<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_21_2327214</id>
	<title>How the Obama Copyright Policies Might Unfold</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245588180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader points out a column by James Boyle, who knows a thing or two about copyright, analyzing the Obama Administration's <a href="http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2009/06/18/obama-in-cyberspace/">policy choices about intellectual property and high tech</a>. <i>"Traditionally, Democratic administrations take their copyright policy direct from Hollywood and the recording industry. Unfortunately, so do Republican administrations. The capture of regulators by the industry they regulate is nothing new, of course, but in intellectual property there is the added benefit that incumbents can frequently squelch competing technologies and business methods before they ever come into existence. ... The Obama administration's warm embrace of Silicon Valley, and Silicon Valley's checkbook, had given some hope that this pattern would change &mdash; and I think it will. Now, instead of taking copyright policy direct from the media conglomerates (who, after all, have a very legitimate point of view &mdash; even if not the only point of view) it is quite likely that the administration will construct it as a contract between content companies and high-technology companies such as Google. In some places, citizens and consumers will probably benefit, simply because optimizing for the interests of two economic blocs rather than one is likely to give us a slightly more balanced, and less technology-phobic, set of rules. And perhaps the administration will go further. But recent actions make me doubt that this is the case."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader points out a column by James Boyle , who knows a thing or two about copyright , analyzing the Obama Administration 's policy choices about intellectual property and high tech .
" Traditionally , Democratic administrations take their copyright policy direct from Hollywood and the recording industry .
Unfortunately , so do Republican administrations .
The capture of regulators by the industry they regulate is nothing new , of course , but in intellectual property there is the added benefit that incumbents can frequently squelch competing technologies and business methods before they ever come into existence .
... The Obama administration 's warm embrace of Silicon Valley , and Silicon Valley 's checkbook , had given some hope that this pattern would change    and I think it will .
Now , instead of taking copyright policy direct from the media conglomerates ( who , after all , have a very legitimate point of view    even if not the only point of view ) it is quite likely that the administration will construct it as a contract between content companies and high-technology companies such as Google .
In some places , citizens and consumers will probably benefit , simply because optimizing for the interests of two economic blocs rather than one is likely to give us a slightly more balanced , and less technology-phobic , set of rules .
And perhaps the administration will go further .
But recent actions make me doubt that this is the case .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader points out a column by James Boyle, who knows a thing or two about copyright, analyzing the Obama Administration's policy choices about intellectual property and high tech.
"Traditionally, Democratic administrations take their copyright policy direct from Hollywood and the recording industry.
Unfortunately, so do Republican administrations.
The capture of regulators by the industry they regulate is nothing new, of course, but in intellectual property there is the added benefit that incumbents can frequently squelch competing technologies and business methods before they ever come into existence.
... The Obama administration's warm embrace of Silicon Valley, and Silicon Valley's checkbook, had given some hope that this pattern would change — and I think it will.
Now, instead of taking copyright policy direct from the media conglomerates (who, after all, have a very legitimate point of view — even if not the only point of view) it is quite likely that the administration will construct it as a contract between content companies and high-technology companies such as Google.
In some places, citizens and consumers will probably benefit, simply because optimizing for the interests of two economic blocs rather than one is likely to give us a slightly more balanced, and less technology-phobic, set of rules.
And perhaps the administration will go further.
But recent actions make me doubt that this is the case.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28453333</id>
	<title>Re:Government moves slow</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1245862020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.</i></p><p>A rather stupid one sized fits all philosophy - just ask anyone from New Orleans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government moves slow , which is probably a good thing.A rather stupid one sized fits all philosophy - just ask anyone from New Orleans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.A rather stupid one sized fits all philosophy - just ask anyone from New Orleans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415833</id>
	<title>Re:ill believe it when i see it</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1245599640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>..it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!</p></div><p>Excuse me... This is Slashdot.

We barely read the summaries before hitting the comments.  I doubt most of us read outside of that.  Unless it has something to do with source code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking ! Excuse me... This is Slashdot .
We barely read the summaries before hitting the comments .
I doubt most of us read outside of that .
Unless it has something to do with source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!Excuse me... This is Slashdot.
We barely read the summaries before hitting the comments.
I doubt most of us read outside of that.
Unless it has something to do with source code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415239</id>
	<title>first po57</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">users of NetbSD to stick somethi[ng</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>users of NetbSD to stick somethi [ ng [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>users of NetbSD to stick somethi[ng [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415361</id>
	<title>Re:Government moves slow</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1245594960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations.</p></div><p>In general people are apathetic about a law that doesn't touch their lives.. until it does touch their lives.. and then they proclaim how completely unfair it is.  In the case of copyright, they're right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations.In general people are apathetic about a law that does n't touch their lives.. until it does touch their lives.. and then they proclaim how completely unfair it is .
In the case of copyright , they 're right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations.In general people are apathetic about a law that doesn't touch their lives.. until it does touch their lives.. and then they proclaim how completely unfair it is.
In the case of copyright, they're right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28426567</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1245700860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tada. That's the truth.
<p>.
