<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_18_0311216</id>
	<title>Harvard Study Says Weak Copyright Benefits Society</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245315360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Michael Geist <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4062/125/">summarizes
an important new study on file sharing</a> from economists Felix
Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf. The Harvard Business School <a href="http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf">working paper</a>
finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the
greater public
access conclude that 'weaker copyright protection, it seems, has
benefited society.' The authors point out that file sharing may not
result in
reduced incentives to create if the willingness to pay for
'complements' such as concerts or author speaking tours increases."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Michael Geist summarizes an important new study on file sharing from economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf .
The Harvard Business School working paper finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the greater public access conclude that 'weaker copyright protection , it seems , has benefited society .
' The authors point out that file sharing may not result in reduced incentives to create if the willingness to pay for 'complements ' such as concerts or author speaking tours increases .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist summarizes
an important new study on file sharing from economists Felix
Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf.
The Harvard Business School working paper
finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the
greater public
access conclude that 'weaker copyright protection, it seems, has
benefited society.
' The authors point out that file sharing may not
result in
reduced incentives to create if the willingness to pay for
'complements' such as concerts or author speaking tours increases.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1245319860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Studies or the truth don't matter.<br>What matters is the amount of people and money spent on lobbying.</p><p>(Politicians: representatives of lobbyists - this word originates from "Polis" which means "great gathering of lobbyists" in ancient Greek).</p><p>Sad but true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Studies or the truth do n't matter.What matters is the amount of people and money spent on lobbying .
( Politicians : representatives of lobbyists - this word originates from " Polis " which means " great gathering of lobbyists " in ancient Greek ) .Sad but true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studies or the truth don't matter.What matters is the amount of people and money spent on lobbying.
(Politicians: representatives of lobbyists - this word originates from "Polis" which means "great gathering of lobbyists" in ancient Greek).Sad but true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375529</id>
	<title>Big woop</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1245346140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now in order to make sure I make a profit on my paintings I have to book a speaking tour?  Or I need to lecture on my crappy little casual game software.  This is bullshite and pointless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now in order to make sure I make a profit on my paintings I have to book a speaking tour ?
Or I need to lecture on my crappy little casual game software .
This is bullshite and pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now in order to make sure I make a profit on my paintings I have to book a speaking tour?
Or I need to lecture on my crappy little casual game software.
This is bullshite and pointless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371581</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>andreicio</author>
	<datestamp>1245324300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The media industry knows this, but their business model is based on percentage of sales. Quote from the paper in question: "While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded.". The media industry is strictly interested in album sales, not in revenues to the artists. The fact that they invoke the artists in order to cause public outrage against copyright infringement is only normal: they use whatever means necessary to stay in business.</p><p>The unwillingness to change their business is another matter altogether, and can be discussed about all major industries. The bigger they are, the more difficult the change, and the more blindly stubborn their struggle to keep things the way they are. They will fall at one point though, when all possible sources of profit will be gone. Until then, they will make life difficult, or at least try.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media industry knows this , but their business model is based on percentage of sales .
Quote from the paper in question : " While album sales have generally fallen since 2000 , the number of albums being created has exploded. " .
The media industry is strictly interested in album sales , not in revenues to the artists .
The fact that they invoke the artists in order to cause public outrage against copyright infringement is only normal : they use whatever means necessary to stay in business.The unwillingness to change their business is another matter altogether , and can be discussed about all major industries .
The bigger they are , the more difficult the change , and the more blindly stubborn their struggle to keep things the way they are .
They will fall at one point though , when all possible sources of profit will be gone .
Until then , they will make life difficult , or at least try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media industry knows this, but their business model is based on percentage of sales.
Quote from the paper in question: "While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded.".
The media industry is strictly interested in album sales, not in revenues to the artists.
The fact that they invoke the artists in order to cause public outrage against copyright infringement is only normal: they use whatever means necessary to stay in business.The unwillingness to change their business is another matter altogether, and can be discussed about all major industries.
The bigger they are, the more difficult the change, and the more blindly stubborn their struggle to keep things the way they are.
They will fall at one point though, when all possible sources of profit will be gone.
Until then, they will make life difficult, or at least try.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376005</id>
	<title>Big Media doesn't care about benefiting society..</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1245347820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... it cares only about benefiting itself.  IP is the new Last Frontier of land grabs, and unlike actual land they can create an infinite amount of the stuff to control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it cares only about benefiting itself .
IP is the new Last Frontier of land grabs , and unlike actual land they can create an infinite amount of the stuff to control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it cares only about benefiting itself.
IP is the new Last Frontier of land grabs, and unlike actual land they can create an infinite amount of the stuff to control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376159</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1245348420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't "know this."  As a pirate, you simply assume it because it makes you feel less guilty about ripping artists off.  If Slashdotters actually believe that they're entitled to rip people off because they believe someone else will pay for concert tickets or t-shirts or whatever, they're far more selfish and dumb than they realize.</p><p>Seriously, your entire belief system is based on a theoretical if situation which guesses that willingness to pay for other things "may" increase.  This study is definitely pointless, but for different reasons than you state.</p><p>What "concert tickets" or "speaking tours" are John Carmack going to sell if you pirate his game?  Is that seriously the Slashdot pro-piracy justification now?  Concerts and speaking tours?  Why should anybody be forced to sell those if they just want to create music or software or whatever?</p><p>Idiots.  Yes, I'm aware this will get me modbombed...any anti-piracy article on Slashdot gets mindlessly modded down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't " know this .
" As a pirate , you simply assume it because it makes you feel less guilty about ripping artists off .
If Slashdotters actually believe that they 're entitled to rip people off because they believe someone else will pay for concert tickets or t-shirts or whatever , they 're far more selfish and dumb than they realize.Seriously , your entire belief system is based on a theoretical if situation which guesses that willingness to pay for other things " may " increase .
This study is definitely pointless , but for different reasons than you state.What " concert tickets " or " speaking tours " are John Carmack going to sell if you pirate his game ?
Is that seriously the Slashdot pro-piracy justification now ?
Concerts and speaking tours ?
Why should anybody be forced to sell those if they just want to create music or software or whatever ? Idiots .
Yes , I 'm aware this will get me modbombed...any anti-piracy article on Slashdot gets mindlessly modded down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't "know this.
"  As a pirate, you simply assume it because it makes you feel less guilty about ripping artists off.
If Slashdotters actually believe that they're entitled to rip people off because they believe someone else will pay for concert tickets or t-shirts or whatever, they're far more selfish and dumb than they realize.Seriously, your entire belief system is based on a theoretical if situation which guesses that willingness to pay for other things "may" increase.
This study is definitely pointless, but for different reasons than you state.What "concert tickets" or "speaking tours" are John Carmack going to sell if you pirate his game?
Is that seriously the Slashdot pro-piracy justification now?
Concerts and speaking tours?
Why should anybody be forced to sell those if they just want to create music or software or whatever?Idiots.
Yes, I'm aware this will get me modbombed...any anti-piracy article on Slashdot gets mindlessly modded down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371209</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245319800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the media industry will not believe it</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed, since the media "industry" - the guys that buy the lawyers and Senators - have no interest in "creating" anything.  Their job is to exploit other peoples' creations.  Whether the creators get rewarded or not is utterly irrelevant to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the media industry will not believe itIndeed , since the media " industry " - the guys that buy the lawyers and Senators - have no interest in " creating " anything .
Their job is to exploit other peoples ' creations .
Whether the creators get rewarded or not is utterly irrelevant to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the media industry will not believe itIndeed, since the media "industry" - the guys that buy the lawyers and Senators - have no interest in "creating" anything.
Their job is to exploit other peoples' creations.
Whether the creators get rewarded or not is utterly irrelevant to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371943</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>rundgren</author>
	<datestamp>1245328140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These kind of studies are largely pointless. We already know this, and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.</p></div><p>You're right, but the important part is convincing society in general, and of course politicans. And at least some of them \_do\_ listen to/read academic papers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These kind of studies are largely pointless .
We already know this , and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.You 're right , but the important part is convincing society in general , and of course politicans .
And at least some of them \ _do \ _ listen to/read academic papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These kind of studies are largely pointless.
We already know this, and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.You're right, but the important part is convincing society in general, and of course politicans.
And at least some of them \_do\_ listen to/read academic papers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371551</id>
	<title>How do you work that out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245323880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leerchers will remix existing art WHY?</p><p>Because according to you, NOBODY will create new art (which is what a remix is), so therefore no remixing.</p><p>But if there's no remixing of art, there's then no reason for new art not to be created.</p><p>But if there's new art, it will be remixed so people won't make new art.</p><p>But if there's remixing, that IS new art.</p><p>So they won't remix.</p><p>But it there's no remixing of art, there's no reason for new art not to be created.</p><p>.<br>.<br>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leerchers will remix existing art WHY ? Because according to you , NOBODY will create new art ( which is what a remix is ) , so therefore no remixing.But if there 's no remixing of art , there 's then no reason for new art not to be created.But if there 's new art , it will be remixed so people wo n't make new art.But if there 's remixing , that IS new art.So they wo n't remix.But it there 's no remixing of art , there 's no reason for new art not to be created... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leerchers will remix existing art WHY?Because according to you, NOBODY will create new art (which is what a remix is), so therefore no remixing.But if there's no remixing of art, there's then no reason for new art not to be created.But if there's new art, it will be remixed so people won't make new art.But if there's remixing, that IS new art.So they won't remix.But it there's no remixing of art, there's no reason for new art not to be created....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373217</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245336660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I don't buy music anymore.  There are websites out there with FREE, INDEPENDENT music, performed by bands who WANT you to download it.  And it's actually better than the commercial stuff by far.</p><p>Why bother "buying" music at ALL?  Unless you enjoy giving money to soulless corporate greedheads, I don't think there's an upside.  I'll stick with the indies, and if any of them play in a city near me, maybe I'll go buy something from them (or at least buy the band a beer).</p><p>I can put all the indie music I want on MY ipod...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I do n't buy music anymore .
There are websites out there with FREE , INDEPENDENT music , performed by bands who WANT you to download it .
And it 's actually better than the commercial stuff by far.Why bother " buying " music at ALL ?
Unless you enjoy giving money to soulless corporate greedheads , I do n't think there 's an upside .
I 'll stick with the indies , and if any of them play in a city near me , maybe I 'll go buy something from them ( or at least buy the band a beer ) .I can put all the indie music I want on MY ipod.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I don't buy music anymore.
There are websites out there with FREE, INDEPENDENT music, performed by bands who WANT you to download it.
And it's actually better than the commercial stuff by far.Why bother "buying" music at ALL?
Unless you enjoy giving money to soulless corporate greedheads, I don't think there's an upside.
I'll stick with the indies, and if any of them play in a city near me, maybe I'll go buy something from them (or at least buy the band a beer).I can put all the indie music I want on MY ipod...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372591</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1245333420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion</p></div><p>"It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his livelihood requires that he <i>not understand it."</i></p><p><i>The media industry already knows and understands it.  They refuse to admit it because it means acknowledging their own obsolesence.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion " It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his livelihood requires that he not understand it .
" The media industry already knows and understands it .
They refuse to admit it because it means acknowledging their own obsolesence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion"It is impossible to get a man to understand something when his livelihood requires that he not understand it.
"The media industry already knows and understands it.
They refuse to admit it because it means acknowledging their own obsolesence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371247</id>
	<title>Other studies tell the same story</title>
	<author>Boetsj</author>
	<datestamp>1245320100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

