem solved.
Economy problems...line 'em up.
BANG!!! S&amp;L BANG!!!
Housing market crashing...BANG!!!
Orrin Hatch and Robert Wexler, BANG, BANG!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28322611</id>
	<title>Re:Wexler and Hatch are tools of Big Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244889360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that's such a bad thing, then have them VOTED OUT! Or quitcherbellyachin'! All you voters are the dummies who fall for the bling. So don't go bitching about the people who offer it up. Congress is corrupt because corruption gets the votes, period! All you people outside of Utah should demand that Hatch be removed from any committees he sits on, since those inside of Utah are going to keep him in office, it's up to the rest of us to remove his authority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's such a bad thing , then have them VOTED OUT !
Or quitcherbellyachin ' !
All you voters are the dummies who fall for the bling .
So do n't go bitching about the people who offer it up .
Congress is corrupt because corruption gets the votes , period !
All you people outside of Utah should demand that Hatch be removed from any committees he sits on , since those inside of Utah are going to keep him in office , it 's up to the rest of us to remove his authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's such a bad thing, then have them VOTED OUT!
Or quitcherbellyachin'!
All you voters are the dummies who fall for the bling.
So don't go bitching about the people who offer it up.
Congress is corrupt because corruption gets the votes, period!
All you people outside of Utah should demand that Hatch be removed from any committees he sits on, since those inside of Utah are going to keep him in office, it's up to the rest of us to remove his authority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28326803</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>stanjam</author>
	<datestamp>1244998140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  Copyright reform is necessary.  However abandoning copyright altogether is incredibly naive and foolish. If we were to abandon copyright completely (at least in today's society with nothing to replace it) we would be stifling creativity and killing progress of all kinds. I know I would NEVER think of releasing any work I wrote without some form of protection to assure that if I wished, I could profit from that endeavor (unless the work was designed to not be profited from). Why would an author work? By the way, we are not talking, as some have stated, about an hour of work one afternoon.  The people who have stated that here are showing incredible ignorance.  Any decent (and in many cases, even bad works) work takes a lot of time and hard work to produce.  One does not simply sit down and bang out a work in an hour one afternoon.  If it were that simple these people would ALL be doing it. Often we are talking about years of work.  For instance, the book I am working on is the result of 19 years of experience with computers, years of research, and years of schooling, which have cost me a lot of money.  Why would I pay tens of thousands of dollars in education only to produce works that anyone could copy and distribute as their own?  The only ones that benefit from an hour of work one afternoon are the copyright violators who are stealing other peoples work.

Copyright reform is necessary.  The current state of affairs is incredibly out of whack. However people also need to get a sense of perspective, and realize that many of the arguments on the other side are as unrealistic and as stupid as some of the arguments put forward by people who want copyright extended in perpetuity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Copyright reform is necessary .
However abandoning copyright altogether is incredibly naive and foolish .
If we were to abandon copyright completely ( at least in today 's society with nothing to replace it ) we would be stifling creativity and killing progress of all kinds .
I know I would NEVER think of releasing any work I wrote without some form of protection to assure that if I wished , I could profit from that endeavor ( unless the work was designed to not be profited from ) .
Why would an author work ?
By the way , we are not talking , as some have stated , about an hour of work one afternoon .
The people who have stated that here are showing incredible ignorance .
Any decent ( and in many cases , even bad works ) work takes a lot of time and hard work to produce .
One does not simply sit down and bang out a work in an hour one afternoon .
If it were that simple these people would ALL be doing it .
Often we are talking about years of work .
For instance , the book I am working on is the result of 19 years of experience with computers , years of research , and years of schooling , which have cost me a lot of money .
Why would I pay tens of thousands of dollars in education only to produce works that anyone could copy and distribute as their own ?
The only ones that benefit from an hour of work one afternoon are the copyright violators who are stealing other peoples work .
Copyright reform is necessary .
The current state of affairs is incredibly out of whack .
However people also need to get a sense of perspective , and realize that many of the arguments on the other side are as unrealistic and as stupid as some of the arguments put forward by people who want copyright extended in perpetuity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Copyright reform is necessary.
However abandoning copyright altogether is incredibly naive and foolish.
If we were to abandon copyright completely (at least in today's society with nothing to replace it) we would be stifling creativity and killing progress of all kinds.
I know I would NEVER think of releasing any work I wrote without some form of protection to assure that if I wished, I could profit from that endeavor (unless the work was designed to not be profited from).
Why would an author work?
By the way, we are not talking, as some have stated, about an hour of work one afternoon.
The people who have stated that here are showing incredible ignorance.
Any decent (and in many cases, even bad works) work takes a lot of time and hard work to produce.
One does not simply sit down and bang out a work in an hour one afternoon.
If it were that simple these people would ALL be doing it.
Often we are talking about years of work.
For instance, the book I am working on is the result of 19 years of experience with computers, years of research, and years of schooling, which have cost me a lot of money.
Why would I pay tens of thousands of dollars in education only to produce works that anyone could copy and distribute as their own?
The only ones that benefit from an hour of work one afternoon are the copyright violators who are stealing other peoples work.
Copyright reform is necessary.
The current state of affairs is incredibly out of whack.
However people also need to get a sense of perspective, and realize that many of the arguments on the other side are as unrealistic and as stupid as some of the arguments put forward by people who want copyright extended in perpetuity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316605</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244818860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember when.  I do remember <a href="http://abolishcopyright.com/" title="abolishcopyright.com" rel="nofollow">where.</a> [abolishcopyright.com]
</p><p>Until the law gets back to where a reasonable person would consider it fair, it will be ignored.  We may have to pass through zero to get there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember when .
I do remember where .
[ abolishcopyright.com ] Until the law gets back to where a reasonable person would consider it fair , it will be ignored .
We may have to pass through zero to get there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember when.
I do remember where.
[abolishcopyright.com]
Until the law gets back to where a reasonable person would consider it fair, it will be ignored.
We may have to pass through zero to get there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316083</id>
	<title>Laid out bare</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1244813940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>that copyright is the only way to make money on creative works</p></div></blockquote><p>While I don't think anyone's been delusional about it, this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations, or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests.  (While that line was said by Hatch, Wexler's part doesn't fare much better.)</p><p>The US Constitution empowers Congress:</p><blockquote><div><p>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.</p></div></blockquote><p>No where in there does it say anything about profit.</p><p>I now view Wexler and Hatch as one of the many bought-and-paid-for politicians; it's unfortunate I have no opportunity to vote against either.   On an interesting aside, Wexler is a Democrat (FL) and Hatch a Republican (UT).  Why neither the summary nor the techdirt article states this is beyond me, as I consider it highly relevant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that copyright is the only way to make money on creative worksWhile I do n't think anyone 's been delusional about it , this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations , or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests .
( While that line was said by Hatch , Wexler 's part does n't fare much better .
) The US Constitution empowers Congress : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.No where in there does it say anything about profit.I now view Wexler and Hatch as one of the many bought-and-paid-for politicians ; it 's unfortunate I have no opportunity to vote against either .
On an interesting aside , Wexler is a Democrat ( FL ) and Hatch a Republican ( UT ) .
Why neither the summary nor the techdirt article states this is beyond me , as I consider it highly relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that copyright is the only way to make money on creative worksWhile I don't think anyone's been delusional about it, this is proof that government officials are in the pocket of corporations, or at least have some ulterior motive for acting in their interests.
(While that line was said by Hatch, Wexler's part doesn't fare much better.
)The US Constitution empowers Congress:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.No where in there does it say anything about profit.I now view Wexler and Hatch as one of the many bought-and-paid-for politicians; it's unfortunate I have no opportunity to vote against either.
On an interesting aside, Wexler is a Democrat (FL) and Hatch a Republican (UT).
Why neither the summary nor the techdirt article states this is beyond me, as I consider it highly relevant.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318721</id>
	<title>Re:Explain the reason for copyright expansion</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1244893620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content. My money is on "they won't stop".</i> <br> <br>In the 18th century the period was 14 years. In the 21st century we can send physical items anywhere on the planet within a day and information within a much shorter period of time. Three hundred years ago this was impossible. It could reasonably take months/years to get a book to a prospective customer. Thus if anything 21st century copyright should be more like 7-10 years than 20.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion would be , let 's limit it to , say , 20 years and see if people stop creating content .
My money is on " they wo n't stop " .
In the 18th century the period was 14 years .
In the 21st century we can send physical items anywhere on the planet within a day and information within a much shorter period of time .
Three hundred years ago this was impossible .
It could reasonably take months/years to get a book to a prospective customer .
Thus if anything 21st century copyright should be more like 7-10 years than 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content.
My money is on "they won't stop".
In the 18th century the period was 14 years.
In the 21st century we can send physical items anywhere on the planet within a day and information within a much shorter period of time.
Three hundred years ago this was impossible.
It could reasonably take months/years to get a book to a prospective customer.
Thus if anything 21st century copyright should be more like 7-10 years than 20.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316149</id>
	<title>The Real Value Of IP</title>
	<author>jusmah2cents</author>
	<datestamp>1244814480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a very good book by two economists: Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine called "Against Intellectual Monopoly" in which they cite example after example of real empirical evidence that dispels the claims of the value of IP.  The claim that IP is necessary to spur innovation, and protect profits to repay all of the research required is not supported by actual evidence.
They put their money where their mouth is in that the book is in the creative commons and can be downloaded as a free pdf at <a href="http://mises.org/books/against.pdf" title="mises.org" rel="nofollow">http://mises.org/books/against.pdf</a> [mises.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a very good book by two economists : Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine called " Against Intellectual Monopoly " in which they cite example after example of real empirical evidence that dispels the claims of the value of IP .
The claim that IP is necessary to spur innovation , and protect profits to repay all of the research required is not supported by actual evidence .
They put their money where their mouth is in that the book is in the creative commons and can be downloaded as a free pdf at http : //mises.org/books/against.pdf [ mises.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a very good book by two economists: Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine called "Against Intellectual Monopoly" in which they cite example after example of real empirical evidence that dispels the claims of the value of IP.
The claim that IP is necessary to spur innovation, and protect profits to repay all of the research required is not supported by actual evidence.
They put their money where their mouth is in that the book is in the creative commons and can be downloaded as a free pdf at http://mises.org/books/against.pdf [mises.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315963</id>
	<title>Hatch... a blight on my land.</title>
	<author>r1v3t3d</author>
	<datestamp>1244812980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without getting into a fierce debate about IP reform and the absurdity of current copyright law, let me just say this:

Hatch is a fucking idiot, always has been. He does not represent me in any way, shape or form. Nor does he represent the majority of people in the state of Utah. Those who do follow this raving moron are probably no more educated than he is.

Seriously, Orrin. You're old. And ignorant. And closed-minded. And petty and small. Shut the fuck up already. Utah hates you-- You just haven't let the truth sink in yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without getting into a fierce debate about IP reform and the absurdity of current copyright law , let me just say this : Hatch is a fucking idiot , always has been .
He does not represent me in any way , shape or form .
Nor does he represent the majority of people in the state of Utah .
Those who do follow this raving moron are probably no more educated than he is .
Seriously , Orrin .
You 're old .
And ignorant .
And closed-minded .
And petty and small .
Shut the fuck up already .
Utah hates you-- You just have n't let the truth sink in yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without getting into a fierce debate about IP reform and the absurdity of current copyright law, let me just say this:

Hatch is a fucking idiot, always has been.
He does not represent me in any way, shape or form.
Nor does he represent the majority of people in the state of Utah.
Those who do follow this raving moron are probably no more educated than he is.
Seriously, Orrin.
You're old.
And ignorant.
And closed-minded.
And petty and small.
Shut the fuck up already.
Utah hates you-- You just haven't let the truth sink in yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317693</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1244832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The GNU Copyright is a very poor example. You see there used to be this thing called public domain, and an honourable man would release back into the public domain works that were mostly based on existing public domain works. It was assumed that the artist was in the best position to know and was an honourable man.
</p><p>
Now that the artists' representatives have effectively abolished public domain, honourable men (and women now they have the vote) everywhere need a replacement, however, improvements in communications have shown that honour is not as widespread as was hoped, so this version of public domain has teeth.
</p><p>
The main result of this is that if copyright has to go it won't be a problem for most works using the GPL, but, it's a rare person who uses only one copyright license for all their work. In the commercial world I'm a little guy and need copyright to protect me from the Microsofts of this world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GNU Copyright is a very poor example .