</p><p>
Obama got Silicon valley's checkbook because of Pelosi. It's a Cali thing.
</p><p>
Obama hands down had huge support from Hollywood and considering he's been to SoCal two times already for fund-raising events since Jan says a lot. How many times has he been to the valley since the election?
</p><p>
The only reason he's into technology is because his teleprompters and [mainly] his Blackberry. Otherwise, he, as any typical lawyer, would care less about tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tada .
That 's the truth .
. Obama got Silicon valley 's checkbook because of Pelosi .
It 's a Cali thing .
Obama hands down had huge support from Hollywood and considering he 's been to SoCal two times already for fund-raising events since Jan says a lot .
How many times has he been to the valley since the election ?
The only reason he 's into technology is because his teleprompters and [ mainly ] his Blackberry .
Otherwise , he , as any typical lawyer , would care less about tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tada.
That's the truth.
.

Obama got Silicon valley's checkbook because of Pelosi.
It's a Cali thing.
Obama hands down had huge support from Hollywood and considering he's been to SoCal two times already for fund-raising events since Jan says a lot.
How many times has he been to the valley since the election?
The only reason he's into technology is because his teleprompters and [mainly] his Blackberry.
Otherwise, he, as any typical lawyer, would care less about tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423795</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245691140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama was elected thanks to the media. They're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama, they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes, they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.</p><p>Obama owes the media, and you'll bet they'll collect.</p></div><p>I'm sure this is valid for some segment of the country, or maybe even most.  But when I went to vote in the primary, I voted for Obama over Hillary because their stances were almost identical except in some other key areas.  For all of the media's faults, if you look up anything on Palin you'll find her to be mostly Bush in a dress, from the non-separation of church and state to the way she wants to conduct U.S. Foreign policy.  Any politician that wants to have intelligent design taught in science classrooms deserves a giant bitch-slap from anyone with half a brain in this country, and she supports that bullshit too.  I'd say her portrayal is quite a bit more accurate than McCain's or even Obama's in the media.  McCain got ignored because he had a high probability of dying in office and leaving us with Palin for president.  Which I couldn't vote for under any circumstances.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama was elected thanks to the media .
They 're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama , they 're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates ' votes , they 're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul 's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Obama owes the media , and you 'll bet they 'll collect.I 'm sure this is valid for some segment of the country , or maybe even most .
But when I went to vote in the primary , I voted for Obama over Hillary because their stances were almost identical except in some other key areas .
For all of the media 's faults , if you look up anything on Palin you 'll find her to be mostly Bush in a dress , from the non-separation of church and state to the way she wants to conduct U.S. Foreign policy .
Any politician that wants to have intelligent design taught in science classrooms deserves a giant bitch-slap from anyone with half a brain in this country , and she supports that bullshit too .
I 'd say her portrayal is quite a bit more accurate than McCain 's or even Obama 's in the media .
McCain got ignored because he had a high probability of dying in office and leaving us with Palin for president .
Which I could n't vote for under any circumstances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama was elected thanks to the media.
They're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama, they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes, they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Obama owes the media, and you'll bet they'll collect.I'm sure this is valid for some segment of the country, or maybe even most.
But when I went to vote in the primary, I voted for Obama over Hillary because their stances were almost identical except in some other key areas.
For all of the media's faults, if you look up anything on Palin you'll find her to be mostly Bush in a dress, from the non-separation of church and state to the way she wants to conduct U.S. Foreign policy.
Any politician that wants to have intelligent design taught in science classrooms deserves a giant bitch-slap from anyone with half a brain in this country, and she supports that bullshit too.
I'd say her portrayal is quite a bit more accurate than McCain's or even Obama's in the media.
McCain got ignored because he had a high probability of dying in office and leaving us with Palin for president.
Which I couldn't vote for under any circumstances.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420319</id>
	<title>Re:Government moves slow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245678720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright IS a good thing. For a limited number of years, 10 or 15 or so. But for 70 years and more it is not even ridiculous; it is dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright IS a good thing .
For a limited number of years , 10 or 15 or so .
But for 70 years and more it is not even ridiculous ; it is dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright IS a good thing.
For a limited number of years, 10 or 15 or so.
But for 70 years and more it is not even ridiculous; it is dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416241</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1245602160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cynical fatalism also makes it easier to dismiss your viewpoint when making decisions, since you're completely resigned to the fate of being dismissed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cynical fatalism also makes it easier to dismiss your viewpoint when making decisions , since you 're completely resigned to the fate of being dismissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cynical fatalism also makes it easier to dismiss your viewpoint when making decisions, since you're completely resigned to the fate of being dismissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415741</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1245598620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence</p></div><p>Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, too.</p></div><p>No no, that was everybody.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul 's existenceDennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel , too.No no , that was everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existenceDennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, too.No no, that was everybody.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416101</id>
	<title>Re:ill believe it when i see it</title>
	<author>The Master Control P</author>
	<datestamp>1245601380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom" -- Barack Obama</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom " -- Barack Obama</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom" -- Barack Obama</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420909</id>
	<title>Re:It means nothing without Public Domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245681300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time anything fell into the public domain? </p></div><p>Yesterday -- all the works of anyone who died on June 21, 1939 became public domain then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time anything fell into the public domain ?