<a href="http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/klaver/2009/01/19/downloaden-is-goed-voor-de-nederlandse-economie/" title="weblogs3.nrc.nl" rel="nofollow">A similar study has been conducted before in the Netherlands:</a> [weblogs3.nrc.nl] <i>Downloading benefits the Dutch economy</i> (in Dutch, <a href="http://74.125.77.132/translate\_c?hl=nl&amp;sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/klaver/2009/01/19/downloaden-is-goed-voor-de-nederlandse-economie/&amp;prev=hp&amp;rurl=translate.google.nl&amp;usg=ALkJrhgLW5IcCmAaH4QppkGMcLG072Ab\_A" title="74.125.77.132" rel="nofollow">Google Translation</a> [74.125.77.132]). This study had been ordered by the department of Education, Culture and Science, the department of Economic Affairs and the Justice department.
<br>
<br>
A downloaded movie, CD or game is not equal to a product not sold, say the researchers. Also, "Amongst downloaders of music and film, the percentage of buyers is as high as with non-downloaders, in games, the percentage of buyers even higher. Music downloaders are also more likely to concerts and buy more merchandise. Downloaders buy more games than gamers who never downloaded and movies downloaders buy more DVDs than non-downloaders."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A similar study has been conducted before in the Netherlands : [ weblogs3.nrc.nl ] Downloading benefits the Dutch economy ( in Dutch , Google Translation [ 74.125.77.132 ] ) .
This study had been ordered by the department of Education , Culture and Science , the department of Economic Affairs and the Justice department .
A downloaded movie , CD or game is not equal to a product not sold , say the researchers .
Also , " Amongst downloaders of music and film , the percentage of buyers is as high as with non-downloaders , in games , the percentage of buyers even higher .
Music downloaders are also more likely to concerts and buy more merchandise .
Downloaders buy more games than gamers who never downloaded and movies downloaders buy more DVDs than non-downloaders .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