You see there used to be this thing called public domain , and an honourable man would release back into the public domain works that were mostly based on existing public domain works .
It was assumed that the artist was in the best position to know and was an honourable man .
Now that the artists ' representatives have effectively abolished public domain , honourable men ( and women now they have the vote ) everywhere need a replacement , however , improvements in communications have shown that honour is not as widespread as was hoped , so this version of public domain has teeth .
The main result of this is that if copyright has to go it wo n't be a problem for most works using the GPL , but , it 's a rare person who uses only one copyright license for all their work .
In the commercial world I 'm a little guy and need copyright to protect me from the Microsofts of this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The GNU Copyright is a very poor example.
You see there used to be this thing called public domain, and an honourable man would release back into the public domain works that were mostly based on existing public domain works.
It was assumed that the artist was in the best position to know and was an honourable man.
Now that the artists' representatives have effectively abolished public domain, honourable men (and women now they have the vote) everywhere need a replacement, however, improvements in communications have shown that honour is not as widespread as was hoped, so this version of public domain has teeth.
The main result of this is that if copyright has to go it won't be a problem for most works using the GPL, but, it's a rare person who uses only one copyright license for all their work.
In the commercial world I'm a little guy and need copyright to protect me from the Microsofts of this world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317347</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1244827440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can imagine that you're getting pretty sick of people generalising slashdot into a single opinion, right?</p><p>I can imagine because I'm in a similar predicament. I'm getting sick of people saying the same damn thing every time someone notices one opinion is more popular than another on slashdot, or someone addresses a group of people with said popular opinion.</p><p>Hands up anyone here who believes that, out of all the opinions we actively discuss, there exists one that everyone here shares and nobody opposes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine that you 're getting pretty sick of people generalising slashdot into a single opinion , right ? I can imagine because I 'm in a similar predicament .
I 'm getting sick of people saying the same damn thing every time someone notices one opinion is more popular than another on slashdot , or someone addresses a group of people with said popular opinion.Hands up anyone here who believes that , out of all the opinions we actively discuss , there exists one that everyone here shares and nobody opposes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine that you're getting pretty sick of people generalising slashdot into a single opinion, right?I can imagine because I'm in a similar predicament.
I'm getting sick of people saying the same damn thing every time someone notices one opinion is more popular than another on slashdot, or someone addresses a group of people with said popular opinion.Hands up anyone here who believes that, out of all the opinions we actively discuss, there exists one that everyone here shares and nobody opposes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317701</id>
	<title>Re:Why this is bollocks</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A very interesting point, and one often forgotten. So many more people are abused by copyright like yourself than is realized. Only the connected stand to gain from anything other than minimal, reasonable copyright. Thank you as a creator for noticing this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A very interesting point , and one often forgotten .
So many more people are abused by copyright like yourself than is realized .
Only the connected stand to gain from anything other than minimal , reasonable copyright .
Thank you as a creator for noticing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A very interesting point, and one often forgotten.
So many more people are abused by copyright like yourself than is realized.
Only the connected stand to gain from anything other than minimal, reasonable copyright.
Thank you as a creator for noticing this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316311</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>init100</author>
	<datestamp>1244815920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods.</p></div><p>In politics, you'll always have to negotiate, and when you do, you'll usually not end up with the solution you find optimal, but some middle ground between your solution and your opponent's solution. If you argue for reasonable protection terms, you'll get the middle ground between reasonable and unreasonably long term lengths. Only by aiming to abolish copyright, you can pull the middle ground to where you want it, and thus get a reasonable term length after the negotiations are concluded.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods.In politics , you 'll always have to negotiate , and when you do , you 'll usually not end up with the solution you find optimal , but some middle ground between your solution and your opponent 's solution .
If you argue for reasonable protection terms , you 'll get the middle ground between reasonable and unreasonably long term lengths .
Only by aiming to abolish copyright , you can pull the middle ground to where you want it , and thus get a reasonable term length after the negotiations are concluded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods.In politics, you'll always have to negotiate, and when you do, you'll usually not end up with the solution you find optimal, but some middle ground between your solution and your opponent's solution.
If you argue for reasonable protection terms, you'll get the middle ground between reasonable and unreasonably long term lengths.
Only by aiming to abolish copyright, you can pull the middle ground to where you want it, and thus get a reasonable term length after the negotiations are concluded.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317979</id>
	<title>Re:Explain the reason for copyright expansion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244924100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So care to explain to me why you need the lengths you do? To give people an incentive to create? Don't make me laugh!</i></p><p>You are correct. Insanely long copyright terms does the exact opposite. It encourages people to STOP creating while expecting everyone to continue handing them money until their great grandsons are dead from old age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So care to explain to me why you need the lengths you do ?
To give people an incentive to create ?
Do n't make me laugh ! You are correct .
Insanely long copyright terms does the exact opposite .
It encourages people to STOP creating while expecting everyone to continue handing them money until their great grandsons are dead from old age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So care to explain to me why you need the lengths you do?
To give people an incentive to create?
Don't make me laugh!You are correct.
Insanely long copyright terms does the exact opposite.
It encourages people to STOP creating while expecting everyone to continue handing them money until their great grandsons are dead from old age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317239</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244825880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except that <a href="http://fee.org/articles/tgif/intellectual-property/" title="fee.org" rel="nofollow">copyright actually conflicts with regular property laws</a> [fee.org] by preventing an owner from crafting his own property into certain objects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.Except that copyright actually conflicts with regular property laws [ fee.org ] by preventing an owner from crafting his own property into certain objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.Except that copyright actually conflicts with regular property laws [fee.org] by preventing an owner from crafting his own property into certain objects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316081</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244813940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which category would you say copyright only in copy-for-profit situations fits in?</p><p>If you're copying for profit (eg. things like people selling copied movies/software/etc), it seems fair for the the originator to have their fair share during the limited duration of the copyright.  Basically, not having to worry that by publishing some work you're just letting some other person have all the money people spend on it.</p><p>Copying for freely sharing would be unrestricted since nothing is missed (except the idle speculation about who might be buying what if people couldn't share with each other).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which category would you say copyright only in copy-for-profit situations fits in ? If you 're copying for profit ( eg .
things like people selling copied movies/software/etc ) , it seems fair for the the originator to have their fair share during the limited duration of the copyright .
Basically , not having to worry that by publishing some work you 're just letting some other person have all the money people spend on it.Copying for freely sharing would be unrestricted since nothing is missed ( except the idle speculation about who might be buying what if people could n't share with each other ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which category would you say copyright only in copy-for-profit situations fits in?If you're copying for profit (eg.
things like people selling copied movies/software/etc), it seems fair for the the originator to have their fair share during the limited duration of the copyright.
Basically, not having to worry that by publishing some work you're just letting some other person have all the money people spend on it.Copying for freely sharing would be unrestricted since nothing is missed (except the idle speculation about who might be buying what if people couldn't share with each other).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315831</id>
	<title>Anticopyrighters have no business case either.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright is a proven business case, by the fact that a large number of companies depend on it, and a large amount of consumer dollars go into it, and a large amount of money is spent on developing items covered by it.</p><p>100\% of the business cases proposed by anticopyrighters suffers from the "<b>"Oh, I Am So Sorry You Are Fucked, Have A Nice Day Fallacy"</b>. Specifically, that they are, like the claims of the copyright industry, based on very loose estimates (although even less believable as their model has never been proven as a business case), however, that <b>if events do not pan out as planned, there is no going back</b>.</p><p>Consider: James does something according to method X which causes James pleasure and Peter both pain and pleasure. Peter then demands that James instead do this according to method Y, which Peter claims will cause both himself and James a lot less pain and a lot more pleasure. The only caveat in this is that if James goes along with Peter's proposal to change to plan Y, and Y does not lead to the claimed practical effects, then James is f*cking dead while Peter has lots of pleasure and zero pain.</p><p>Peter in this case expects James to adopt method Y because Peter is an idiot.</p><p>The "comment" in the GP is meaningless idiot-babble, specifically as shown in that changing 3-4 words can make it an argument against any group on earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is a proven business case , by the fact that a large number of companies depend on it , and a large amount of consumer dollars go into it , and a large amount of money is spent on developing items covered by it.100 \ % of the business cases proposed by anticopyrighters suffers from the " " Oh , I Am So Sorry You Are Fucked , Have A Nice Day Fallacy " .
Specifically , that they are , like the claims of the copyright industry , based on very loose estimates ( although even less believable as their model has never been proven as a business case ) , however , that if events do not pan out as planned , there is no going back.Consider : James does something according to method X which causes James pleasure and Peter both pain and pleasure .
Peter then demands that James instead do this according to method Y , which Peter claims will cause both himself and James a lot less pain and a lot more pleasure .
The only caveat in this is that if James goes along with Peter 's proposal to change to plan Y , and Y does not lead to the claimed practical effects , then James is f * cking dead while Peter has lots of pleasure and zero pain.Peter in this case expects James to adopt method Y because Peter is an idiot.The " comment " in the GP is meaningless idiot-babble , specifically as shown in that changing 3-4 words can make it an argument against any group on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is a proven business case, by the fact that a large number of companies depend on it, and a large amount of consumer dollars go into it, and a large amount of money is spent on developing items covered by it.100\% of the business cases proposed by anticopyrighters suffers from the ""Oh, I Am So Sorry You Are Fucked, Have A Nice Day Fallacy".
Specifically, that they are, like the claims of the copyright industry, based on very loose estimates (although even less believable as their model has never been proven as a business case), however, that if events do not pan out as planned, there is no going back.Consider: James does something according to method X which causes James pleasure and Peter both pain and pleasure.
Peter then demands that James instead do this according to method Y, which Peter claims will cause both himself and James a lot less pain and a lot more pleasure.
The only caveat in this is that if James goes along with Peter's proposal to change to plan Y, and Y does not lead to the claimed practical effects, then James is f*cking dead while Peter has lots of pleasure and zero pain.Peter in this case expects James to adopt method Y because Peter is an idiot.The "comment" in the GP is meaningless idiot-babble, specifically as shown in that changing 3-4 words can make it an argument against any group on earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316649</id>
	<title>This is a math problem</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244819340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And apparently a distinguished mathematician has <a href="http://www.rufuspollock.org/2007/07/09/forever-minus-a-day-some-theory-and-empirics-of-optimal-copyright/" title="rufuspollock.org" rel="nofollow">done the math</a> [rufuspollock.org].  Benefits are optimized at about fifteen years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And apparently a distinguished mathematician has done the math [ rufuspollock.org ] .
Benefits are optimized at about fifteen years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And apparently a distinguished mathematician has done the math [rufuspollock.org].
Benefits are optimized at about fifteen years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316633</id>
	<title>Mickey Mouse!</title>
	<author>techhead79</author>
	<datestamp>1244819160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows the problem started with Mickey Mouse. Copyright is what it is today because Disney has thrown enough money at law makers. So you know what I think the solution is? </p><p>I'd like to hear someone that has started their own business on writing software explain how the system would have worked if copyrights were removed from the world? Do you think Linux would be Linux today? Um no. Microsoft would have started spitting out fucked up version of Linux a long time ago breaking any form of a way to control the future of Linux. Without copyright MS has the right to use Linux code and screw it up anyway they want and never release the source code.</p><p>As far as I can tell the problem is people think they need 40k worth of music on their iPod to be happy and content. Disney is worried about losing what their entire Industry was built on the second the market gets flooded with a billion Mickey Mouse cartoons they didn't create...lol. And instead of fighting against the Industry that has destroyed the image of copyright the public masses just decide to remove it. How is this a solution?</p><p>Copyright in software gives a kind of virtual patent on an idea until another company can develop their own..this costs time and money to avoid copyrights. In a world with no copyrights any software designer can write their killer app and start to sell it...any company can then decompile that code slap their logo on it and sell it and market the creator out of existence. Anyone that thinks the software industry is about writing a killer app is kidding themselves. It is about marketing.</p><p>I got a better one for you...lets say an artist creates a new song...pick your pick...any one of them. Lets say you just wrote some killer lyrics that spoke to people...you had a great band and (fuck if I know how artists do their thing) and out comes a one hit wonder. Do you honestly think you'll get credit for it? An artist that has already made it big will just take your song and play in front of millions and then claim they wrote it first and without copyrights...honestly no one will care who wrote it first...but who will make all the money off of it? </p><p>We hate the RIAA and the MPAA so much for how they have treated us, their consumers that we think the only solution is to destroy the system. The same is true for the patent world. Patents today are just a fucking joke...I'd say a major part of that problem is software patents. Why don't we try and fix the system first? Limit the amount of time a copyright is valid per industry. Software say 20 years. Music the life of the artist. Movies 15 years after the first DVD sale or whatever media we use...etc. Make the system make sense not this 70+life of artist crap. Who the fuck gives a shit about the code I write 150 years from now? Why do we assume copyright by default? That's another dumb ass idea. Don't destroy the only system that protects many industries just because you want to have 40k in music on your ipod but don't have 40k to spend on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows the problem started with Mickey Mouse .
Copyright is what it is today because Disney has thrown enough money at law makers .
So you know what I think the solution is ?
I 'd like to hear someone that has started their own business on writing software explain how the system would have worked if copyrights were removed from the world ?
Do you think Linux would be Linux today ?
Um no .
Microsoft would have started spitting out fucked up version of Linux a long time ago breaking any form of a way to control the future of Linux .
Without copyright MS has the right to use Linux code and screw it up anyway they want and never release the source code.As far as I can tell the problem is people think they need 40k worth of music on their iPod to be happy and content .
Disney is worried about losing what their entire Industry was built on the second the market gets flooded with a billion Mickey Mouse cartoons they did n't create...lol .
And instead of fighting against the Industry that has destroyed the image of copyright the public masses just decide to remove it .
How is this a solution ? Copyright in software gives a kind of virtual patent on an idea until another company can develop their own..this costs time and money to avoid copyrights .
In a world with no copyrights any software designer can write their killer app and start to sell it...any company can then decompile that code slap their logo on it and sell it and market the creator out of existence .
Anyone that thinks the software industry is about writing a killer app is kidding themselves .
It is about marketing.I got a better one for you...lets say an artist creates a new song...pick your pick...any one of them .
Lets say you just wrote some killer lyrics that spoke to people...you had a great band and ( fuck if I know how artists do their thing ) and out comes a one hit wonder .
Do you honestly think you 'll get credit for it ?
An artist that has already made it big will just take your song and play in front of millions and then claim they wrote it first and without copyrights...honestly no one will care who wrote it first...but who will make all the money off of it ?
We hate the RIAA and the MPAA so much for how they have treated us , their consumers that we think the only solution is to destroy the system .
The same is true for the patent world .
Patents today are just a fucking joke...I 'd say a major part of that problem is software patents .
Why do n't we try and fix the system first ?
Limit the amount of time a copyright is valid per industry .
Software say 20 years .
Music the life of the artist .
Movies 15 years after the first DVD sale or whatever media we use...etc .
Make the system make sense not this 70 + life of artist crap .
Who the fuck gives a shit about the code I write 150 years from now ?
Why do we assume copyright by default ?
That 's another dumb ass idea .
Do n't destroy the only system that protects many industries just because you want to have 40k in music on your ipod but do n't have 40k to spend on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows the problem started with Mickey Mouse.
Copyright is what it is today because Disney has thrown enough money at law makers.
So you know what I think the solution is?
I'd like to hear someone that has started their own business on writing software explain how the system would have worked if copyrights were removed from the world?
Do you think Linux would be Linux today?
Um no.
Microsoft would have started spitting out fucked up version of Linux a long time ago breaking any form of a way to control the future of Linux.
Without copyright MS has the right to use Linux code and screw it up anyway they want and never release the source code.As far as I can tell the problem is people think they need 40k worth of music on their iPod to be happy and content.
Disney is worried about losing what their entire Industry was built on the second the market gets flooded with a billion Mickey Mouse cartoons they didn't create...lol.
And instead of fighting against the Industry that has destroyed the image of copyright the public masses just decide to remove it.
How is this a solution?Copyright in software gives a kind of virtual patent on an idea until another company can develop their own..this costs time and money to avoid copyrights.
In a world with no copyrights any software designer can write their killer app and start to sell it...any company can then decompile that code slap their logo on it and sell it and market the creator out of existence.
Anyone that thinks the software industry is about writing a killer app is kidding themselves.
It is about marketing.I got a better one for you...lets say an artist creates a new song...pick your pick...any one of them.
Lets say you just wrote some killer lyrics that spoke to people...you had a great band and (fuck if I know how artists do their thing) and out comes a one hit wonder.
Do you honestly think you'll get credit for it?
An artist that has already made it big will just take your song and play in front of millions and then claim they wrote it first and without copyrights...honestly no one will care who wrote it first...but who will make all the money off of it?
We hate the RIAA and the MPAA so much for how they have treated us, their consumers that we think the only solution is to destroy the system.
The same is true for the patent world.
Patents today are just a fucking joke...I'd say a major part of that problem is software patents.
Why don't we try and fix the system first?
Limit the amount of time a copyright is valid per industry.
Software say 20 years.
Music the life of the artist.
Movies 15 years after the first DVD sale or whatever media we use...etc.
Make the system make sense not this 70+life of artist crap.
Who the fuck gives a shit about the code I write 150 years from now?
Why do we assume copyright by default?
That's another dumb ass idea.
Don't destroy the only system that protects many industries just because you want to have 40k in music on your ipod but don't have 40k to spend on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215</id>
	<title>Why this is bollocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244825580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a professor, I write programs, papers and am currently working on a book. All these activities involve creating copyrighted content. The people of my State pay me to do this, as I work for a State university. So, you are probably thinking that my situation is a bit like Bono and the other 'creative' sorts? Nothing could be further from the truth.</p><p>Once I have written a paper, it needs to go through peer review, via the blind referee process. This is all good and stops me publishing silly stuff. The next step is where the copyright problem arises.</p><p>Once I have a paper accepted, it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal. No copyright assignment, no publication. It is as simple as that. So, who gets the fruits of my labors? Big multi-national corporations. What did they do to get this intellectual content? Absolutely bugger all, other than rigging the system! What about the people of my State who paid for my hard work? They get nothing. If they want to read my papers, they have to buy them from the journal (at $15 per paper and up), or visit a library. Libraries have to pay for a journal subscription ($750 per annum and up).</p><p>Thus, all this 'creativity' and copyright bleating is clearly bollocks. It is just a case of the powerful folks using rhetoric to fight for their monopoly 'rights'. I don't care to participate, but am forced to. Of course, I also run an e-journal where the authors retain copyright, but that is another story. My little act of subversion.</p><p>Don't fall for all this 'starving artist' rubbish. My bet is that we professors in our professional bondage produce more per year than the people represented by the members of both the RIAA and the MIAA, put together. I wonder what those crooks, or their mouth pieces, would have to say in response to that claim? I bet we will never hear.</p><p>"We are led by fools who waste our lives". Copyright is a good idea which has now been subverted into a scam and it sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a professor , I write programs , papers and am currently working on a book .
All these activities involve creating copyrighted content .
The people of my State pay me to do this , as I work for a State university .
So , you are probably thinking that my situation is a bit like Bono and the other 'creative ' sorts ?
Nothing could be further from the truth.Once I have written a paper , it needs to go through peer review , via the blind referee process .
This is all good and stops me publishing silly stuff .
The next step is where the copyright problem arises.Once I have a paper accepted , it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal .
No copyright assignment , no publication .
It is as simple as that .
So , who gets the fruits of my labors ?
Big multi-national corporations .
What did they do to get this intellectual content ?
Absolutely bugger all , other than rigging the system !
What about the people of my State who paid for my hard work ?
They get nothing .
If they want to read my papers , they have to buy them from the journal ( at $ 15 per paper and up ) , or visit a library .
Libraries have to pay for a journal subscription ( $ 750 per annum and up ) .Thus , all this 'creativity ' and copyright bleating is clearly bollocks .
It is just a case of the powerful folks using rhetoric to fight for their monopoly 'rights' .
I do n't care to participate , but am forced to .
Of course , I also run an e-journal where the authors retain copyright , but that is another story .
My little act of subversion.Do n't fall for all this 'starving artist ' rubbish .
My bet is that we professors in our professional bondage produce more per year than the people represented by the members of both the RIAA and the MIAA , put together .
I wonder what those crooks , or their mouth pieces , would have to say in response to that claim ?
I bet we will never hear .
" We are led by fools who waste our lives " .
Copyright is a good idea which has now been subverted into a scam and it sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a professor, I write programs, papers and am currently working on a book.
All these activities involve creating copyrighted content.
The people of my State pay me to do this, as I work for a State university.
So, you are probably thinking that my situation is a bit like Bono and the other 'creative' sorts?
Nothing could be further from the truth.Once I have written a paper, it needs to go through peer review, via the blind referee process.
This is all good and stops me publishing silly stuff.
The next step is where the copyright problem arises.Once I have a paper accepted, it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal.
No copyright assignment, no publication.
It is as simple as that.
So, who gets the fruits of my labors?
Big multi-national corporations.
What did they do to get this intellectual content?
Absolutely bugger all, other than rigging the system!
What about the people of my State who paid for my hard work?
They get nothing.
If they want to read my papers, they have to buy them from the journal (at $15 per paper and up), or visit a library.
Libraries have to pay for a journal subscription ($750 per annum and up).Thus, all this 'creativity' and copyright bleating is clearly bollocks.
It is just a case of the powerful folks using rhetoric to fight for their monopoly 'rights'.
I don't care to participate, but am forced to.
Of course, I also run an e-journal where the authors retain copyright, but that is another story.
My little act of subversion.Don't fall for all this 'starving artist' rubbish.
My bet is that we professors in our professional bondage produce more per year than the people represented by the members of both the RIAA and the MIAA, put together.
I wonder what those crooks, or their mouth pieces, would have to say in response to that claim?
I bet we will never hear.
"We are led by fools who waste our lives".
Copyright is a good idea which has now been subverted into a scam and it sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316511</id>
	<title>Re:Hatch... a blight on my land.</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1244817780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, Orrin. You're old. And ignorant. And closed-minded. And petty and small. Shut the fuck up already. Utah hates you-- You just haven't let the truth sink in yet.</p></div><p>Somehow... I doubt that he reads slashdot...</p><p>Maybe a letter... or a youtube video explaining why you find him "a blight on the land" might do the trick.<br>Make it fun, catchy and snappy. And don't forget to send a copy to CNN's iReport.<br>A slow news day is always just around a corner... you might become famous as a bonus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Orrin .
You 're old .
And ignorant .
And closed-minded .
And petty and small .
Shut the fuck up already .
Utah hates you-- You just have n't let the truth sink in yet.Somehow... I doubt that he reads slashdot...Maybe a letter... or a youtube video explaining why you find him " a blight on the land " might do the trick.Make it fun , catchy and snappy .
And do n't forget to send a copy to CNN 's iReport.A slow news day is always just around a corner... you might become famous as a bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Orrin.
You're old.
And ignorant.
And closed-minded.
And petty and small.
Shut the fuck up already.
Utah hates you-- You just haven't let the truth sink in yet.Somehow... I doubt that he reads slashdot...Maybe a letter... or a youtube video explaining why you find him "a blight on the land" might do the trick.Make it fun, catchy and snappy.
And don't forget to send a copy to CNN's iReport.A slow news day is always just around a corner... you might become famous as a bonus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28323639</id>
	<title>from an actual artist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244899740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The underlying impression I get from this discussion is that people who have never created anything good (Ii.e. that anyone else actually wants to read, see, hear or  watch) wants me to work for them for free.  I hear a with of anger in these posts] that I actually want to earn money for my efforts.  All this talk about "big bad corporations"  is BS.  Practically any good art is created by individuals not soulless  corporations.  Those corporations may be exploiting the artists, and they may be asking to ridiculous extensions on the length of the copyright, but remember this:  a corporation did not do the actual creating: and artist or artists did.    If I spend a year or two or more on a work, why the hell should you be able to use FOR FREE as a matter of right?  It's the fruit of my labor.<br>By some of the arguments I hear here, what the difference between posting a copyrighted book on the internet  for anyone to have free and me breaking into your house and eating the food from your refrigerator that you worked to buy?  ("Food is a basic right and for the government to restrict the peoples' free right to food is wrong").<br>Grown up.  The world is not free.  The example of painters making money from selling their paintings and copies being free is a false one:  the copies are copyrighted, too, for the life of a copyright, and an original painting is always richer than the copy. With writing or music, the digital copy is the essentially the same as the original.<br>Again, I've spent years writing  a book, got it published and made a bit of money.  Why the hell do you think you have the right to my labors for free?  If you really believe in that, give me your address and I'l be over to eat your food and drink your beer for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The underlying impression I get from this discussion is that people who have never created anything good ( Ii.e .
that anyone else actually wants to read , see , hear or watch ) wants me to work for them for free .