A similar study has been conducted before in the Netherlands: [weblogs3.nrc.nl] Downloading benefits the Dutch economy (in Dutch, Google Translation [74.125.77.132]).
This study had been ordered by the department of Education, Culture and Science, the department of Economic Affairs and the Justice department.
A downloaded movie, CD or game is not equal to a product not sold, say the researchers.
Also, "Amongst downloaders of music and film, the percentage of buyers is as high as with non-downloaders, in games, the percentage of buyers even higher.
Music downloaders are also more likely to concerts and buy more merchandise.
Downloaders buy more games than gamers who never downloaded and movies downloaders buy more DVDs than non-downloaders.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223</id>
	<title>in today's America</title>
	<author>joeyspqr</author>
	<datestamp>1245319860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>laws are not passed to benefit society, laws are bought to protect business models.</htmltext>
<tokenext>laws are not passed to benefit society , laws are bought to protect business models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>laws are not passed to benefit society, laws are bought to protect business models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371807</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1245326700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will learn. They will learn, or they will die.</p><p>The recent <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/1940201" title="slashdot.org">Virgin/Universal deal</a> [slashdot.org] that was covered here on slashdot is an example of things moving in the right direction. In case you don't remember: A UK ISP will offer something very close to Magnatune, for Virgin/Universal's music. You can make a monthly payment for an all-you-can-eat buffet. Yeah, there are still some minor issues (they still want to disconnect people without any trial, and they still won't let you give a friend a copy), but it's a huge step forward.</p><p>What's even more interesting, is that <i>deals like these will give artists incentive to reduce copyright terms</i>. The reason is that there is a pool of income (the subscription fees) that is divided among the artists according to popularity. New and current artists will not want to share with the old-timers forever. "Move over! While people still love your music, it's our new music that keeps them subscribing!", they might say. It will probably be true, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will learn .
They will learn , or they will die.The recent Virgin/Universal deal [ slashdot.org ] that was covered here on slashdot is an example of things moving in the right direction .
In case you do n't remember : A UK ISP will offer something very close to Magnatune , for Virgin/Universal 's music .
You can make a monthly payment for an all-you-can-eat buffet .
Yeah , there are still some minor issues ( they still want to disconnect people without any trial , and they still wo n't let you give a friend a copy ) , but it 's a huge step forward.What 's even more interesting , is that deals like these will give artists incentive to reduce copyright terms .
The reason is that there is a pool of income ( the subscription fees ) that is divided among the artists according to popularity .
New and current artists will not want to share with the old-timers forever .
" Move over !
While people still love your music , it 's our new music that keeps them subscribing !
" , they might say .
It will probably be true , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will learn.
They will learn, or they will die.The recent Virgin/Universal deal [slashdot.org] that was covered here on slashdot is an example of things moving in the right direction.
In case you don't remember: A UK ISP will offer something very close to Magnatune, for Virgin/Universal's music.
You can make a monthly payment for an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Yeah, there are still some minor issues (they still want to disconnect people without any trial, and they still won't let you give a friend a copy), but it's a huge step forward.What's even more interesting, is that deals like these will give artists incentive to reduce copyright terms.
The reason is that there is a pool of income (the subscription fees) that is divided among the artists according to popularity.
New and current artists will not want to share with the old-timers forever.
"Move over!
While people still love your music, it's our new music that keeps them subscribing!
", they might say.
It will probably be true, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376999</id>
	<title>ROFL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is <i>nothing</i> fair about someone being to take control of other people's computers away from them just because he produced something that can be easily represented digitally.  Those people (specifically, <i>everyone else in the world</i>) paid good money for their computers.  Their computers are their property.  They should be able to make use of the features of those computers, including data duplication.  It is <i>not fair</i> that someone can take that control away from <i>everyone in the world</i> just because he wants to make music for a living.</p><p>But none of that matters.  Your notion that laws are primarily motivated by the inclination to create fairness is simple naive idealism.  It is <i>not fair</i> that some people can work easy jobs and make gobs of money while other people have to work very difficult jobs to barely scrape by, yet our legal system has many laws in place to directly perpetuate this unfairness.  It is <i>not fair</i> that a musician can record a song once and receive money from it for the next 70 years where a cook cannot make a meal once and receive money from it for the next 70 years.  It is <i>not fair</i> that anyone has more money or property than anyone else.  But that doesn't matter.</p><p>Capitalism is not fair.  It isn't supposed to be.  It instead emphasizes utilitarianism.  The greater good for the greater number is a more achievable, and more worthy, goal that total fairness to everyone.  So that is what we aim for, and that serves as sound justification for many of our laws.</p><p>Of course, plenty of laws that get passed aren't even based on this justification, but rather the desires of the wealthy and powerful (which are usually at odds with the desires of the poor and powerless).  That too, is unfair, though it often gets pushed through.  Those who suffer from it resist, and if they can resist well enough, the laws get repealed.  And the battle goes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing fair about someone being to take control of other people 's computers away from them just because he produced something that can be easily represented digitally .
Those people ( specifically , everyone else in the world ) paid good money for their computers .
Their computers are their property .
They should be able to make use of the features of those computers , including data duplication .
It is not fair that someone can take that control away from everyone in the world just because he wants to make music for a living.But none of that matters .
Your notion that laws are primarily motivated by the inclination to create fairness is simple naive idealism .
It is not fair that some people can work easy jobs and make gobs of money while other people have to work very difficult jobs to barely scrape by , yet our legal system has many laws in place to directly perpetuate this unfairness .
It is not fair that a musician can record a song once and receive money from it for the next 70 years where a cook can not make a meal once and receive money from it for the next 70 years .
It is not fair that anyone has more money or property than anyone else .
But that does n't matter.Capitalism is not fair .
It is n't supposed to be .
It instead emphasizes utilitarianism .
The greater good for the greater number is a more achievable , and more worthy , goal that total fairness to everyone .
So that is what we aim for , and that serves as sound justification for many of our laws.Of course , plenty of laws that get passed are n't even based on this justification , but rather the desires of the wealthy and powerful ( which are usually at odds with the desires of the poor and powerless ) .
That too , is unfair , though it often gets pushed through .
Those who suffer from it resist , and if they can resist well enough , the laws get repealed .
And the battle goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing fair about someone being to take control of other people's computers away from them just because he produced something that can be easily represented digitally.
Those people (specifically, everyone else in the world) paid good money for their computers.
Their computers are their property.
They should be able to make use of the features of those computers, including data duplication.
It is not fair that someone can take that control away from everyone in the world just because he wants to make music for a living.But none of that matters.
Your notion that laws are primarily motivated by the inclination to create fairness is simple naive idealism.
It is not fair that some people can work easy jobs and make gobs of money while other people have to work very difficult jobs to barely scrape by, yet our legal system has many laws in place to directly perpetuate this unfairness.
It is not fair that a musician can record a song once and receive money from it for the next 70 years where a cook cannot make a meal once and receive money from it for the next 70 years.
It is not fair that anyone has more money or property than anyone else.
But that doesn't matter.Capitalism is not fair.
It isn't supposed to be.
It instead emphasizes utilitarianism.
The greater good for the greater number is a more achievable, and more worthy, goal that total fairness to everyone.
So that is what we aim for, and that serves as sound justification for many of our laws.Of course, plenty of laws that get passed aren't even based on this justification, but rather the desires of the wealthy and powerful (which are usually at odds with the desires of the poor and powerless).
That too, is unfair, though it often gets pushed through.
Those who suffer from it resist, and if they can resist well enough, the laws get repealed.
And the battle goes on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372297</id>
	<title>Copyright Clause</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1245331320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><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><p>I wish people would actually read the constitution.</p><p>"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," : not to promote the interests of monied pockets of power.</p><p>"securing limited Time to Authors and Inventors," :  limited time (we've gone over this time and time again), but *Authors* and *Inventors*</p><p>The people that wrote the constitution were damn smart people.  Too bad we stopped listening.  Copyright is supposed to benefit all of us so of course a limited copyright span that balances the rights of *Authors* (not Corporations) vs. the public is the best.  Here's to another study that didn't need to be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 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 .
" I wish people would actually read the constitution .
" To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , " : not to promote the interests of monied pockets of power .
" securing limited Time to Authors and Inventors , " : limited time ( we 've gone over this time and time again ) , but * Authors * and * Inventors * The people that wrote the constitution were damn smart people .
Too bad we stopped listening .
Copyright is supposed to benefit all of us so of course a limited copyright span that balances the rights of * Authors * ( not Corporations ) vs. the public is the best .
Here 's to another study that did n't need to be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"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.
"I wish people would actually read the constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," : not to promote the interests of monied pockets of power.
"securing limited Time to Authors and Inventors," :  limited time (we've gone over this time and time again), but *Authors* and *Inventors*The people that wrote the constitution were damn smart people.
Too bad we stopped listening.
Copyright is supposed to benefit all of us so of course a limited copyright span that balances the rights of *Authors* (not Corporations) vs. the public is the best.
Here's to another study that didn't need to be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</id>
	<title>Err..</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1245320220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if you're an artist but only want to create art and not tour all over the place just to make money? I realise that most musicians seem to like doing concerts, but what if that's not what you want to do and just want to record albums?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you 're an artist but only want to create art and not tour all over the place just to make money ?
I realise that most musicians seem to like doing concerts , but what if that 's not what you want to do and just want to record albums ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you're an artist but only want to create art and not tour all over the place just to make money?
I realise that most musicians seem to like doing concerts, but what if that's not what you want to do and just want to record albums?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373463</id>
	<title>We'll pay them in beer!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245337620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:<br>"In addition, artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form &#226;" many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars &#226;" suggesting a reduction in monetary<br>incentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artistic<br>production."</p><p>To: Piracy Advocates<br>From: Some Ridiculous Handle Doesnt Make Me Less Anonymous or Cowardly<br>Re: Golden Rule<br>How would you feel if some Harvard Academic told you you must give away whatever it is you produce because some unspecified person may or may not decided to reward you with a free Coors in some unspecified dingy bar on some unspecified day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " In addition , artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form   " many of them enjoy fame , admiration , social status , and free beer in bars   " suggesting a reduction in monetaryincentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artisticproduction .
" To : Piracy AdvocatesFrom : Some Ridiculous Handle Doesnt Make Me Less Anonymous or CowardlyRe : Golden RuleHow would you feel if some Harvard Academic told you you must give away whatever it is you produce because some unspecified person may or may not decided to reward you with a free Coors in some unspecified dingy bar on some unspecified day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"In addition, artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form â" many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars â" suggesting a reduction in monetaryincentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artisticproduction.
"To: Piracy AdvocatesFrom: Some Ridiculous Handle Doesnt Make Me Less Anonymous or CowardlyRe: Golden RuleHow would you feel if some Harvard Academic told you you must give away whatever it is you produce because some unspecified person may or may not decided to reward you with a free Coors in some unspecified dingy bar on some unspecified day?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371489</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245322920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and what if I'm a programmer and only want to write obscure software that no one wants? Or what if I'm just lazy and want to get money for free?</p><p>The right to work for money should not be confused with getting money for whatever you like to do. The world changes, and you've got to keep up with it or you'll get left behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and what if I 'm a programmer and only want to write obscure software that no one wants ?
Or what if I 'm just lazy and want to get money for free ? The right to work for money should not be confused with getting money for whatever you like to do .
The world changes , and you 've got to keep up with it or you 'll get left behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and what if I'm a programmer and only want to write obscure software that no one wants?
Or what if I'm just lazy and want to get money for free?The right to work for money should not be confused with getting money for whatever you like to do.
The world changes, and you've got to keep up with it or you'll get left behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</id>
	<title>Pointless</title>
	<author>Razalhague</author>
	<datestamp>1245319380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These kind of studies are largely pointless. We already know this, and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These kind of studies are largely pointless .
We already know this , and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These kind of studies are largely pointless.
We already know this, and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371983</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1245328500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Harvard has caught up with the Grateful Dead.  But I'll bet the Harvard study publishes in approved form and cites references.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Harvard has caught up with the Grateful Dead .
But I 'll bet the Harvard study publishes in approved form and cites references .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Harvard has caught up with the Grateful Dead.
But I'll bet the Harvard study publishes in approved form and cites references.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371827</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245326820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Polis meant "city" in Ancient Greek, and was also used to mean the people of the city.</p><p>Politics comes from "Politikos" meaning "of or concerning the city"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Polis meant " city " in Ancient Greek , and was also used to mean the people of the city.Politics comes from " Politikos " meaning " of or concerning the city "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polis meant "city" in Ancient Greek, and was also used to mean the people of the city.Politics comes from "Politikos" meaning "of or concerning the city"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372709</id>
	<title>Cultural Production, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245334020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1.   The data indicates that file sharing has not discouraged creativity, as the evidence shows significant increases in cultural production.</p></div><p>Britney, meet Lady GaGa.  Some schtick, different chick.  Let's all thank them, and the hordes of copycat bimbo lip-synching strippers out there, for the "cultural producton".