I hear a with of anger in these posts ] that I actually want to earn money for my efforts .
All this talk about " big bad corporations " is BS .
Practically any good art is created by individuals not soulless corporations .
Those corporations may be exploiting the artists , and they may be asking to ridiculous extensions on the length of the copyright , but remember this : a corporation did not do the actual creating : and artist or artists did .
If I spend a year or two or more on a work , why the hell should you be able to use FOR FREE as a matter of right ?
It 's the fruit of my labor.By some of the arguments I hear here , what the difference between posting a copyrighted book on the internet for anyone to have free and me breaking into your house and eating the food from your refrigerator that you worked to buy ?
( " Food is a basic right and for the government to restrict the peoples ' free right to food is wrong " ) .Grown up .
The world is not free .
The example of painters making money from selling their paintings and copies being free is a false one : the copies are copyrighted , too , for the life of a copyright , and an original painting is always richer than the copy .
With writing or music , the digital copy is the essentially the same as the original.Again , I 've spent years writing a book , got it published and made a bit of money .
Why the hell do you think you have the right to my labors for free ?
If you really believe in that , give me your address and I'l be over to eat your food and drink your beer for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The underlying impression I get from this discussion is that people who have never created anything good (Ii.e.
that anyone else actually wants to read, see, hear or  watch) wants me to work for them for free.
I hear a with of anger in these posts] that I actually want to earn money for my efforts.
All this talk about "big bad corporations"  is BS.
Practically any good art is created by individuals not soulless  corporations.
Those corporations may be exploiting the artists, and they may be asking to ridiculous extensions on the length of the copyright, but remember this:  a corporation did not do the actual creating: and artist or artists did.
If I spend a year or two or more on a work, why the hell should you be able to use FOR FREE as a matter of right?
It's the fruit of my labor.By some of the arguments I hear here, what the difference between posting a copyrighted book on the internet  for anyone to have free and me breaking into your house and eating the food from your refrigerator that you worked to buy?
("Food is a basic right and for the government to restrict the peoples' free right to food is wrong").Grown up.
The world is not free.
The example of painters making money from selling their paintings and copies being free is a false one:  the copies are copyrighted, too, for the life of a copyright, and an original painting is always richer than the copy.
With writing or music, the digital copy is the essentially the same as the original.Again, I've spent years writing  a book, got it published and made a bit of money.
Why the hell do you think you have the right to my labors for free?
If you really believe in that, give me your address and I'l be over to eat your food and drink your beer for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317679</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244832360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if we are reading the same article. It seems to me the vast majority are fine with reasonable copyright. Just like in any discussion there will be a misinformed fringe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if we are reading the same article .
It seems to me the vast majority are fine with reasonable copyright .
Just like in any discussion there will be a misinformed fringe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if we are reading the same article.
It seems to me the vast majority are fine with reasonable copyright.
Just like in any discussion there will be a misinformed fringe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319387</id>
	<title>Re:Explain the reason for copyright expansion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244903520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content.</p></div><p>People are ignoring one of the worst aspects of the current copyright regime: when the copyright holder is not known, the work may fall into oblivion because nobody dares to touch it.</p><p>That's why we need to bring back the copyright registry and abandon the automatic copyrights. To get copyright protection, the author must register the work with an international, offical, online registry for a fee.</p><p>The registry fee should grow exponentially: $1 for the first year, $2 for the second year, $4 dollars for the third year and so on. $15 buys you protection for 4 years -- not too much for the poorest of artists. For $1023 you can make money with your creation for 10 years. In the end, the renewal will be more than the economic benefit and the work falls into public domain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion would be , let 's limit it to , say , 20 years and see if people stop creating content.People are ignoring one of the worst aspects of the current copyright regime : when the copyright holder is not known , the work may fall into oblivion because nobody dares to touch it.That 's why we need to bring back the copyright registry and abandon the automatic copyrights .
To get copyright protection , the author must register the work with an international , offical , online registry for a fee.The registry fee should grow exponentially : $ 1 for the first year , $ 2 for the second year , $ 4 dollars for the third year and so on .
$ 15 buys you protection for 4 years -- not too much for the poorest of artists .
For $ 1023 you can make money with your creation for 10 years .
In the end , the renewal will be more than the economic benefit and the work falls into public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content.People are ignoring one of the worst aspects of the current copyright regime: when the copyright holder is not known, the work may fall into oblivion because nobody dares to touch it.That's why we need to bring back the copyright registry and abandon the automatic copyrights.
To get copyright protection, the author must register the work with an international, offical, online registry for a fee.The registry fee should grow exponentially: $1 for the first year, $2 for the second year, $4 dollars for the third year and so on.
$15 buys you protection for 4 years -- not too much for the poorest of artists.
For $1023 you can make money with your creation for 10 years.
In the end, the renewal will be more than the economic benefit and the work falls into public domain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28320859</id>
	<title>Jews cause copyright abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244916960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck Adolf Hitler. All Jew haters want to praise him but I say fuck him. He is the single most enabler of Jews in the 20th century more than any other force. Jews own the United States, Europe, The Middle East, and are attempting a cultural coup of Asia as we speak. You can't say anything against jews because they can hide behind the Holocaust, something 90\% of them never experienced but are allowed to use to get anything they want in society. African Americans are still treated like shit in American society and look at most of the sub-Sahara Africa being raped and exploited. Israel is treated like royalty despite whatever crimes against humanity are committed against anyone. If Hitler was reborn an Israeli and decided to commit genocide against Palestinians, the rest of the world would just watch and not do anything behind their guise of "never again". Jews need a new Holocaust which does the whole job of wiping their influence out and no half assed bullshit like letting them own 50\% of the US and 50\% of the USSR at the time. A complete wipe is all that is needed and nothing weak like Hitler suggested, rather a fill blown purge in the US, Europe, Africa, and Asia. No rounding up, just straight shots in the head. Humanity would then actually progress without people having to worry about being destroyed financially and personally while Jews who never contributed to society end up in business leading roles destroying everyone else's lives. Long live the Neo-Holocaust. The Jew Museum was just a fringe attempt but I promise the real execution will be nothing but armature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Adolf Hitler .
All Jew haters want to praise him but I say fuck him .
He is the single most enabler of Jews in the 20th century more than any other force .
Jews own the United States , Europe , The Middle East , and are attempting a cultural coup of Asia as we speak .
You ca n't say anything against jews because they can hide behind the Holocaust , something 90 \ % of them never experienced but are allowed to use to get anything they want in society .
African Americans are still treated like shit in American society and look at most of the sub-Sahara Africa being raped and exploited .
Israel is treated like royalty despite whatever crimes against humanity are committed against anyone .
If Hitler was reborn an Israeli and decided to commit genocide against Palestinians , the rest of the world would just watch and not do anything behind their guise of " never again " .
Jews need a new Holocaust which does the whole job of wiping their influence out and no half assed bullshit like letting them own 50 \ % of the US and 50 \ % of the USSR at the time .
A complete wipe is all that is needed and nothing weak like Hitler suggested , rather a fill blown purge in the US , Europe , Africa , and Asia .
No rounding up , just straight shots in the head .
Humanity would then actually progress without people having to worry about being destroyed financially and personally while Jews who never contributed to society end up in business leading roles destroying everyone else 's lives .
Long live the Neo-Holocaust .
The Jew Museum was just a fringe attempt but I promise the real execution will be nothing but armature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Adolf Hitler.
All Jew haters want to praise him but I say fuck him.
He is the single most enabler of Jews in the 20th century more than any other force.
Jews own the United States, Europe, The Middle East, and are attempting a cultural coup of Asia as we speak.
You can't say anything against jews because they can hide behind the Holocaust, something 90\% of them never experienced but are allowed to use to get anything they want in society.
African Americans are still treated like shit in American society and look at most of the sub-Sahara Africa being raped and exploited.
Israel is treated like royalty despite whatever crimes against humanity are committed against anyone.
If Hitler was reborn an Israeli and decided to commit genocide against Palestinians, the rest of the world would just watch and not do anything behind their guise of "never again".
Jews need a new Holocaust which does the whole job of wiping their influence out and no half assed bullshit like letting them own 50\% of the US and 50\% of the USSR at the time.
A complete wipe is all that is needed and nothing weak like Hitler suggested, rather a fill blown purge in the US, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
No rounding up, just straight shots in the head.
Humanity would then actually progress without people having to worry about being destroyed financially and personally while Jews who never contributed to society end up in business leading roles destroying everyone else's lives.
Long live the Neo-Holocaust.
The Jew Museum was just a fringe attempt but I promise the real execution will be nothing but armature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789</id>
	<title>Explain the reason for copyright expansion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244811420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the reason behind copyright? To give authors and creative artists an incentive to produce, to give them the exclusive right to use their creation for a limited time (yeah, that's the idea, now the studios hold it in the stranglehold... bear with me, ok?), so they can regenerate their expense, so they can reap the rewards for their labour, so they can actually live off their creation.</p><p>Tell me one thing: If you're unable to regenerate your cost, if you don't earn enough within 50 years to have an incentive to produce, why do you think 70, 90 or however many more years would be an incentive?</p><p>My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content. My money is on "they won't stop".</p><p>So care to explain to me why you need the lengths you do? To give people an incentive to create? Don't make me laugh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the reason behind copyright ?
To give authors and creative artists an incentive to produce , to give them the exclusive right to use their creation for a limited time ( yeah , that 's the idea , now the studios hold it in the stranglehold... bear with me , ok ?
) , so they can regenerate their expense , so they can reap the rewards for their labour , so they can actually live off their creation.Tell me one thing : If you 're unable to regenerate your cost , if you do n't earn enough within 50 years to have an incentive to produce , why do you think 70 , 90 or however many more years would be an incentive ? My suggestion would be , let 's limit it to , say , 20 years and see if people stop creating content .
My money is on " they wo n't stop " .So care to explain to me why you need the lengths you do ?
To give people an incentive to create ?
Do n't make me laugh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the reason behind copyright?
To give authors and creative artists an incentive to produce, to give them the exclusive right to use their creation for a limited time (yeah, that's the idea, now the studios hold it in the stranglehold... bear with me, ok?
), so they can regenerate their expense, so they can reap the rewards for their labour, so they can actually live off their creation.Tell me one thing: If you're unable to regenerate your cost, if you don't earn enough within 50 years to have an incentive to produce, why do you think 70, 90 or however many more years would be an incentive?My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content.
My money is on "they won't stop".So care to explain to me why you need the lengths you do?
To give people an incentive to create?
Don't make me laugh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1244810340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought we were for copyright reform here</p></div><p>-1 Characterizes Slashdot as just a single opinion.</p><p>I'm a copyright abolitionist.  Other folks on here are copyright reformists.  Other folks on here like copyright just the way it is thank you.  Other folks on here think copyright should be strengthened.  Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were for copyright reform here-1 Characterizes Slashdot as just a single opinion.I 'm a copyright abolitionist .
Other folks on here are copyright reformists .
Other folks on here like copyright just the way it is thank you .
Other folks on here think copyright should be strengthened .
Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were for copyright reform here-1 Characterizes Slashdot as just a single opinion.I'm a copyright abolitionist.
Other folks on here are copyright reformists.
Other folks on here like copyright just the way it is thank you.
Other folks on here think copyright should be strengthened.
Other folks on here think copyright should be more like regular property laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318089</id>
	<title>The Commons Is Primary...</title>
	<author>d'baba</author>
	<datestamp>1244925540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Else the Language is forfeit.<br>

'Nuff Said<br>
---<br>
Free The Mouse</htmltext>
<tokenext>Else the Language is forfeit .
'Nuff Said --- Free The Mouse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Else the Language is forfeit.