</p><p>Sidenote:  What does it say about the credibility of the link, when they can't even get noun-verb agreement right?  Data are plural, thus data "indicate"--they don't "indicates".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
The data indicates that file sharing has not discouraged creativity , as the evidence shows significant increases in cultural production.Britney , meet Lady GaGa .
Some schtick , different chick .
Let 's all thank them , and the hordes of copycat bimbo lip-synching strippers out there , for the " cultural producton " .
Sidenote : What does it say about the credibility of the link , when they ca n't even get noun-verb agreement right ?
Data are plural , thus data " indicate " --they do n't " indicates " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
The data indicates that file sharing has not discouraged creativity, as the evidence shows significant increases in cultural production.Britney, meet Lady GaGa.
Some schtick, different chick.
Let's all thank them, and the hordes of copycat bimbo lip-synching strippers out there, for the "cultural producton".
Sidenote:  What does it say about the credibility of the link, when they can't even get noun-verb agreement right?
Data are plural, thus data "indicate"--they don't "indicates".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374589</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245342360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well there is a balance.<br>If you are too harmful towards business.  Then we wont have jobs at all. And you think our economy is bad now, it would be a lot worse.<br>If you go too pro-business then workers, environment... would be too abused for advancements in our societies.</p><p>There is an optimal spot. But this spot moves around, every year month.  Sometimes we need more rules to help businesses sometimes more to help people. However our system of laws to really to static to hit the target and stay there for long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there is a balance.If you are too harmful towards business .
Then we wont have jobs at all .
And you think our economy is bad now , it would be a lot worse.If you go too pro-business then workers , environment... would be too abused for advancements in our societies.There is an optimal spot .
But this spot moves around , every year month .
Sometimes we need more rules to help businesses sometimes more to help people .
However our system of laws to really to static to hit the target and stay there for long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there is a balance.If you are too harmful towards business.
Then we wont have jobs at all.
And you think our economy is bad now, it would be a lot worse.If you go too pro-business then workers, environment... would be too abused for advancements in our societies.There is an optimal spot.
But this spot moves around, every year month.
Sometimes we need more rules to help businesses sometimes more to help people.
However our system of laws to really to static to hit the target and stay there for long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28392429</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245436920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The media industry believes it whole heartedly. It's just that they're not interested in the artists profiting, they are upset that their piece of the pie might shrink or they might have to work harder for it. Their only concern for society is how much cash they can wring out of it.</p><p>This means that society will have to stand up for itself and insist on what is in IT's best interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The media industry believes it whole heartedly .
It 's just that they 're not interested in the artists profiting , they are upset that their piece of the pie might shrink or they might have to work harder for it .
Their only concern for society is how much cash they can wring out of it.This means that society will have to stand up for itself and insist on what is in IT 's best interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media industry believes it whole heartedly.
It's just that they're not interested in the artists profiting, they are upset that their piece of the pie might shrink or they might have to work harder for it.
Their only concern for society is how much cash they can wring out of it.This means that society will have to stand up for itself and insist on what is in IT's best interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28377411</id>
	<title>Copy This!</title>
	<author>B\_SharpC</author>
	<datestamp>1245353160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bank Account Number 2753 9482 6732<br>Routing Number 103000143<br>Password gep493m<br>Social Security Number 428636487<br>Credit Card Number 4268 1664 7623 9264</p><p>These belong to user name Opportunity02</p><p>Weak copyright is beneficial.<br>Feel free to copy this information<br>and use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bank Account Number 2753 9482 6732Routing Number 103000143Password gep493mSocial Security Number 428636487Credit Card Number 4268 1664 7623 9264These belong to user name Opportunity02Weak copyright is beneficial.Feel free to copy this informationand use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bank Account Number 2753 9482 6732Routing Number 103000143Password gep493mSocial Security Number 428636487Credit Card Number 4268 1664 7623 9264These belong to user name Opportunity02Weak copyright is beneficial.Feel free to copy this informationand use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372753</id>
	<title>Shhhh - Don't Tell Them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245334200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Harvard Business School working paper finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the greater public access conclude that "weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society."</i></p><p>Wait! Don't tell them that yet!</p><p>Look at the explosion of user generated content on the Internet. People everywhere are creating their own media and cutting out the traditional copyright CABAL <i>precisely because</i> the traditionalists are broken. As long as the buggy-whip manufacturers continue to believe that their business model is viable, they will not innovate. As long as they don't innovate, the silent hand of the market will continue to move artists out of the CABAL and into the independent new media space. As soon as the CABAL realizes they are failing because they are wrong, they might start trying to do just enough of the right thing to survive while retaining their payola, large venue control, and other forms of market manipulation.</p><p>Don't tip them off yet - let them die of chronic denial.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Harvard Business School working paper finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the greater public access conclude that " weaker copyright protection , it seems , has benefited society. " Wait !
Do n't tell them that yet ! Look at the explosion of user generated content on the Internet .
People everywhere are creating their own media and cutting out the traditional copyright CABAL precisely because the traditionalists are broken .
As long as the buggy-whip manufacturers continue to believe that their business model is viable , they will not innovate .
As long as they do n't innovate , the silent hand of the market will continue to move artists out of the CABAL and into the independent new media space .
As soon as the CABAL realizes they are failing because they are wrong , they might start trying to do just enough of the right thing to survive while retaining their payola , large venue control , and other forms of market manipulation.Do n't tip them off yet - let them die of chronic denial .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Harvard Business School working paper finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the greater public access conclude that "weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society."Wait!
Don't tell them that yet!Look at the explosion of user generated content on the Internet.
People everywhere are creating their own media and cutting out the traditional copyright CABAL precisely because the traditionalists are broken.
As long as the buggy-whip manufacturers continue to believe that their business model is viable, they will not innovate.
As long as they don't innovate, the silent hand of the market will continue to move artists out of the CABAL and into the independent new media space.
As soon as the CABAL realizes they are failing because they are wrong, they might start trying to do just enough of the right thing to survive while retaining their payola, large venue control, and other forms of market manipulation.Don't tip them off yet - let them die of chronic denial.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>gnupun</author>
	<datestamp>1245321060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Musicians probably earn more performing concerts because the music labels take a huge percentage of the revenue from selling CDs, leaving only a tiny percent for the musicians. The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs.
<br> <br>
The powers that be want to weaken/destroy copyright so that musicians/writers/programmers/designers/etc cannot make any income from selling the final product -- rather they expect these people to become salaried professionals, getting paid by the hour or work for free. Programmers are already in that group.
<br> <br>
The day copyright dies, the artistic output quality will drop drastically as few artists will work to benefit the leechers who will directly rip or remix existing art for personal use/gain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Musicians probably earn more performing concerts because the music labels take a huge percentage of the revenue from selling CDs , leaving only a tiny percent for the musicians .
The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs .
The powers that be want to weaken/destroy copyright so that musicians/writers/programmers/designers/etc can not make any income from selling the final product -- rather they expect these people to become salaried professionals , getting paid by the hour or work for free .
Programmers are already in that group .
The day copyright dies , the artistic output quality will drop drastically as few artists will work to benefit the leechers who will directly rip or remix existing art for personal use/gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Musicians probably earn more performing concerts because the music labels take a huge percentage of the revenue from selling CDs, leaving only a tiny percent for the musicians.
The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs.
The powers that be want to weaken/destroy copyright so that musicians/writers/programmers/designers/etc cannot make any income from selling the final product -- rather they expect these people to become salaried professionals, getting paid by the hour or work for free.
Programmers are already in that group.
The day copyright dies, the artistic output quality will drop drastically as few artists will work to benefit the leechers who will directly rip or remix existing art for personal use/gain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375209</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245344820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The current copyright laws benefit both artists and consumers</i></p><p>No they dont.</p><p><i>and are more or less fair.</i></p><p>No they aren't.</p><p>This statement-of-opinion-with-no-justification game is fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current copyright laws benefit both artists and consumersNo they dont.and are more or less fair.No they are n't.This statement-of-opinion-with-no-justification game is fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current copyright laws benefit both artists and consumersNo they dont.and are more or less fair.No they aren't.This statement-of-opinion-with-no-justification game is fun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371509</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err...</p><p>I don't know how you equate output quality with financial incentive/copyright. From my experience, the more commercially-oriented the art, the more watered down it is to appeal to the lowest common denominator.</p><p>I'd love to see the proof that copyright is necessary to maintain a high level of artistic output. Because, as an artist, nothing would give me greater pleasure than everyone having free, unlimited use of art. Access to art is what inspires others to create art.</p><p>It's not wrong that artists should seek to make money off their work. But don't connect artistic quality with financial rewards, because that's a fallacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err...I do n't know how you equate output quality with financial incentive/copyright .
From my experience , the more commercially-oriented the art , the more watered down it is to appeal to the lowest common denominator.I 'd love to see the proof that copyright is necessary to maintain a high level of artistic output .
Because , as an artist , nothing would give me greater pleasure than everyone having free , unlimited use of art .
Access to art is what inspires others to create art.It 's not wrong that artists should seek to make money off their work .
But do n't connect artistic quality with financial rewards , because that 's a fallacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err...I don't know how you equate output quality with financial incentive/copyright.
From my experience, the more commercially-oriented the art, the more watered down it is to appeal to the lowest common denominator.I'd love to see the proof that copyright is necessary to maintain a high level of artistic output.
Because, as an artist, nothing would give me greater pleasure than everyone having free, unlimited use of art.
Access to art is what inspires others to create art.It's not wrong that artists should seek to make money off their work.
But don't connect artistic quality with financial rewards, because that's a fallacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371787</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>addsalt</author>
	<datestamp>1245326340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Polis" which means "great gathering of lobbyists"</p></div><p>What? Did you just make that up? If politicians are nothing but lobbyists, whom exactly would they be lobbying?</p><p>Polis is the greek word for their contemporary city/state. Politics would be things "of the state" (e.g. governance).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Polis " which means " great gathering of lobbyists " What ?
Did you just make that up ?
If politicians are nothing but lobbyists , whom exactly would they be lobbying ? Polis is the greek word for their contemporary city/state .
Politics would be things " of the state " ( e.g .
governance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Polis" which means "great gathering of lobbyists"What?
Did you just make that up?
If politicians are nothing but lobbyists, whom exactly would they be lobbying?Polis is the greek word for their contemporary city/state.
Politics would be things "of the state" (e.g.
governance).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372321</id>
	<title>Amusing in the context of the paper</title>
	<author>TheP4st</author>
	<datestamp>1245331620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the first page of the of the paper <p><div class="quote"><p>This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and
discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the first page of the of the paper This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only .
It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the first page of the of the paper This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and
discussion only.
It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28387965</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Why?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs.
Why?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371337</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245321060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can still do that.</p><p>I swear to God, sometimes it's like people equate "loss of some monopoly privileges" with "absolutely forbidden to sell a disc ever again".</p><p>Yes, some people will download instead of buying the CD or paying for it on iTunes. Others will find the artist through file-sharing sites and buy something to either support the artist, own the physical CD or just to feel good inside. On the whole, these effects evens out pretty well, except for the minority of really big artists who lose a bit of income and the majority of really small artists who gain from being more exposed. This is, generally speaking, a good thing since the incomes in the copyright industry is very uneven compared to other industries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can still do that.I swear to God , sometimes it 's like people equate " loss of some monopoly privileges " with " absolutely forbidden to sell a disc ever again " .Yes , some people will download instead of buying the CD or paying for it on iTunes .
Others will find the artist through file-sharing sites and buy something to either support the artist , own the physical CD or just to feel good inside .
On the whole , these effects evens out pretty well , except for the minority of really big artists who lose a bit of income and the majority of really small artists who gain from being more exposed .
This is , generally speaking , a good thing since the incomes in the copyright industry is very uneven compared to other industries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can still do that.I swear to God, sometimes it's like people equate "loss of some monopoly privileges" with "absolutely forbidden to sell a disc ever again".Yes, some people will download instead of buying the CD or paying for it on iTunes.
Others will find the artist through file-sharing sites and buy something to either support the artist, own the physical CD or just to feel good inside.
On the whole, these effects evens out pretty well, except for the minority of really big artists who lose a bit of income and the majority of really small artists who gain from being more exposed.
This is, generally speaking, a good thing since the incomes in the copyright industry is very uneven compared to other industries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373015</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245335640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laws are also passed to protect individuals from the masses.  There are lots of things that could potentially 'benefit society'.
</p><ul>
<li>No public medical care/funding benefits society by removing those who can't pay from the population</li>
<li>Slavery benefits society by lowering the cost of goods</li>
<li>Killing gang-bangers benefits society by making the streets less dangerous</li>
</ul><p>It may be difficult to see through your cynical eyes, but right on the other side of those facades we love to hate (RIAA, etc) are real people.  These people (the composers, musicians, engineers, producers, investors, etc) are the ones who the copyright laws are protecting, not some murky 'business model'.
</p><p>Pretty much the whole point of the constitution is to protect individual rights against 'society'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws are also passed to protect individuals from the masses .
There are lots of things that could potentially 'benefit society' .
No public medical care/funding benefits society by removing those who ca n't pay from the population Slavery benefits society by lowering the cost of goods Killing gang-bangers benefits society by making the streets less dangerous It may be difficult to see through your cynical eyes , but right on the other side of those facades we love to hate ( RIAA , etc ) are real people .
These people ( the composers , musicians , engineers , producers , investors , etc ) are the ones who the copyright laws are protecting , not some murky 'business model' .
Pretty much the whole point of the constitution is to protect individual rights against 'society' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws are also passed to protect individuals from the masses.
There are lots of things that could potentially 'benefit society'.
No public medical care/funding benefits society by removing those who can't pay from the population
Slavery benefits society by lowering the cost of goods
Killing gang-bangers benefits society by making the streets less dangerous
It may be difficult to see through your cynical eyes, but right on the other side of those facades we love to hate (RIAA, etc) are real people.
These people (the composers, musicians, engineers, producers, investors, etc) are the ones who the copyright laws are protecting, not some murky 'business model'.
Pretty much the whole point of the constitution is to protect individual rights against 'society'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28377241</id>
	<title>Only the creator should have copyright</title>
	<author>elloGov</author>
	<datestamp>1245352680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current copyright culture is quite disgusting.