'Nuff Said
---
Free The Mouse</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316481</id>
	<title>i honestly don't care</title>
	<author>Heppelld0</author>
	<datestamp>1244817540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i think any system perpetuated by personal gain is flawed full stop. everybody wants more. even if they've got everything they ever wanted, they still want more. artists want more money. record labels want more control over the work their artists create. governments want more control over their people and will influence the record labels at their highest level in order to direct culture in the directions it desires. the people want more freedom. ultimately all concerned parties want more of lots of different things. money, influence, freedom, material goods. <br>
<br>
what people are not willing to do any more is take responsibility. nobody wants to deal with themselves any more. if they run out of money, they blame the recession, when actually they've just spent more money than they have in reserve. nobody wants to save up for anything, they pay more over a longer period of time and get a credit card, just for the shear convenience. they then lose their job, and they've got no means to pay off the debt they owe the bank... money which the bank created out of nothing to begin with, but thats another rant... nobody wants to change to renewable energies, because that involves initiative, and initiative involves hassle, hassle which people aren't willing to take responsibility for. <br>
<br>
the artists want to make money from the album they've made, but instead of giving it to their friends and distributing it themselves (taking all of the money make for themselves), they shift all of that business to the record label they sign a contract with to give them a large percentage of the total takings (less money, quicker process). the record label want to control who hears their new product but dont like the idea of making consumers sign a contract to give them the license to use the product (better process, more expenditure, more internal paperwork), so they say to governments that they can outline what sort of product fits with what they want people listening to (less hassle, more guarantee of consumer uptake, more money). the governments then want people to accept the direction they want things to go in but they dont want to tell people they've got a direction at all (nanny state, less freedom), so they just dont tell the people. <br>
<br>
whats interesting to note, is that at the head of all the parties involved is a single person. banks, governments, bands, record labels. this leaves a high level of influence in the hands of a few people, which, history has shown us, is a baaaaaad idea... taking us back to the first point... personal gain... i think something's very wrong, but nobody wants to take responsibility for things they can do to change...</htmltext>
<tokenext>i think any system perpetuated by personal gain is flawed full stop .
everybody wants more .
even if they 've got everything they ever wanted , they still want more .
artists want more money .
record labels want more control over the work their artists create .
governments want more control over their people and will influence the record labels at their highest level in order to direct culture in the directions it desires .
the people want more freedom .
ultimately all concerned parties want more of lots of different things .
money , influence , freedom , material goods .
what people are not willing to do any more is take responsibility .
nobody wants to deal with themselves any more .
if they run out of money , they blame the recession , when actually they 've just spent more money than they have in reserve .
nobody wants to save up for anything , they pay more over a longer period of time and get a credit card , just for the shear convenience .
they then lose their job , and they 've got no means to pay off the debt they owe the bank... money which the bank created out of nothing to begin with , but thats another rant... nobody wants to change to renewable energies , because that involves initiative , and initiative involves hassle , hassle which people are n't willing to take responsibility for .
the artists want to make money from the album they 've made , but instead of giving it to their friends and distributing it themselves ( taking all of the money make for themselves ) , they shift all of that business to the record label they sign a contract with to give them a large percentage of the total takings ( less money , quicker process ) .
the record label want to control who hears their new product but dont like the idea of making consumers sign a contract to give them the license to use the product ( better process , more expenditure , more internal paperwork ) , so they say to governments that they can outline what sort of product fits with what they want people listening to ( less hassle , more guarantee of consumer uptake , more money ) .
the governments then want people to accept the direction they want things to go in but they dont want to tell people they 've got a direction at all ( nanny state , less freedom ) , so they just dont tell the people .
whats interesting to note , is that at the head of all the parties involved is a single person .
banks , governments , bands , record labels .
this leaves a high level of influence in the hands of a few people , which , history has shown us , is a baaaaaad idea... taking us back to the first point... personal gain... i think something 's very wrong , but nobody wants to take responsibility for things they can do to change.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think any system perpetuated by personal gain is flawed full stop.
everybody wants more.
even if they've got everything they ever wanted, they still want more.
artists want more money.
record labels want more control over the work their artists create.
governments want more control over their people and will influence the record labels at their highest level in order to direct culture in the directions it desires.
the people want more freedom.
ultimately all concerned parties want more of lots of different things.
money, influence, freedom, material goods.
what people are not willing to do any more is take responsibility.
nobody wants to deal with themselves any more.
if they run out of money, they blame the recession, when actually they've just spent more money than they have in reserve.
nobody wants to save up for anything, they pay more over a longer period of time and get a credit card, just for the shear convenience.
they then lose their job, and they've got no means to pay off the debt they owe the bank... money which the bank created out of nothing to begin with, but thats another rant... nobody wants to change to renewable energies, because that involves initiative, and initiative involves hassle, hassle which people aren't willing to take responsibility for.
the artists want to make money from the album they've made, but instead of giving it to their friends and distributing it themselves (taking all of the money make for themselves), they shift all of that business to the record label they sign a contract with to give them a large percentage of the total takings (less money, quicker process).
the record label want to control who hears their new product but dont like the idea of making consumers sign a contract to give them the license to use the product (better process, more expenditure, more internal paperwork), so they say to governments that they can outline what sort of product fits with what they want people listening to (less hassle, more guarantee of consumer uptake, more money).
the governments then want people to accept the direction they want things to go in but they dont want to tell people they've got a direction at all (nanny state, less freedom), so they just dont tell the people.
whats interesting to note, is that at the head of all the parties involved is a single person.
banks, governments, bands, record labels.
this leaves a high level of influence in the hands of a few people, which, history has shown us, is a baaaaaad idea... taking us back to the first point... personal gain... i think something's very wrong, but nobody wants to take responsibility for things they can do to change...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315887</id>
	<title>TFA seems crappy</title>
	<author>dthx1138</author>
	<datestamp>1244812200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could classify me as a Slashdot reader who does not have a firm opinion on overall copyright law and needs to be convinced one way or another. That being said, this article has progressed 0\% of the way towards that goal. It's basically several quoted paragraphs following by the writer ranting as if he's yelling at a television screen- "Oh no you didn't say that! Corporate whore!" etc.<br> <br>

Aside from a few anecdotal cases of copyright-related stupidity such as the iTunes song activation limit, I could not tell you anything in particular that is wrong with our overall copyright law that needs to be changed. Saying that all copyrights should be abolished sound ridiculous, and ranting about greed does nothing to advance your position either. Somebody explain to me WHAT should be changed about copyright law and WHY I should support such a change, and you will have my attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could classify me as a Slashdot reader who does not have a firm opinion on overall copyright law and needs to be convinced one way or another .
That being said , this article has progressed 0 \ % of the way towards that goal .
It 's basically several quoted paragraphs following by the writer ranting as if he 's yelling at a television screen- " Oh no you did n't say that !
Corporate whore !
" etc .
Aside from a few anecdotal cases of copyright-related stupidity such as the iTunes song activation limit , I could not tell you anything in particular that is wrong with our overall copyright law that needs to be changed .
Saying that all copyrights should be abolished sound ridiculous , and ranting about greed does nothing to advance your position either .
Somebody explain to me WHAT should be changed about copyright law and WHY I should support such a change , and you will have my attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could classify me as a Slashdot reader who does not have a firm opinion on overall copyright law and needs to be convinced one way or another.
That being said, this article has progressed 0\% of the way towards that goal.
It's basically several quoted paragraphs following by the writer ranting as if he's yelling at a television screen- "Oh no you didn't say that!
Corporate whore!
" etc.
Aside from a few anecdotal cases of copyright-related stupidity such as the iTunes song activation limit, I could not tell you anything in particular that is wrong with our overall copyright law that needs to be changed.
Saying that all copyrights should be abolished sound ridiculous, and ranting about greed does nothing to advance your position either.
Somebody explain to me WHAT should be changed about copyright law and WHY I should support such a change, and you will have my attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319205</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is living in the stone age</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1244901420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1.) Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they're pro-piracy and don't want to lose the free ride. The hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.</p></div><p>I'm anti current copyright law and at the same time I never pirate.  For me, breaking the law is something which can be done, but should only be done seriously and for a good reason.  My lack of access to "bratz" material does not hurt me.  I would only copy illegally on principle.  I even buy material such as CDs as long as I know that I can actually copy it.</p><p>You attack yet another straw man.   In fact you make the standard stupid mistake of assuming that the opinions expressed on a web site are the opinions of that web site.  You probably think the letters column in your local newspaper expresses</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2.) Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work. Slashdotters don't want people to be paid for their work, because they want to pirate it. All your motives are self-serving, and it's so obvious.</p></div><p>There are many other ways to get paid for work.  Firstly, you can charge lots for the access to the first copy.  Most of us have nothing against privacy laws and the right not to give out your own stuff.  Secondly you could work in an academic institution and be paid for doing the creative work.  Thirdly you could look for patrons and sponsors.</p><p>Doing work is not sufficient to guarantee work.  If you want to sit all day working hard bashing rocks don't come round to me and demand to be paid unless I told you you should do it.  There is nothing special about "content creators" that they deserve to get paid for things other people didn't agree to pay for.  Any copyright system has to be justified and accepted by both sides.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3.) The GPL is a copyright license. If you disagree with copyright law, then I'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.</p></div><p>the thing about law is, that it applies whether you agree with it or not.  Your statement is as stupid as the statement "I don't agree with copyright law so I can't go to jail for copying".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know I'll get modded down for voicing this opinion, because I've posted anti-piracy, pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators. Ah, well.</p></div><div class="quote"><p><strong> <a href="http://www.spunk.org/texts/humour/sp000621.txt" title="spunk.org">Help, help, I'm being repressed!</a> [spunk.org]</strong></p> </div><p>You get modded down because your post contains so many logical flaws and mistakes of logic that most people think it's just a troll.  I see value in it as an expression of the stuipdity and ignorance of a certain group of people, however, you can't expect to get modded up till you learn to think straight.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Dear pirates--if copyright law is wrong, then the GPL has no legal standing.</p></div><p>An inability to separate moral wrong and right from legal and illegal is going to get you into big trouble if you go to China or, for example, North Korea.  Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it isn't a law.  In this case the GPL is legal because it is (see the case law; reasons are irrelevant).  It's justifiable in the same way as someone shooting you could be completely justifiable.  As a form of self defence if you attack them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they 're pro-piracy and do n't want to lose the free ride .
The hypocrisy is ridiculous , especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.I 'm anti current copyright law and at the same time I never pirate .
For me , breaking the law is something which can be done , but should only be done seriously and for a good reason .
My lack of access to " bratz " material does not hurt me .
I would only copy illegally on principle .
I even buy material such as CDs as long as I know that I can actually copy it.You attack yet another straw man .
In fact you make the standard stupid mistake of assuming that the opinions expressed on a web site are the opinions of that web site .
You probably think the letters column in your local newspaper expresses2 .
) Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work .
Slashdotters do n't want people to be paid for their work , because they want to pirate it .
All your motives are self-serving , and it 's so obvious.There are many other ways to get paid for work .
Firstly , you can charge lots for the access to the first copy .
Most of us have nothing against privacy laws and the right not to give out your own stuff .
Secondly you could work in an academic institution and be paid for doing the creative work .
Thirdly you could look for patrons and sponsors.Doing work is not sufficient to guarantee work .
If you want to sit all day working hard bashing rocks do n't come round to me and demand to be paid unless I told you you should do it .
There is nothing special about " content creators " that they deserve to get paid for things other people did n't agree to pay for .
Any copyright system has to be justified and accepted by both sides.3 .
) The GPL is a copyright license .
If you disagree with copyright law , then I 'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.the thing about law is , that it applies whether you agree with it or not .
Your statement is as stupid as the statement " I do n't agree with copyright law so I ca n't go to jail for copying " .I know I 'll get modded down for voicing this opinion , because I 've posted anti-piracy , pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators .
Ah , well .
Help , help , I 'm being repressed !
[ spunk.org ] You get modded down because your post contains so many logical flaws and mistakes of logic that most people think it 's just a troll .
I see value in it as an expression of the stuipdity and ignorance of a certain group of people , however , you ca n't expect to get modded up till you learn to think straight.Dear pirates--if copyright law is wrong , then the GPL has no legal standing.An inability to separate moral wrong and right from legal and illegal is going to get you into big trouble if you go to China or , for example , North Korea .
Just because something is wrong does n't mean it is n't a law .
In this case the GPL is legal because it is ( see the case law ; reasons are irrelevant ) .
It 's justifiable in the same way as someone shooting you could be completely justifiable .
As a form of self defence if you attack them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they're pro-piracy and don't want to lose the free ride.
The hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.I'm anti current copyright law and at the same time I never pirate.
For me, breaking the law is something which can be done, but should only be done seriously and for a good reason.
My lack of access to "bratz" material does not hurt me.
I would only copy illegally on principle.
I even buy material such as CDs as long as I know that I can actually copy it.You attack yet another straw man.
In fact you make the standard stupid mistake of assuming that the opinions expressed on a web site are the opinions of that web site.
You probably think the letters column in your local newspaper expresses2.
) Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work.
Slashdotters don't want people to be paid for their work, because they want to pirate it.
All your motives are self-serving, and it's so obvious.There are many other ways to get paid for work.
Firstly, you can charge lots for the access to the first copy.
Most of us have nothing against privacy laws and the right not to give out your own stuff.
Secondly you could work in an academic institution and be paid for doing the creative work.
Thirdly you could look for patrons and sponsors.Doing work is not sufficient to guarantee work.
If you want to sit all day working hard bashing rocks don't come round to me and demand to be paid unless I told you you should do it.
There is nothing special about "content creators" that they deserve to get paid for things other people didn't agree to pay for.
Any copyright system has to be justified and accepted by both sides.3.
) The GPL is a copyright license.
If you disagree with copyright law, then I'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.the thing about law is, that it applies whether you agree with it or not.
Your statement is as stupid as the statement "I don't agree with copyright law so I can't go to jail for copying".I know I'll get modded down for voicing this opinion, because I've posted anti-piracy, pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators.
Ah, well.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!
[spunk.org] You get modded down because your post contains so many logical flaws and mistakes of logic that most people think it's just a troll.
I see value in it as an expression of the stuipdity and ignorance of a certain group of people, however, you can't expect to get modded up till you learn to think straight.Dear pirates--if copyright law is wrong, then the GPL has no legal standing.An inability to separate moral wrong and right from legal and illegal is going to get you into big trouble if you go to China or, for example, North Korea.
Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it isn't a law.
In this case the GPL is legal because it is (see the case law; reasons are irrelevant).
It's justifiable in the same way as someone shooting you could be completely justifiable.
As a form of self defence if you attack them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28321763</id>
	<title>Re:Why this is bollocks</title>
	<author>scruffy</author>
	<datestamp>1244924280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once I have a paper accepted, it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal. No copyright assignment, no publication.</p></div><p>I had thought the standard agreement in Computer Science is that the author keeps the copyright, but the publisher obtains a kind of exclusive use, but in the last agreement I signed, the copyright was assigned to the publisher.  Oh well.  In any case, the standard practice in Computer Science is also to ignore these things and have them available on one's web site and Citeseer and the like.  I've never had a publisher complain about it.

</p><p>

Next time I'll pay a little bit more attention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once I have a paper accepted , it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal .
No copyright assignment , no publication.I had thought the standard agreement in Computer Science is that the author keeps the copyright , but the publisher obtains a kind of exclusive use , but in the last agreement I signed , the copyright was assigned to the publisher .
Oh well .
In any case , the standard practice in Computer Science is also to ignore these things and have them available on one 's web site and Citeseer and the like .
I 've never had a publisher complain about it .
Next time I 'll pay a little bit more attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once I have a paper accepted, it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal.
No copyright assignment, no publication.I had thought the standard agreement in Computer Science is that the author keeps the copyright, but the publisher obtains a kind of exclusive use, but in the last agreement I signed, the copyright was assigned to the publisher.
Oh well.
In any case, the standard practice in Computer Science is also to ignore these things and have them available on one's web site and Citeseer and the like.
I've never had a publisher complain about it.
Next time I'll pay a little bit more attention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316821</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods. When did we decide that we wanted to completely abolish copyright? What about the GNU copyrights? Do we start ignoring them too?</p><p>Well, there are a few different sets of people here.  I, personally, lean towards abolition, though I'm open to exploring reasonable compromises, alternative models, and other ways to compensate authors.  (Who doesn't want to see authors compensated?)  I'm just not open to jackbooted private internet police (e.g. MediaSentry, RIAA lawyers, DMCA abuse, copyright czars, etc.)</p><p>Anyhow, for the specific case of GNU copyrights, I suggest reading the GNU philosophy section, specifically <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">this essay</a> [gnu.org], where they discuss how the GPL could work in a copyright-free world.  Basically, we'd adapt, because we're a collection of people who believe in working together.  Most of the contributions to GPL'd software don't come from people who are forced to contribute because of the license.  And even if people stopped sharing private forks of GPL'd software, those of us who believe in working together would still be able to make a better product and we'd still have our own code.</p><p>I know this is a fairly common question, so feel free to copy anything from here to answer it in the future.</p><p>- <a href="http://www.eff.org/support" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property</a> [eff.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods .
When did we decide that we wanted to completely abolish copyright ?
What about the GNU copyrights ?
Do we start ignoring them too ? Well , there are a few different sets of people here .
I , personally , lean towards abolition , though I 'm open to exploring reasonable compromises , alternative models , and other ways to compensate authors .
( Who does n't want to see authors compensated ?
) I 'm just not open to jackbooted private internet police ( e.g .
MediaSentry , RIAA lawyers , DMCA abuse , copyright czars , etc .
) Anyhow , for the specific case of GNU copyrights , I suggest reading the GNU philosophy section , specifically this essay [ gnu.org ] , where they discuss how the GPL could work in a copyright-free world .
Basically , we 'd adapt , because we 're a collection of people who believe in working together .
Most of the contributions to GPL 'd software do n't come from people who are forced to contribute because of the license .
And even if people stopped sharing private forks of GPL 'd software , those of us who believe in working together would still be able to make a better product and we 'd still have our own code.I know this is a fairly common question , so feel free to copy anything from here to answer it in the future.- I Do n't Believe in Imaginary Property [ eff.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods.
When did we decide that we wanted to completely abolish copyright?
What about the GNU copyrights?
Do we start ignoring them too?Well, there are a few different sets of people here.
I, personally, lean towards abolition, though I'm open to exploring reasonable compromises, alternative models, and other ways to compensate authors.
(Who doesn't want to see authors compensated?
)  I'm just not open to jackbooted private internet police (e.g.
MediaSentry, RIAA lawyers, DMCA abuse, copyright czars, etc.
)Anyhow, for the specific case of GNU copyrights, I suggest reading the GNU philosophy section, specifically this essay [gnu.org], where they discuss how the GPL could work in a copyright-free world.
Basically, we'd adapt, because we're a collection of people who believe in working together.
Most of the contributions to GPL'd software don't come from people who are forced to contribute because of the license.
And even if people stopped sharing private forks of GPL'd software, those of us who believe in working together would still be able to make a better product and we'd still have our own code.I know this is a fairly common question, so feel free to copy anything from here to answer it in the future.- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property [eff.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318655</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>geir.isene</author>
	<datestamp>1244892420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And there are those forming their opinions on this matter. I spent a little more than 2 years of intensive study forming my opinion - from squarely for copyrights to squarely against it and advocating copyright abolition; see <a href="http://blogs.freecode.no/isene/2009/04/20/battle-for-ant-hill/" title="freecode.no" rel="nofollow">The Battle for Ant Hill</a> [freecode.no].

<a href="http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm" title="dklevine.com" rel="nofollow">"Against Intellectual Monopoly"</a> [dklevine.com] by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine goes through much of the arguments behind abolishing copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there are those forming their opinions on this matter .
I spent a little more than 2 years of intensive study forming my opinion - from squarely for copyrights to squarely against it and advocating copyright abolition ; see The Battle for Ant Hill [ freecode.no ] .
" Against Intellectual Monopoly " [ dklevine.com ] by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine goes through much of the arguments behind abolishing copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there are those forming their opinions on this matter.
I spent a little more than 2 years of intensive study forming my opinion - from squarely for copyrights to squarely against it and advocating copyright abolition; see The Battle for Ant Hill [freecode.no].
"Against Intellectual Monopoly" [dklevine.com] by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine goes through much of the arguments behind abolishing copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318419</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is living in the stone age</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1244888280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. they could start by refusing to come to a site with this at the bottom:</p><p>&#194;&#169; 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
they could start by refusing to come to a site with this at the bottom :     1997-2009 SourceForge , Inc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
they could start by refusing to come to a site with this at the bottom:Â© 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315781</id>
	<title>Slashdot is living in the stone age</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1244811360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.)  Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they're pro-piracy and don't want to lose the free ride.  The hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.</p><p>2.)  Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work.  Slashdotters don't want people to be paid for their work, because they want to pirate it.  All your motives are self-serving, and it's so obvious.</p><p>3.)  The GPL is a copyright license.  If you disagree with copyright law, then I'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.</p><p>I know I'll get modded down for voicing this opinion, because I've posted anti-piracy, pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators.  Ah, well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they 're pro-piracy and do n't want to lose the free ride .
The hypocrisy is ridiculous , especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.2 .
) Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work .
Slashdotters do n't want people to be paid for their work , because they want to pirate it .
All your motives are self-serving , and it 's so obvious.3 .
) The GPL is a copyright license .
If you disagree with copyright law , then I 'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.I know I 'll get modded down for voicing this opinion , because I 've posted anti-piracy , pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators .
Ah , well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
)  Slashdotters only rant against copyright because they're pro-piracy and don't want to lose the free ride.
The hypocrisy is ridiculous, especially because Slashdot itself has sued other websites over copyright infringement.2.
)  Copyright protects content creators so that they get paid for their work.
Slashdotters don't want people to be paid for their work, because they want to pirate it.
All your motives are self-serving, and it's so obvious.3.
)  The GPL is a copyright license.
If you disagree with copyright law, then I'm free to do whatever I want with your GPL code.I know I'll get modded down for voicing this opinion, because I've posted anti-piracy, pro-copyright opinions in the past and gotten trashed by roving gangs of moderators.
Ah, well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318247</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>msormune</author>
	<datestamp>1244884680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want all the stuff for free also, like you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want all the stuff for free also , like you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want all the stuff for free also, like you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28322349</id>
	<title>Re:TFA seems crappy</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1244886960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason for this is the arguments have been hashed out over and over again, as have the analysies.</p><p>If he were to include all the details of the refutations and analysies he references you would spend the next month reading the resulting tome.</p><p>Simply google any cases to which he refers but does not detail.</p><p>as for me, i was taught how wrong copyright law has become by a 4 letter acronym: DMCA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for this is the arguments have been hashed out over and over again , as have the analysies.If he were to include all the details of the refutations and analysies he references you would spend the next month reading the resulting tome.Simply google any cases to which he refers but does not detail.as for me , i was taught how wrong copyright law has become by a 4 letter acronym : DMCA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for this is the arguments have been hashed out over and over again, as have the analysies.If he were to include all the details of the refutations and analysies he references you would spend the next month reading the resulting tome.Simply google any cases to which he refers but does not detail.as for me, i was taught how wrong copyright law has become by a 4 letter acronym: DMCA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316279</id>
	<title>Exclusive copyright is THEFT!</title>
	<author>LadyDarkKitten</author>
	<datestamp>1244815620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I took a copyright law class not too long ago and after said class I came to the conclusion that exclusive copyright even for a short period is theft. If you put exclusive protection to a piece of work then your stealing that idea from the creative pool and preventing its usage by everyone else who may have had that idea. Now what if that one idea was what would have set an individual on the path to being an artist but the person didn't even bother because someone owned it already.

What if that person were to become the next Picasso? The next Michel Angelo, Julie Bell, Luis Royo or Olivia De Berardinis? How could anyone let the world be deprived of that? Keep in mind that this comment is from an artist point of view. I write, draw, paint and honestly I want other artist to be able to take my work and put their own twist on it or make it something completely different. With the current copyright laws that's not possible unless you know about the Creative Commons License.  <a href="http://creativecommons.org/" title="creativecommons.org" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/</a> [creativecommons.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a copyright law class not too long ago and after said class I came to the conclusion that exclusive copyright even for a short period is theft .
If you put exclusive protection to a piece of work then your stealing that idea from the creative pool and preventing its usage by everyone else who may have had that idea .
Now what if that one idea was what would have set an individual on the path to being an artist but the person did n't even bother because someone owned it already .
What if that person were to become the next Picasso ?