I think that only the creator of the creation should have any copyright claims. The sale/lease of this claim should not be allowed.

When copyright is genuinely appropriate, the creator should be credited and be compensated in an appropriate manner for the use of their work. Once any information is public, it is public and copyright terms should always push for the sharing and the use of the information. The creator must not be bitter, stubborn or too egotistical to inhibit progress. If such is a concern, keep your creation private in your basement until you are ready and agree to share it with the public. Do not release your creation to inhibit the creation of the next person.

I'm not rewriting the rules here, but you get a general sense of my argument hopefully. Today all copyrights and patents serve is big lazy business who absolutely had nothing to do with the creation in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current copyright culture is quite disgusting .
I think that only the creator of the creation should have any copyright claims .
The sale/lease of this claim should not be allowed .
When copyright is genuinely appropriate , the creator should be credited and be compensated in an appropriate manner for the use of their work .
Once any information is public , it is public and copyright terms should always push for the sharing and the use of the information .
The creator must not be bitter , stubborn or too egotistical to inhibit progress .
If such is a concern , keep your creation private in your basement until you are ready and agree to share it with the public .
Do not release your creation to inhibit the creation of the next person .
I 'm not rewriting the rules here , but you get a general sense of my argument hopefully .
Today all copyrights and patents serve is big lazy business who absolutely had nothing to do with the creation in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current copyright culture is quite disgusting.
I think that only the creator of the creation should have any copyright claims.
The sale/lease of this claim should not be allowed.
When copyright is genuinely appropriate, the creator should be credited and be compensated in an appropriate manner for the use of their work.
Once any information is public, it is public and copyright terms should always push for the sharing and the use of the information.
The creator must not be bitter, stubborn or too egotistical to inhibit progress.
If such is a concern, keep your creation private in your basement until you are ready and agree to share it with the public.
Do not release your creation to inhibit the creation of the next person.
I'm not rewriting the rules here, but you get a general sense of my argument hopefully.
Today all copyrights and patents serve is big lazy business who absolutely had nothing to do with the creation in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28388075</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1245417840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I, for one, refuse to support anyone invoking force to support their business model. If you decide to send politicians, cops, and lawyers after your desired customers... I am not bloody going to be one of them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Any commercial transaction ultimately rests on law, and law rests on force, or at least the threat of it.</p><p>If you don't believe me, stop paying your rent or utility bills or car loan and see what happens.  All those bad things you mentioned, that's what.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , refuse to support anyone invoking force to support their business model .
If you decide to send politicians , cops , and lawyers after your desired customers... I am not bloody going to be one of them.Any commercial transaction ultimately rests on law , and law rests on force , or at least the threat of it.If you do n't believe me , stop paying your rent or utility bills or car loan and see what happens .
All those bad things you mentioned , that 's what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I, for one, refuse to support anyone invoking force to support their business model.
If you decide to send politicians, cops, and lawyers after your desired customers... I am not bloody going to be one of them.Any commercial transaction ultimately rests on law, and law rests on force, or at least the threat of it.If you don't believe me, stop paying your rent or utility bills or car loan and see what happens.
All those bad things you mentioned, that's what.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372611</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245333540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The media industry DOES believe it.  In fact they have known it for a long time.  This is easily demonstrable in that people listen to their radios and then turn around and go to concerts and other things.  Radio play does not necessarily equate to CD sales unless the buyer is more or less a fan.  On the radio the music is already effectively free.  (Yes I know it is paid for by advertising and that the radio stations pay the music publishers for the right to play. But to the listener, it's free.)</p><p>The music publishers only have music to publish.  That's what they sell.  They don't do concerts.  They might have the rights to sell t-shirts and other things as well, but their primary income is selling music.  If the study says free music is better for society, they already know that.  If the study says free music is better for artists, they already know that.  The study effectively says that the music publishers are bad for society and are holding everyone back with their business model.  Do you expect them to care?  I don't.</p><p>This study is for legislators to listen to, not "the enemy."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The media industry DOES believe it .
In fact they have known it for a long time .
This is easily demonstrable in that people listen to their radios and then turn around and go to concerts and other things .
Radio play does not necessarily equate to CD sales unless the buyer is more or less a fan .
On the radio the music is already effectively free .
( Yes I know it is paid for by advertising and that the radio stations pay the music publishers for the right to play .
But to the listener , it 's free .
) The music publishers only have music to publish .
That 's what they sell .
They do n't do concerts .
They might have the rights to sell t-shirts and other things as well , but their primary income is selling music .
If the study says free music is better for society , they already know that .
If the study says free music is better for artists , they already know that .
The study effectively says that the music publishers are bad for society and are holding everyone back with their business model .
Do you expect them to care ?
I do n't.This study is for legislators to listen to , not " the enemy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media industry DOES believe it.
In fact they have known it for a long time.
This is easily demonstrable in that people listen to their radios and then turn around and go to concerts and other things.
Radio play does not necessarily equate to CD sales unless the buyer is more or less a fan.
On the radio the music is already effectively free.
(Yes I know it is paid for by advertising and that the radio stations pay the music publishers for the right to play.
But to the listener, it's free.
)The music publishers only have music to publish.
That's what they sell.
They don't do concerts.
They might have the rights to sell t-shirts and other things as well, but their primary income is selling music.
If the study says free music is better for society, they already know that.
If the study says free music is better for artists, they already know that.
The study effectively says that the music publishers are bad for society and are holding everyone back with their business model.
Do you expect them to care?
I don't.This study is for legislators to listen to, not "the enemy.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371189</id>
	<title>Media Frenzy</title>
	<author>Techmeology</author>
	<datestamp>1245319560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, where's a media frenzy when you need one? Anyone on here work for a major news corporation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , where 's a media frenzy when you need one ?
Anyone on here work for a major news corporation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, where's a media frenzy when you need one?
Anyone on here work for a major news corporation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373041</id>
	<title>Re:Cultural Production, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245335820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And while I'm at it:</p><p>"Britney, meet Lady GaGa. Some schtick, different chick"</p><p>(I assume you meant 'same', not 'some'). Only if you accept the following:</p><p>"Ella Fitzgerald, meet Billie Holiday. Same schtick, different chick"</p><p>As somewhat of a student of pop music, Britney and Lady GaGa are very different, and their music is very different.  But I accept that might not be clear to someone who doesn't follow pop music much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And while I 'm at it : " Britney , meet Lady GaGa .
Some schtick , different chick " ( I assume you meant 'same ' , not 'some ' ) .
Only if you accept the following : " Ella Fitzgerald , meet Billie Holiday .
Same schtick , different chick " As somewhat of a student of pop music , Britney and Lady GaGa are very different , and their music is very different .
But I accept that might not be clear to someone who does n't follow pop music much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And while I'm at it:"Britney, meet Lady GaGa.
Some schtick, different chick"(I assume you meant 'same', not 'some').
Only if you accept the following:"Ella Fitzgerald, meet Billie Holiday.
Same schtick, different chick"As somewhat of a student of pop music, Britney and Lady GaGa are very different, and their music is very different.
But I accept that might not be clear to someone who doesn't follow pop music much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372765</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245334260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whereas, if you live in Connecticut, USA and you shoplift an audio CD with 10-20 tracks on it:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sixth (6th) Degree Larceny, Stealing property valued at $250 or Less</p><p>Fines up to $500</p></div><p>I still can't figure that one out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas , if you live in Connecticut , USA and you shoplift an audio CD with 10-20 tracks on it : Sixth ( 6th ) Degree Larceny , Stealing property valued at $ 250 or LessFines up to $ 500I still ca n't figure that one out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas, if you live in Connecticut, USA and you shoplift an audio CD with 10-20 tracks on it:Sixth (6th) Degree Larceny, Stealing property valued at $250 or LessFines up to $500I still can't figure that one out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372413</id>
	<title>Roger Myers was right!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245332220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Okay, maybe my dad did steal Itchy, but so what? Animation is built on plagiarism! If it weren't for someone plagiarizing the Honeymooners, we wouldn't have the Flintstones. If someone hadn't ripped off Sgt. Bilko, they'd be no Top Cat. Huckleberry Hound, Chief Wiggum, Yogi Bear? Hah! Andy Griffith, Edward G. Robinson, Art Carney."</p><p>"Your honor, you take away our right to steal ideas, where are they gonna come from?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Okay , maybe my dad did steal Itchy , but so what ?
Animation is built on plagiarism !
If it were n't for someone plagiarizing the Honeymooners , we would n't have the Flintstones .
If someone had n't ripped off Sgt .
Bilko , they 'd be no Top Cat .
Huckleberry Hound , Chief Wiggum , Yogi Bear ?
Hah ! Andy Griffith , Edward G. Robinson , Art Carney .
" " Your honor , you take away our right to steal ideas , where are they gon na come from ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Okay, maybe my dad did steal Itchy, but so what?
Animation is built on plagiarism!
If it weren't for someone plagiarizing the Honeymooners, we wouldn't have the Flintstones.
If someone hadn't ripped off Sgt.
Bilko, they'd be no Top Cat.
Huckleberry Hound, Chief Wiggum, Yogi Bear?
Hah! Andy Griffith, Edward G. Robinson, Art Carney.
""Your honor, you take away our right to steal ideas, where are they gonna come from?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371341</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>grenthar</author>
	<datestamp>1245321060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Carve a statue. Nobody forced you to create with a medium that can be digitally reproduced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carve a statue .
Nobody forced you to create with a medium that can be digitally reproduced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carve a statue.
Nobody forced you to create with a medium that can be digitally reproduced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371369</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>minsk</author>
	<datestamp>1245321360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you sell albums.</p><p>There is a funny thing about people. Many of us like to reward people for producing enjoyable media.</p><p>The question is, really, whether you're willing to settle for that. Or whether you also demand we punishing anyone with unapproved copies. I, for one, refuse to support anyone invoking force to support their business model. If you decide to send politicians, cops, and lawyers after your desired customers... I am not bloody going to be one of them. And I hope nobody else is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you sell albums.There is a funny thing about people .
Many of us like to reward people for producing enjoyable media.The question is , really , whether you 're willing to settle for that .
Or whether you also demand we punishing anyone with unapproved copies .
I , for one , refuse to support anyone invoking force to support their business model .
If you decide to send politicians , cops , and lawyers after your desired customers... I am not bloody going to be one of them .
And I hope nobody else is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you sell albums.There is a funny thing about people.
Many of us like to reward people for producing enjoyable media.The question is, really, whether you're willing to settle for that.
Or whether you also demand we punishing anyone with unapproved copies.
I, for one, refuse to support anyone invoking force to support their business model.
If you decide to send politicians, cops, and lawyers after your desired customers... I am not bloody going to be one of them.
And I hope nobody else is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372563</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1245333300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The powers that be want to weaken/destroy copyright so that musicians/writers/programmers/designers/etc cannot make any income from selling the final product -- rather they expect these people to become salaried professionals, getting paid by the hour or work for free. Programmers are already in that group.</p></div> </blockquote><p>What powers that be want that? That certainly seems very interesting, but it's the opposite of what the governments are doing.</p><p>Also, I find that to be a good thing, personally. Getting paid for actually working makes more sense than earning money ad infinitum based on some work you've already done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The powers that be want to weaken/destroy copyright so that musicians/writers/programmers/designers/etc can not make any income from selling the final product -- rather they expect these people to become salaried professionals , getting paid by the hour or work for free .
Programmers are already in that group .
What powers that be want that ?
That certainly seems very interesting , but it 's the opposite of what the governments are doing.Also , I find that to be a good thing , personally .
Getting paid for actually working makes more sense than earning money ad infinitum based on some work you 've already done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The powers that be want to weaken/destroy copyright so that musicians/writers/programmers/designers/etc cannot make any income from selling the final product -- rather they expect these people to become salaried professionals, getting paid by the hour or work for free.
Programmers are already in that group.
What powers that be want that?
That certainly seems very interesting, but it's the opposite of what the governments are doing.Also, I find that to be a good thing, personally.
Getting paid for actually working makes more sense than earning money ad infinitum based on some work you've already done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374063</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>ginbot462</author>
	<datestamp>1245340140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on, you just want more CADs posted to TPB for you CNC machine.</p><p>Incidentally, the Scarlett Johansson file floating around is really Katrin Hepburn from On Golden Pond. Don't waste you ploy-vinyl coated foam.  Unless you're into that kind of thing.  Pervert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on , you just want more CADs posted to TPB for you CNC machine.Incidentally , the Scarlett Johansson file floating around is really Katrin Hepburn from On Golden Pond .