The next Michel Angelo , Julie Bell , Luis Royo or Olivia De Berardinis ?
How could anyone let the world be deprived of that ?
Keep in mind that this comment is from an artist point of view .
I write , draw , paint and honestly I want other artist to be able to take my work and put their own twist on it or make it something completely different .
With the current copyright laws that 's not possible unless you know about the Creative Commons License .
http : //creativecommons.org/ [ creativecommons.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a copyright law class not too long ago and after said class I came to the conclusion that exclusive copyright even for a short period is theft.
If you put exclusive protection to a piece of work then your stealing that idea from the creative pool and preventing its usage by everyone else who may have had that idea.
Now what if that one idea was what would have set an individual on the path to being an artist but the person didn't even bother because someone owned it already.
What if that person were to become the next Picasso?
The next Michel Angelo, Julie Bell, Luis Royo or Olivia De Berardinis?
How could anyone let the world be deprived of that?
Keep in mind that this comment is from an artist point of view.
I write, draw, paint and honestly I want other artist to be able to take my work and put their own twist on it or make it something completely different.
With the current copyright laws that's not possible unless you know about the Creative Commons License.
http://creativecommons.org/ [creativecommons.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315625</id>
	<title>Orrin Hatch...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1244810220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is one of the better examples of why we need to impose term limits on Senators.  Right up there with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is one of the better examples of why we need to impose term limits on Senators .
Right up there with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is one of the better examples of why we need to impose term limits on Senators.
Right up there with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317341</id>
	<title>RE: Copyright -- the Big Lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244827320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Were Copyright driven to beutiful furition, then every living human being's brain would have to be subjected to electro-shock treatments in order to obiliterate any "copy" of any "copyrighted" material that the human beings's brain had "copied", i.e. retained a memory of.</p><p>What monsters these copyright homo-phobic perverts!</p><p>The Racist Republican Party will jump to the opportunity to subject all U.S.A. citizens to electro-shock therpy to re-program them into the loving womb of the Racist Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were Copyright driven to beutiful furition , then every living human being 's brain would have to be subjected to electro-shock treatments in order to obiliterate any " copy " of any " copyrighted " material that the human beings 's brain had " copied " , i.e .
retained a memory of.What monsters these copyright homo-phobic perverts ! The Racist Republican Party will jump to the opportunity to subject all U.S.A. citizens to electro-shock therpy to re-program them into the loving womb of the Racist Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were Copyright driven to beutiful furition, then every living human being's brain would have to be subjected to electro-shock treatments in order to obiliterate any "copy" of any "copyrighted" material that the human beings's brain had "copied", i.e.
retained a memory of.What monsters these copyright homo-phobic perverts!The Racist Republican Party will jump to the opportunity to subject all U.S.A. citizens to electro-shock therpy to re-program them into the loving womb of the Racist Republicans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28324097</id>
	<title>The gist of the matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244905860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since copyright exists solely for the public good (to foster innovation), not to enrich the copyright holder, the argument that the copyright holder is losing money is meaningless as an argument to augment copyright laws. (The holder still has a right to sue for infringement, under the law, but has no reason to expect any help from the public).</p><p>The only rational argument to augment copyright law is that piracy is stifling innovation.</p><p>I see no evidence of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since copyright exists solely for the public good ( to foster innovation ) , not to enrich the copyright holder , the argument that the copyright holder is losing money is meaningless as an argument to augment copyright laws .
( The holder still has a right to sue for infringement , under the law , but has no reason to expect any help from the public ) .The only rational argument to augment copyright law is that piracy is stifling innovation.I see no evidence of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since copyright exists solely for the public good (to foster innovation), not to enrich the copyright holder, the argument that the copyright holder is losing money is meaningless as an argument to augment copyright laws.
(The holder still has a right to sue for infringement, under the law, but has no reason to expect any help from the public).The only rational argument to augment copyright law is that piracy is stifling innovation.I see no evidence of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315383</id>
	<title>There is no debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244808600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debating how Copyright should work is like debating who should be king.  If you accept to be ruled does it really matter how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debating how Copyright should work is like debating who should be king .
If you accept to be ruled does it really matter how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debating how Copyright should work is like debating who should be king.
If you accept to be ruled does it really matter how?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28321505</id>
	<title>Re:Explain the reason for copyright expansion</title>
	<author>stbill79</author>
	<datestamp>1244921940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content. My money is on "they won't stop".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
If copyright laws are really intended to 'promote innovation' then I'd even say that 20 years is far too long for most copyrights. I've always argued that music doesn't need more than a year or two, if any, copyright protection. Can you imagine the millions of young people nowadays that aspire to be 'rock stars' losing interest because copyright laws have been shortened. Fame, chicks, and the lifestyle are more than enough incentive to keep talented people pursuing careers in music.
</p><p>
On the other hand, this probably wouldn't work in other fields, such as book publishing, software, etc.
</p><p>
It's amazing to me how the legal system can be just so narrow sighted in some cases.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion would be , let 's limit it to , say , 20 years and see if people stop creating content .
My money is on " they wo n't stop " .
If copyright laws are really intended to 'promote innovation ' then I 'd even say that 20 years is far too long for most copyrights .
I 've always argued that music does n't need more than a year or two , if any , copyright protection .
Can you imagine the millions of young people nowadays that aspire to be 'rock stars ' losing interest because copyright laws have been shortened .
Fame , chicks , and the lifestyle are more than enough incentive to keep talented people pursuing careers in music .
On the other hand , this probably would n't work in other fields , such as book publishing , software , etc .
It 's amazing to me how the legal system can be just so narrow sighted in some cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion would be, let's limit it to, say, 20 years and see if people stop creating content.
My money is on "they won't stop".
If copyright laws are really intended to 'promote innovation' then I'd even say that 20 years is far too long for most copyrights.
I've always argued that music doesn't need more than a year or two, if any, copyright protection.
Can you imagine the millions of young people nowadays that aspire to be 'rock stars' losing interest because copyright laws have been shortened.
Fame, chicks, and the lifestyle are more than enough incentive to keep talented people pursuing careers in music.
On the other hand, this probably wouldn't work in other fields, such as book publishing, software, etc.
It's amazing to me how the legal system can be just so narrow sighted in some cases.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317683</id>
	<title>Re:Orrin Hatch...</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244832540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nooooooooo way should they impose any limits on my Boner. Oh wait, you mean the douche in Washington right? RIGHT?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nooooooooo way should they impose any limits on my Boner .
Oh wait , you mean the douche in Washington right ?
RIGHT ? !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nooooooooo way should they impose any limits on my Boner.
Oh wait, you mean the douche in Washington right?
RIGHT?!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315955</id>
	<title>On my iPod</title>
	<author>MikeD83</author>
	<datestamp>1244812860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish someone in Congress actually served their constituents and asked the simple question:<br>
When a consumer buys a CD/DVD is that customer allowed to put it on their mobile media player?  If so, and how would they legally go about doing that?<br> <br>
It seems that the **AA wants a one way street when it comes to this issue. They put anti-ripping software on both CDs and DVDs,,, which doesn't actually reduce copyright infringement; it only causes their customers to break laws in order to actually use the content they purchased.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish someone in Congress actually served their constituents and asked the simple question : When a consumer buys a CD/DVD is that customer allowed to put it on their mobile media player ?
If so , and how would they legally go about doing that ?
It seems that the * * AA wants a one way street when it comes to this issue .
They put anti-ripping software on both CDs and DVDs,, , which does n't actually reduce copyright infringement ; it only causes their customers to break laws in order to actually use the content they purchased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish someone in Congress actually served their constituents and asked the simple question:
When a consumer buys a CD/DVD is that customer allowed to put it on their mobile media player?
If so, and how would they legally go about doing that?
It seems that the **AA wants a one way street when it comes to this issue.
They put anti-ripping software on both CDs and DVDs,,, which doesn't actually reduce copyright infringement; it only causes their customers to break laws in order to actually use the content they purchased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316141</id>
	<title>Cocaine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244814420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wexler loves cocaine because it's fun. so are copyrights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wexler loves cocaine because it 's fun .
so are copyrights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wexler loves cocaine because it's fun.
so are copyrights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319459</id>
	<title>Where are these "Creators"?</title>
	<author>Shadowmist</author>
	<datestamp>1244904240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've heard time and time again about how the creators are not being served by copyright, usually by some self-righteous user defending his right to pirate.

So I'll ask the original poster, who and where are the creators supposedly advocating YOUR side of the argument?  It's kind of self serving for a pirate user to trumpet the buzzwords of "fair use",  "creator's freedom",  when all they're doing is grabbing the material, and using it without paying.

Maybe the real reason that you're not hearing the "creator's" side is that they're happy with the status quo as it is.  Maybe because they hire agents to deal with items regarding to their compensation so they don't have to.

And when I mean creators, I'm talking about the big ticket folks whose stuff you're pirating,  not the local band who can't give thier CDs away, much less get them published.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard time and time again about how the creators are not being served by copyright , usually by some self-righteous user defending his right to pirate .
So I 'll ask the original poster , who and where are the creators supposedly advocating YOUR side of the argument ?
It 's kind of self serving for a pirate user to trumpet the buzzwords of " fair use " , " creator 's freedom " , when all they 're doing is grabbing the material , and using it without paying .
Maybe the real reason that you 're not hearing the " creator 's " side is that they 're happy with the status quo as it is .
Maybe because they hire agents to deal with items regarding to their compensation so they do n't have to .
And when I mean creators , I 'm talking about the big ticket folks whose stuff you 're pirating , not the local band who ca n't give thier CDs away , much less get them published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard time and time again about how the creators are not being served by copyright, usually by some self-righteous user defending his right to pirate.
So I'll ask the original poster, who and where are the creators supposedly advocating YOUR side of the argument?
It's kind of self serving for a pirate user to trumpet the buzzwords of "fair use",  "creator's freedom",  when all they're doing is grabbing the material, and using it without paying.
Maybe the real reason that you're not hearing the "creator's" side is that they're happy with the status quo as it is.
Maybe because they hire agents to deal with items regarding to their compensation so they don't have to.
And when I mean creators, I'm talking about the big ticket folks whose stuff you're pirating,  not the local band who can't give thier CDs away, much less get them published.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28343845</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>Kargoroth</author>
	<datestamp>1245082380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO there are in fact valid reasons to actually abolish copy/patentright beyond "everthing will work out somehow" and "middle ground" argument.</p><p>For brevity's sake i would like try to look at technical patents only but i think similar arguments can be made  in regards to artistic copyright.</p><p>Lets compare the scenarios patenting/no patenting from the point of view of the person who is supposed to be protected by this whole thingie the scientist who invented cure for something or the software engineer who wrote a killer application:</p><p>CASE one, today's patenting solution: cure for cancer or THE SPAMKILLFILE algorithm or whatever  has been invented or written by a person or a group of people. The moment it gets patented (actually before that but since the general public is none the wiser until stuff gets patented it doesnt matter much) the company those techs and scientist were working for are the ones in total control of that piece of intellectual work (including the power to sit on it and dont let anyone using it for some reason or other) and what is important here ist precisely that: patents do not empower those techheads but rather the firm who they work for. Sure, the do get paid for that piece of work, maybe they even get a raise, but then maybe not. If not, they couldn't just take that expertise of theirs and go implement the "brilliant ideaTM" elsewhere, the company owns that innovatiove piece of knowledge for effectively forever. Even the brilliant scientist who is one among the very few people in the world who actually  has the most profound understanding of that new technology or the guru who knows  the KILLERAPP code like no one else have no say whatsoever on how that piece of work will be put to good use (or even at all) Instead we have the firm using that piece of knowledge  for one purpose and from one angle only, namely profit maximisation. I know we(you) have come to accept the fact that all the good things are a mere byproduct of that profit maximisation paradigm and subordinate to it when push comes to shove. (Indeed this could be one of the reasons people are fed up with IP concept. It helps create certain.. inefficiencies like letting poor people who cant afford the new drugs die and such)</p><p>Anyway this wasn't about failings of capitalism in general so lets look at the hypothetical<br>CASE two, no patent right whatsoever:</p><p>The same cure for cancer or  killerapp is being developed and put into public domain the moment the product hits the shelves.<br>(I am aware  of the obvious question: why would  firms even invest money into R&amp;D if they don't get to keep total control over the resulting innovation? i'll come to that in a moment, please bear with me)<br>Now for the tech in question the situation is obviously better than ever: her expertise is still worth as much as ever, in fact the more popular the application gets the more is his expertise worth. Sure there are thousands specialists in the same filed who are capable of understanding/implementing the innovation in question but the gals who wrote it are still the ones who know that shit better than anyone else, that is until the technology in all its possible and different implementations is commonplace (which would happen fairly quick with something truly innovative, as one would hope it should).<br>Now the company better treats their scientists and coders right! Lest they pack up and go implement the idea elsewhere.... Which is kinda apropriate because those where the guys who actually did all the (intellectual) work and such. Yeah the coders still need an admin to mind the network and their servers and such and yes the scientist still need someone to do the stuff that needs to be done and whatsnot but one still could argue that a software developing firm ist primary about writing software and pharmaceutical firm is about developing drugs?<br>The point i am obviously struggling with here is that patenting is not empowering those people who actually provide the service in question, quite the opposite perhaps?<br>On the oth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO there are in fact valid reasons to actually abolish copy/patentright beyond " everthing will work out somehow " and " middle ground " argument.For brevity 's sake i would like try to look at technical patents only but i think similar arguments can be made in regards to artistic copyright.Lets compare the scenarios patenting/no patenting from the point of view of the person who is supposed to be protected by this whole thingie the scientist who invented cure for something or the software engineer who wrote a killer application : CASE one , today 's patenting solution : cure for cancer or THE SPAMKILLFILE algorithm or whatever has been invented or written by a person or a group of people .
The moment it gets patented ( actually before that but since the general public is none the wiser until stuff gets patented it doesnt matter much ) the company those techs and scientist were working for are the ones in total control of that piece of intellectual work ( including the power to sit on it and dont let anyone using it for some reason or other ) and what is important here ist precisely that : patents do not empower those techheads but rather the firm who they work for .
Sure , the do get paid for that piece of work , maybe they even get a raise , but then maybe not .
If not , they could n't just take that expertise of theirs and go implement the " brilliant ideaTM " elsewhere , the company owns that innovatiove piece of knowledge for effectively forever .
Even the brilliant scientist who is one among the very few people in the world who actually has the most profound understanding of that new technology or the guru who knows the KILLERAPP code like no one else have no say whatsoever on how that piece of work will be put to good use ( or even at all ) Instead we have the firm using that piece of knowledge for one purpose and from one angle only , namely profit maximisation .
I know we ( you ) have come to accept the fact that all the good things are a mere byproduct of that profit maximisation paradigm and subordinate to it when push comes to shove .
( Indeed this could be one of the reasons people are fed up with IP concept .
It helps create certain.. inefficiencies like letting poor people who cant afford the new drugs die and such ) Anyway this was n't about failings of capitalism in general so lets look at the hypotheticalCASE two , no patent right whatsoever : The same cure for cancer or killerapp is being developed and put into public domain the moment the product hits the shelves .
( I am aware of the obvious question : why would firms even invest money into R&amp;D if they do n't get to keep total control over the resulting innovation ?
i 'll come to that in a moment , please bear with me ) Now for the tech in question the situation is obviously better than ever : her expertise is still worth as much as ever , in fact the more popular the application gets the more is his expertise worth .
Sure there are thousands specialists in the same filed who are capable of understanding/implementing the innovation in question but the gals who wrote it are still the ones who know that shit better than anyone else , that is until the technology in all its possible and different implementations is commonplace ( which would happen fairly quick with something truly innovative , as one would hope it should ) .Now the company better treats their scientists and coders right !
Lest they pack up and go implement the idea elsewhere.... Which is kinda apropriate because those where the guys who actually did all the ( intellectual ) work and such .
Yeah the coders still need an admin to mind the network and their servers and such and yes the scientist still need someone to do the stuff that needs to be done and whatsnot but one still could argue that a software developing firm ist primary about writing software and pharmaceutical firm is about developing drugs ? The point i am obviously struggling with here is that patenting is not empowering those people who actually provide the service in question , quite the opposite perhaps ? On the oth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO there are in fact valid reasons to actually abolish copy/patentright beyond "everthing will work out somehow" and "middle ground" argument.For brevity's sake i would like try to look at technical patents only but i think similar arguments can be made  in regards to artistic copyright.Lets compare the scenarios patenting/no patenting from the point of view of the person who is supposed to be protected by this whole thingie the scientist who invented cure for something or the software engineer who wrote a killer application:CASE one, today's patenting solution: cure for cancer or THE SPAMKILLFILE algorithm or whatever  has been invented or written by a person or a group of people.
The moment it gets patented (actually before that but since the general public is none the wiser until stuff gets patented it doesnt matter much) the company those techs and scientist were working for are the ones in total control of that piece of intellectual work (including the power to sit on it and dont let anyone using it for some reason or other) and what is important here ist precisely that: patents do not empower those techheads but rather the firm who they work for.
Sure, the do get paid for that piece of work, maybe they even get a raise, but then maybe not.
If not, they couldn't just take that expertise of theirs and go implement the "brilliant ideaTM" elsewhere, the company owns that innovatiove piece of knowledge for effectively forever.
Even the brilliant scientist who is one among the very few people in the world who actually  has the most profound understanding of that new technology or the guru who knows  the KILLERAPP code like no one else have no say whatsoever on how that piece of work will be put to good use (or even at all) Instead we have the firm using that piece of knowledge  for one purpose and from one angle only, namely profit maximisation.
I know we(you) have come to accept the fact that all the good things are a mere byproduct of that profit maximisation paradigm and subordinate to it when push comes to shove.
(Indeed this could be one of the reasons people are fed up with IP concept.
It helps create certain.. inefficiencies like letting poor people who cant afford the new drugs die and such)Anyway this wasn't about failings of capitalism in general so lets look at the hypotheticalCASE two, no patent right whatsoever:The same cure for cancer or  killerapp is being developed and put into public domain the moment the product hits the shelves.
(I am aware  of the obvious question: why would  firms even invest money into R&amp;D if they don't get to keep total control over the resulting innovation?
i'll come to that in a moment, please bear with me)Now for the tech in question the situation is obviously better than ever: her expertise is still worth as much as ever, in fact the more popular the application gets the more is his expertise worth.
Sure there are thousands specialists in the same filed who are capable of understanding/implementing the innovation in question but the gals who wrote it are still the ones who know that shit better than anyone else, that is until the technology in all its possible and different implementations is commonplace (which would happen fairly quick with something truly innovative, as one would hope it should).Now the company better treats their scientists and coders right!
Lest they pack up and go implement the idea elsewhere.... Which is kinda apropriate because those where the guys who actually did all the (intellectual) work and such.
Yeah the coders still need an admin to mind the network and their servers and such and yes the scientist still need someone to do the stuff that needs to be done and whatsnot but one still could argue that a software developing firm ist primary about writing software and pharmaceutical firm is about developing drugs?The point i am obviously struggling with here is that patenting is not empowering those people who actually provide the service in question, quite the opposite perhaps?On the oth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318553</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1244890260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought part of the philosophy behind the GPL is that there would be no need for it if there was no copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought part of the philosophy behind the GPL is that there would be no need for it if there was no copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought part of the philosophy behind the GPL is that there would be no need for it if there was no copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315555</id>
	<title>Wexler and Hatch are tools of Big Media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244809620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just another data point correlated with the general trend of Congresscritters whoring for the **AA.  Even Wexler, who is a member of the progressive congress, needs wealthy donors.  And he gets them by fellating the copyright cosa nostra, in this example...
</p><p>Everyone in congress is owned by one or more corporate interests, and although it seems the recording and movie industries target those with a (D) after their names, Orrin Hatch proves that their corruption is bipartisan.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another data point correlated with the general trend of Congresscritters whoring for the * * AA .
Even Wexler , who is a member of the progressive congress , needs wealthy donors .
And he gets them by fellating the copyright cosa nostra , in this example.. . Everyone in congress is owned by one or more corporate interests , and although it seems the recording and movie industries target those with a ( D ) after their names , Orrin Hatch proves that their corruption is bipartisan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another data point correlated with the general trend of Congresscritters whoring for the **AA.
Even Wexler, who is a member of the progressive congress, needs wealthy donors.
And he gets them by fellating the copyright cosa nostra, in this example...
Everyone in congress is owned by one or more corporate interests, and although it seems the recording and movie industries target those with a (D) after their names, Orrin Hatch proves that their corruption is bipartisan.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591</id>
	<title>Wait a second...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1244809920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought we were for copyright <i>reform</i> here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods. When did we decide that we wanted to completely abolish copyright? What about the GNU copyrights? Do we start ignoring them too?</p><p>If you just want to completely trash the system and ignore <i>all</i> copyrights, then sorry, I didn't sign up for that revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods .
When did we decide that we wanted to completely abolish copyright ?
What about the GNU copyrights ?
Do we start ignoring them too ? If you just want to completely trash the system and ignore all copyrights , then sorry , I did n't sign up for that revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were for copyright reform here... i.e. a return to reasonable copyright periods.
When did we decide that we wanted to completely abolish copyright?
What about the GNU copyrights?
Do we start ignoring them too?If you just want to completely trash the system and ignore all copyrights, then sorry, I didn't sign up for that revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316315</id>
	<title>Memories...on the corners of my...</title>
	<author>zaivala</author>
	<datestamp>1244815980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody should get Wexler and Hatch to read (or, hopefully, re-read) Spider Robinson's Hugo-winning story, "Elephant's Memory".  The longer and tighter you make copyright last, the more you HURT creativity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody should get Wexler and Hatch to read ( or , hopefully , re-read ) Spider Robinson 's Hugo-winning story , " Elephant 's Memory " .
The longer and tighter you make copyright last , the more you HURT creativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody should get Wexler and Hatch to read (or, hopefully, re-read) Spider Robinson's Hugo-winning story, "Elephant's Memory".
The longer and tighter you make copyright last, the more you HURT creativity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316719</id>
	<title>Long long ago, in a parliament far away</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244819880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas Macauley gave two speeches on copyright extension.  He covered all the salient points we're going to touch here on slashdot today, and a few more.  <a href="http://baens-universe.com/articles/McCauley\_copyright" title="baens-universe.com" rel="nofollow">They are hosted here.</a> [baens-universe.com]  Please note that the host is a publisher, and Macauley was himself a distinguished author.  It was over 160 years ago, but it's still a good read.
</p><p>After that, if you have the math to sift through these <a href="http://www.rufuspollock.org/2007/07/09/forever-minus-a-day-some-theory-and-empirics-of-optimal-copyright/" title="rufuspollock.org" rel="nofollow">two papers</a> [rufuspollock.org] on the subject, you may agree with their author that the maximum benefit to authors and the public comes with copyright terms of about 15 years.  The farther you get from optimum, the less benefit both creators and consumers see - not more for one and less for the other depending on direction, as one might assume.
</p><p>Excessive length of copyright harms content creators, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Macauley gave two speeches on copyright extension .
He covered all the salient points we 're going to touch here on slashdot today , and a few more .
They are hosted here .
[ baens-universe.com ] Please note that the host is a publisher , and Macauley was himself a distinguished author .
It was over 160 years ago , but it 's still a good read .
After that , if you have the math to sift through these two papers [ rufuspollock.org ] on the subject , you may agree with their author that the maximum benefit to authors and the public comes with copyright terms of about 15 years .
The farther you get from optimum , the less benefit both creators and consumers see - not more for one and less for the other depending on direction , as one might assume .
Excessive length of copyright harms content creators , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Macauley gave two speeches on copyright extension.
He covered all the salient points we're going to touch here on slashdot today, and a few more.
They are hosted here.
[baens-universe.com]  Please note that the host is a publisher, and Macauley was himself a distinguished author.
It was over 160 years ago, but it's still a good read.
After that, if you have the math to sift through these two papers [rufuspollock.org] on the subject, you may agree with their author that the maximum benefit to authors and the public comes with copyright terms of about 15 years.
The farther you get from optimum, the less benefit both creators and consumers see - not more for one and less for the other depending on direction, as one might assume.
Excessive length of copyright harms content creators, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315887</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28322349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28321505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28326803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28343845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28321763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28322611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_2128226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28321505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28319459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28322349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28321763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28322611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_2128226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28343845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28326803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28315663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28317693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28318553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_2128226.28316821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