Do n't waste you ploy-vinyl coated foam .
Unless you 're into that kind of thing .
Pervert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on, you just want more CADs posted to TPB for you CNC machine.Incidentally, the Scarlett Johansson file floating around is really Katrin Hepburn from On Golden Pond.
Don't waste you ploy-vinyl coated foam.
Unless you're into that kind of thing.
Pervert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375603</id>
	<title>Re:Cultural Production, eh?</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1245346380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah I'd watch the grammar and spelling flames there stewie.  You aint got so great a hand at it yer damnself!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I 'd watch the grammar and spelling flames there stewie .
You aint got so great a hand at it yer damnself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I'd watch the grammar and spelling flames there stewie.
You aint got so great a hand at it yer damnself!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372543</id>
	<title>Re:Other studies tell the same story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245333180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet the major political parties CDA, PvdA, SP and VVD want to pass laws that punish downloading of music, movies and games.<br>These parties will never get my vote again. EVER.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet the major political parties CDA , PvdA , SP and VVD want to pass laws that punish downloading of music , movies and games.These parties will never get my vote again .
EVER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet the major political parties CDA, PvdA, SP and VVD want to pass laws that punish downloading of music, movies and games.These parties will never get my vote again.
EVER.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245328980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 70 year copyright terms that continue to be perpetually extended.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 150K per song statutory damages for individuals.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Tools that allow you to put your own DVD on your own iPod are illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see.. .       70 year copyright terms that continue to be perpetually extended .
      150K per song statutory damages for individuals .
      Tools that allow you to put your own DVD on your own iPod are illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see...
      70 year copyright terms that continue to be perpetually extended.
      150K per song statutory damages for individuals.
      Tools that allow you to put your own DVD on your own iPod are illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374675</id>
	<title>Equally Pointless</title>
	<author>Main Gauche</author>
	<datestamp>1245342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These kind of studies are largely pointless. We already know this, and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.</p></div><p>It is equally pointless to post a summary of this economic paper to slashdot.  Everyone here "already knows" the answers.</p><p>Let me explain what it means when an economist says "society benefits".  (By the way, I am one.)  If a policy change causes Person A to lose $1 and Person B to gain $2, then "society benefits".  If a policy change causes Persons A and B and C each to lose $1,000, but Person D gains $5,000, then "society benefits".</p><p>If you RTFpdf, you'll notice one argument they make: While file sharing may have caused the music industry (including artists) to lose money, sales of MP3 players skyrocketed!  Therefore, it is plausible that "society benefited."</p><p>Now, see why it's not so simple?  We may prefer artists to get $1, rather than Apple and Sandisk to get $2.</p><p>It gets even worse.  The main argument of the paper is on page 6:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Three conditions need to hold for [file sharing] to undermine the<br>incentives for artistic production: [1] original works and copies on file-sharing networks<br>must be reasonably close substitutes; [2] artists and the entertainment industry must not be<br>able to shift from previous sources of income to the (similarly profitable) sale of<br>complements; and [3] falling incomes must be an important-enough motivator for artists to<br>reduce production. Only if all three conditions hold will file sharing hurt social welfare.</p></div><p>Translation:  Social welfare goes <i>down</i> if:<br>[1] the mp3's you share are just as good as the one's you'd rip yourself.<br>[2] the extra concert/tshirt revenues you make are less than the revenue lost to file sharing.<br>[3] Some artists would have to quit the business if their pay goes down.</p><p>[1] and [3] are laughably true.  One could debate whether [2] is true, but certainly there are artists who make good music, but would not survive when the music execs tell them they have to bring in more revenue from concerts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These kind of studies are largely pointless .
We already know this , and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.It is equally pointless to post a summary of this economic paper to slashdot .
Everyone here " already knows " the answers.Let me explain what it means when an economist says " society benefits " .
( By the way , I am one .
) If a policy change causes Person A to lose $ 1 and Person B to gain $ 2 , then " society benefits " .
If a policy change causes Persons A and B and C each to lose $ 1,000 , but Person D gains $ 5,000 , then " society benefits " .If you RTFpdf , you 'll notice one argument they make : While file sharing may have caused the music industry ( including artists ) to lose money , sales of MP3 players skyrocketed !
Therefore , it is plausible that " society benefited .
" Now , see why it 's not so simple ?
We may prefer artists to get $ 1 , rather than Apple and Sandisk to get $ 2.It gets even worse .
The main argument of the paper is on page 6 : Three conditions need to hold for [ file sharing ] to undermine theincentives for artistic production : [ 1 ] original works and copies on file-sharing networksmust be reasonably close substitutes ; [ 2 ] artists and the entertainment industry must not beable to shift from previous sources of income to the ( similarly profitable ) sale ofcomplements ; and [ 3 ] falling incomes must be an important-enough motivator for artists toreduce production .
Only if all three conditions hold will file sharing hurt social welfare.Translation : Social welfare goes down if : [ 1 ] the mp3 's you share are just as good as the one 's you 'd rip yourself .
[ 2 ] the extra concert/tshirt revenues you make are less than the revenue lost to file sharing .
[ 3 ] Some artists would have to quit the business if their pay goes down .
[ 1 ] and [ 3 ] are laughably true .
One could debate whether [ 2 ] is true , but certainly there are artists who make good music , but would not survive when the music execs tell them they have to bring in more revenue from concerts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These kind of studies are largely pointless.
We already know this, and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.It is equally pointless to post a summary of this economic paper to slashdot.
Everyone here "already knows" the answers.Let me explain what it means when an economist says "society benefits".
(By the way, I am one.
)  If a policy change causes Person A to lose $1 and Person B to gain $2, then "society benefits".
If a policy change causes Persons A and B and C each to lose $1,000, but Person D gains $5,000, then "society benefits".If you RTFpdf, you'll notice one argument they make: While file sharing may have caused the music industry (including artists) to lose money, sales of MP3 players skyrocketed!
Therefore, it is plausible that "society benefited.
"Now, see why it's not so simple?
We may prefer artists to get $1, rather than Apple and Sandisk to get $2.It gets even worse.
The main argument of the paper is on page 6:Three conditions need to hold for [file sharing] to undermine theincentives for artistic production: [1] original works and copies on file-sharing networksmust be reasonably close substitutes; [2] artists and the entertainment industry must not beable to shift from previous sources of income to the (similarly profitable) sale ofcomplements; and [3] falling incomes must be an important-enough motivator for artists toreduce production.
Only if all three conditions hold will file sharing hurt social welfare.Translation:  Social welfare goes down if:[1] the mp3's you share are just as good as the one's you'd rip yourself.
[2] the extra concert/tshirt revenues you make are less than the revenue lost to file sharing.
[3] Some artists would have to quit the business if their pay goes down.
[1] and [3] are laughably true.
One could debate whether [2] is true, but certainly there are artists who make good music, but would not survive when the music execs tell them they have to bring in more revenue from concerts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371959</id>
	<title>Get a job.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245328260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a job like the rest of us? You can't just label yourself an artist and go around whining about loss of income if you don't want to go the extra mile. I'm terribly sorry for people's overly romantic view of stardom, but it just sucks, especially if you're not a star (yet).</p><p>By the way, pretty much any artist has a side job. In my experience, the more serious the job is, the less serious the artist is about being an artist and vice versa. There is only a very limited subset of artists that can make a living from their art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a job like the rest of us ?
You ca n't just label yourself an artist and go around whining about loss of income if you do n't want to go the extra mile .
I 'm terribly sorry for people 's overly romantic view of stardom , but it just sucks , especially if you 're not a star ( yet ) .By the way , pretty much any artist has a side job .
In my experience , the more serious the job is , the less serious the artist is about being an artist and vice versa .
There is only a very limited subset of artists that can make a living from their art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a job like the rest of us?
You can't just label yourself an artist and go around whining about loss of income if you don't want to go the extra mile.
I'm terribly sorry for people's overly romantic view of stardom, but it just sucks, especially if you're not a star (yet).By the way, pretty much any artist has a side job.
In my experience, the more serious the job is, the less serious the artist is about being an artist and vice versa.
There is only a very limited subset of artists that can make a living from their art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371861</id>
	<title>Re:Other studies tell the same story</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245327360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the study consider questions of causality?</p><p>Meet Alice.  She buys two games per year.  Now meet Bob.  He downloads five games per year, and buys five.</p><p>If Alice started downloading two games per year instead of buying, would she start playing more games?  At the current state, why isn't she playing more games?</p><p>If it's the price, letting her download wouldn't seem to change things.  If it's her lack of interest, offering her something she doesn't want for free isn't going to change things.</p><p>It seems that the observations you put forth leave several important questions unanswered.  I hope the answers come out in favor of downloading stuff for free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the study consider questions of causality ? Meet Alice .
She buys two games per year .
Now meet Bob .
He downloads five games per year , and buys five.If Alice started downloading two games per year instead of buying , would she start playing more games ?
At the current state , why is n't she playing more games ? If it 's the price , letting her download would n't seem to change things .
If it 's her lack of interest , offering her something she does n't want for free is n't going to change things.It seems that the observations you put forth leave several important questions unanswered .
I hope the answers come out in favor of downloading stuff for free ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the study consider questions of causality?Meet Alice.
She buys two games per year.
Now meet Bob.
He downloads five games per year, and buys five.If Alice started downloading two games per year instead of buying, would she start playing more games?
At the current state, why isn't she playing more games?If it's the price, letting her download wouldn't seem to change things.
If it's her lack of interest, offering her something she doesn't want for free isn't going to change things.It seems that the observations you put forth leave several important questions unanswered.
I hope the answers come out in favor of downloading stuff for free ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373255</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245336780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Polis" which means "great gathering of lobbyists" in ancient Greek</p></div></blockquote><p>
Capt. Carrot would kindly disagree with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Polis " which means " great gathering of lobbyists " in ancient Greek Capt .
Carrot would kindly disagree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Polis" which means "great gathering of lobbyists" in ancient Greek
Capt.
Carrot would kindly disagree with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28385755</id>
	<title>Speaking invitations as an incentive? Seriously?</title>
	<author>stanjam</author>
	<datestamp>1245350640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, we all know that the vast majority of authors are invited on speaking tours, so they should give their books away. The very wording used in this summary points to a biased study.  Not surprising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we all know that the vast majority of authors are invited on speaking tours , so they should give their books away .
The very wording used in this summary points to a biased study .
Not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we all know that the vast majority of authors are invited on speaking tours, so they should give their books away.
The very wording used in this summary points to a biased study.
Not surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245324300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laws are also passed to protect the minority (artists) from exploitation by the majority (art consumers). The current copyright laws benefit both artists and consumers and are more or less fair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws are also passed to protect the minority ( artists ) from exploitation by the majority ( art consumers ) .
The current copyright laws benefit both artists and consumers and are more or less fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws are also passed to protect the minority (artists) from exploitation by the majority (art consumers).
The current copyright laws benefit both artists and consumers and are more or less fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371587</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Lalo Martins</author>
	<datestamp>1245324300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you want as many people as possible to hear about your work, otherwise you'll drown in the competition.  If you don't have millions of bucks for advertising, maybe uploading to the Pirate Bay will do the trick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you want as many people as possible to hear about your work , otherwise you 'll drown in the competition .
If you do n't have millions of bucks for advertising , maybe uploading to the Pirate Bay will do the trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you want as many people as possible to hear about your work, otherwise you'll drown in the competition.
If you don't have millions of bucks for advertising, maybe uploading to the Pirate Bay will do the trick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371921</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>HyperQuantum</author>
	<datestamp>1245327900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>laws are not passed to benefit society, laws are bought to protect business models.</p></div><p>...added to my list of insightful quotes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>laws are not passed to benefit society , laws are bought to protect business models....added to my list of insightful quotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>laws are not passed to benefit society, laws are bought to protect business models....added to my list of insightful quotes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373805</id>
	<title>Re:Pointless</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1245339060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These kind of studies are largely pointless. We already know this</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, no we don't know this, but, most importantly, <em>it does not matter</em>. This misses the point. The copyrights ought to exist, because the <em>creators</em> of things, that are hard to create but easy to replicate &mdash; like software, literature, music, video, fashion design, what have you &mdash; ought to enjoy to lesser control of their creations, than creators of things tangible.

</p><p>This derives not from it being economically beneficial (which it may or may not be), but from simple fairness. A book-writer ought to be no less protected from thieves, than a shoemaker...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These kind of studies are largely pointless .
We already know thisActually , no we do n't know this , but , most importantly , it does not matter .
This misses the point .
The copyrights ought to exist , because the creators of things , that are hard to create but easy to replicate    like software , literature , music , video , fashion design , what have you    ought to enjoy to lesser control of their creations , than creators of things tangible .
This derives not from it being economically beneficial ( which it may or may not be ) , but from simple fairness .
A book-writer ought to be no less protected from thieves , than a shoemaker.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These kind of studies are largely pointless.
We already know thisActually, no we don't know this, but, most importantly, it does not matter.
This misses the point.
The copyrights ought to exist, because the creators of things, that are hard to create but easy to replicate — like software, literature, music, video, fashion design, what have you — ought to enjoy to lesser control of their creations, than creators of things tangible.
This derives not from it being economically beneficial (which it may or may not be), but from simple fairness.
A book-writer ought to be no less protected from thieves, than a shoemaker...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372033</id>
	<title>Obongo's health care power grab infomercial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245329160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the hell would you want the government to take over one of the few sectors that's actually ADDING jobs right now?  Leave it alone, Obongo.  Your cronies have already done such a shitty job with MediCare and MedicAid and Social Security.  Why should the bulk of us just hand over our healthcare decisions to some slow-witted, slothful, affirmative action product bureaucratic bean counter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the hell would you want the government to take over one of the few sectors that 's actually ADDING jobs right now ?
Leave it alone , Obongo .
Your cronies have already done such a shitty job with MediCare and MedicAid and Social Security .
Why should the bulk of us just hand over our healthcare decisions to some slow-witted , slothful , affirmative action product bureaucratic bean counter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the hell would you want the government to take over one of the few sectors that's actually ADDING jobs right now?
Leave it alone, Obongo.
Your cronies have already done such a shitty job with MediCare and MedicAid and Social Security.
Why should the bulk of us just hand over our healthcare decisions to some slow-witted, slothful, affirmative action product bureaucratic bean counter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372955</id>
	<title>So when you think of the term "society"</title>
	<author>Rooked\_One</author>
	<datestamp>1245335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>its really all in the eye of the beholder.<br> <br>

However, being the nice person I am, you get to experience my world.<br> <br>

So if I hear a band that I really like (it doesn't happen often as i'm a blues rock fan and todays music.... uhmm... sucks) chances are that i'll download a song or two...  although I can't remember the last time I downloaded a song by a new band<br> <br>

I digress...  So if I were to do that, and enjoyed the song, I might enjoy 3 other songs max on the album...  most CD's now days are just horrid vs the older days (i'm only thirtyish) when the whole album was a gem to listen to.  <br> <br>

So if I really really really enjoy it, i'll buy the CD.  Same with video games.   The last CD I bought was a "best of" of Clapton's and the last video game was Call of Duty 4.<br> <br>

So...  ignoring the video game perspective, I would think that if I were a fan of todays music (and I have done this following scenario) I would do as such...<br> <br>

1 - hear a song and maybe like it.<br> <br>

2 - download the album to see if its just a "one song album"<br> <br>

3 - if i'm happy with the results of 2, I might buy the CD.<br> <br>

<b>HERES THE KICKER</b> <br> <br>

4 - if I really like the band, i'll go to their concert and spend some serious cash.<br> <br>

So...  who does my personal actions benefit?   Lets see...   we have the band itself...   ticketmaster (the one big company), the local people selling stuff at the concert, whoever owns the land that i'm parking on, the convienience stores in between my house and the concert destination...<br> <br>

I'm sure there is more, but my point is that good music makes money.  The RIAA just thinks they can "protect" garbage when they are actually just chasing their tail.<br> <br>

And no..  i'm not sorry for being long winded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>its really all in the eye of the beholder .
However , being the nice person I am , you get to experience my world .
So if I hear a band that I really like ( it does n't happen often as i 'm a blues rock fan and todays music.... uhmm... sucks ) chances are that i 'll download a song or two... although I ca n't remember the last time I downloaded a song by a new band I digress... So if I were to do that , and enjoyed the song , I might enjoy 3 other songs max on the album... most CD 's now days are just horrid vs the older days ( i 'm only thirtyish ) when the whole album was a gem to listen to .
So if I really really really enjoy it , i 'll buy the CD .
Same with video games .
The last CD I bought was a " best of " of Clapton 's and the last video game was Call of Duty 4 .
So... ignoring the video game perspective , I would think that if I were a fan of todays music ( and I have done this following scenario ) I would do as such.. . 1 - hear a song and maybe like it .
2 - download the album to see if its just a " one song album " 3 - if i 'm happy with the results of 2 , I might buy the CD .
HERES THE KICKER 4 - if I really like the band , i 'll go to their concert and spend some serious cash .
So... who does my personal actions benefit ?
Lets see... we have the band itself... ticketmaster ( the one big company ) , the local people selling stuff at the concert , whoever owns the land that i 'm parking on , the convienience stores in between my house and the concert destination.. . I 'm sure there is more , but my point is that good music makes money .
The RIAA just thinks they can " protect " garbage when they are actually just chasing their tail .
And no.. i 'm not sorry for being long winded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its really all in the eye of the beholder.
However, being the nice person I am, you get to experience my world.
So if I hear a band that I really like (it doesn't happen often as i'm a blues rock fan and todays music.... uhmm... sucks) chances are that i'll download a song or two...  although I can't remember the last time I downloaded a song by a new band 

I digress...  So if I were to do that, and enjoyed the song, I might enjoy 3 other songs max on the album...  most CD's now days are just horrid vs the older days (i'm only thirtyish) when the whole album was a gem to listen to.
So if I really really really enjoy it, i'll buy the CD.
Same with video games.
The last CD I bought was a "best of" of Clapton's and the last video game was Call of Duty 4.
So...  ignoring the video game perspective, I would think that if I were a fan of todays music (and I have done this following scenario) I would do as such... 

1 - hear a song and maybe like it.
2 - download the album to see if its just a "one song album" 

3 - if i'm happy with the results of 2, I might buy the CD.
HERES THE KICKER  

4 - if I really like the band, i'll go to their concert and spend some serious cash.
So...  who does my personal actions benefit?
Lets see...   we have the band itself...   ticketmaster (the one big company), the local people selling stuff at the concert, whoever owns the land that i'm parking on, the convienience stores in between my house and the concert destination... 

I'm sure there is more, but my point is that good music makes money.
The RIAA just thinks they can "protect" garbage when they are actually just chasing their tail.
And no..  i'm not sorry for being long winded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372433</id>
	<title>Weak Copyright Benefits Society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245332340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weak Copyright Benefits Society, but it harm the creators.</p><p>Creators are now like the horse in animal farm. He work the hardest, contributed the most.</p><p>And everyone just give him a medal of honour. Give him empty words like "Good job, well done."</p><p>No materialistic rewards, just a medal of honour.</p><p>I suggest creators all around the world kill themselves instead of working hard to create high quality creations for these anti-copyright garbage who want to exploit you and give you empty words as rewards.</p><p>BTW 99\% of Harvard students are garbage. Please know this fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weak Copyright Benefits Society , but it harm the creators.Creators are now like the horse in animal farm .
He work the hardest , contributed the most.And everyone just give him a medal of honour .
Give him empty words like " Good job , well done .
" No materialistic rewards , just a medal of honour.I suggest creators all around the world kill themselves instead of working hard to create high quality creations for these anti-copyright garbage who want to exploit you and give you empty words as rewards.BTW 99 \ % of Harvard students are garbage .
Please know this fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weak Copyright Benefits Society, but it harm the creators.Creators are now like the horse in animal farm.
He work the hardest, contributed the most.And everyone just give him a medal of honour.
Give him empty words like "Good job, well done.
"No materialistic rewards, just a medal of honour.I suggest creators all around the world kill themselves instead of working hard to create high quality creations for these anti-copyright garbage who want to exploit you and give you empty words as rewards.BTW 99\% of Harvard students are garbage.
Please know this fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371399</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Razalhague</author>
	<datestamp>1245321660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever heard of 3D models?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of 3D models ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of 3D models?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28394701</id>
	<title>Re:in today's America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245402060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that is 70 years <b>after</b> the death of the creator. So lets just say the average life span is 70 years. Thats 140 years for a work to be in copyright!</p><p>And actually I wanted to be sure that was correct because after I thought about I was in disbelief a little. But looking <a href="http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public\_domain/" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow">here</a> [cornell.edu] it is even worse. Holy shit this crap is out of control.</p><p>captcha: unmoved</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that is 70 years after the death of the creator .
So lets just say the average life span is 70 years .
Thats 140 years for a work to be in copyright ! And actually I wanted to be sure that was correct because after I thought about I was in disbelief a little .
But looking here [ cornell.edu ] it is even worse .
Holy shit this crap is out of control.captcha : unmoved</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that is 70 years after the death of the creator.
So lets just say the average life span is 70 years.
Thats 140 years for a work to be in copyright!And actually I wanted to be sure that was correct because after I thought about I was in disbelief a little.
But looking here [cornell.edu] it is even worse.
Holy shit this crap is out of control.captcha: unmoved</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372639</id>
	<title>Re:Media Frenzy</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245333600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same people who own the record companies also own the newspapers - it's all corporate. Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to pick up on this, they'll do their best to bury it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same people who own the record companies also own the newspapers - it 's all corporate .
Do n't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to pick up on this , they 'll do their best to bury it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same people who own the record companies also own the newspapers - it's all corporate.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to pick up on this, they'll do their best to bury it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371497</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245322980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I only want to play video games and roleplay with friends, but I can't make money this way...<br>
<br>
By the way, just record music, distribute music and ask donation to make another album. If people are unwilling to pay you for that, well, maybe it is better for you to stop. Or not. Not very long ago, most musicians did not expect to earn any money at all. Those surviving thanks to their art only had music-hall pays. Records were a new thing, that changed the landscape completely and now it changes again. Now even a novice artist can reach millions of people if he manages to make ONE good tune. But he lost the ability to win millions of dollars once he established a trademark.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I only want to play video games and roleplay with friends , but I ca n't make money this way.. . By the way , just record music , distribute music and ask donation to make another album .
If people are unwilling to pay you for that , well , maybe it is better for you to stop .
Or not .
Not very long ago , most musicians did not expect to earn any money at all .
Those surviving thanks to their art only had music-hall pays .
Records were a new thing , that changed the landscape completely and now it changes again .
Now even a novice artist can reach millions of people if he manages to make ONE good tune .
But he lost the ability to win millions of dollars once he established a trademark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I only want to play video games and roleplay with friends, but I can't make money this way...

By the way, just record music, distribute music and ask donation to make another album.
If people are unwilling to pay you for that, well, maybe it is better for you to stop.
Or not.
Not very long ago, most musicians did not expect to earn any money at all.
Those surviving thanks to their art only had music-hall pays.
Records were a new thing, that changed the landscape completely and now it changes again.
Now even a novice artist can reach millions of people if he manages to make ONE good tune.
But he lost the ability to win millions of dollars once he established a trademark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373899</id>
	<title>Re:Err..</title>
	<author>grahamm</author>
	<datestamp>1245339480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't most artists start off giving concerts (in small venues), and only later record and sell CDs and DVDs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't most artists start off giving concerts ( in small venues ) , and only later record and sell CDs and DVDs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't most artists start off giving concerts (in small venues), and only later record and sell CDs and DVDs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28394701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28377411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28392429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28387965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_0311216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28388075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28387965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28388075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28392429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28377411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28376159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_0311216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28375209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372021
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28394701
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28372765
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28373015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28374589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_0311216.28371921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