Yesterday -- all the works of anyone who died on June 21 , 1939 became public domain then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time anything fell into the public domain?
Yesterday -- all the works of anyone who died on June 21, 1939 became public domain then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415569</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because the news media has a tendency to give the right wing a free pass doesn't mean that it should.</p></div><p>WTF are you talking about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the news media has a tendency to give the right wing a free pass does n't mean that it should.WTF are you talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the news media has a tendency to give the right wing a free pass doesn't mean that it should.WTF are you talking about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415691</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! Now lets vote him and the Congress OUT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
Now lets vote him and the Congress OUT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
Now lets vote him and the Congress OUT!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417269</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245609780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So let's play this out a little bit. Let's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old. All of a sudden, everything older than Third Eye Blind is free. The majority of Metallica music. U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship, Beatles, the list goes on. Anything recorded by Casals, most of Pavarotti's records... How many people would say, "I've got a lifetime of music to wade through that's free. Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar?" </i></p><p>Congrats. You have just pointed out why the current setup for copyright durations is nothing but a farce. We have permanent copyright already. It's just not on the papers because the papers demand a time limit for it to be valid. We will continue to see ever increasing durations on copyright, especially in the US. It won't be "unlimited", so the Supreme Court won't strike it down as the farce it is since it has a deadline, but that deadline will always be pushed back such that it will NEVER come to pass. And to be honest, I'm positive that was the intention from the start. Why else would you specifically set up the law s that it can always be extended, any extentions are given to anything still in copyright at the time, and ABSOLUTELY NO ALLOWANCE FOR REDUCTION IN DURATION.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's play this out a little bit .
Let 's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old .
All of a sudden , everything older than Third Eye Blind is free .
The majority of Metallica music .
U2 , Madonna , Pink Floyd , Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship , Beatles , the list goes on .
Anything recorded by Casals , most of Pavarotti 's records... How many people would say , " I 've got a lifetime of music to wade through that 's free .
Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar ?
" Congrats .
You have just pointed out why the current setup for copyright durations is nothing but a farce .
We have permanent copyright already .
It 's just not on the papers because the papers demand a time limit for it to be valid .
We will continue to see ever increasing durations on copyright , especially in the US .
It wo n't be " unlimited " , so the Supreme Court wo n't strike it down as the farce it is since it has a deadline , but that deadline will always be pushed back such that it will NEVER come to pass .
And to be honest , I 'm positive that was the intention from the start .
Why else would you specifically set up the law s that it can always be extended , any extentions are given to anything still in copyright at the time , and ABSOLUTELY NO ALLOWANCE FOR REDUCTION IN DURATION .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's play this out a little bit.
Let's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old.
All of a sudden, everything older than Third Eye Blind is free.
The majority of Metallica music.
U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship, Beatles, the list goes on.
Anything recorded by Casals, most of Pavarotti's records... How many people would say, "I've got a lifetime of music to wade through that's free.
Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar?
" Congrats.
You have just pointed out why the current setup for copyright durations is nothing but a farce.
We have permanent copyright already.
It's just not on the papers because the papers demand a time limit for it to be valid.
We will continue to see ever increasing durations on copyright, especially in the US.
It won't be "unlimited", so the Supreme Court won't strike it down as the farce it is since it has a deadline, but that deadline will always be pushed back such that it will NEVER come to pass.
And to be honest, I'm positive that was the intention from the start.
Why else would you specifically set up the law s that it can always be extended, any extentions are given to anything still in copyright at the time, and ABSOLUTELY NO ALLOWANCE FOR REDUCTION IN DURATION.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28435067</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Dorinda</author>
	<datestamp>1245695100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state?</p></div><p>I agree with this too. Obviously modded into oblivion by Republicans that don't want to face the facts - they lost because their party were a pack of assholes that turned the US into the most hated country on earth and not all the other excuses they use like media bias.</p><p>I notice that you used a capital F there. That makes your comment insightful, not a troll. Fascism with a capital F (ie as stated in Mussolini's manifesto) is exactly what they were doing, to the letter as far as I can tell.</p><p>I guess I'll get modded down to hell now too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state ? I agree with this too .
Obviously modded into oblivion by Republicans that do n't want to face the facts - they lost because their party were a pack of assholes that turned the US into the most hated country on earth and not all the other excuses they use like media bias.I notice that you used a capital F there .
That makes your comment insightful , not a troll .
Fascism with a capital F ( ie as stated in Mussolini 's manifesto ) is exactly what they were doing , to the letter as far as I can tell.I guess I 'll get modded down to hell now too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state?I agree with this too.
Obviously modded into oblivion by Republicans that don't want to face the facts - they lost because their party were a pack of assholes that turned the US into the most hated country on earth and not all the other excuses they use like media bias.I notice that you used a capital F there.
That makes your comment insightful, not a troll.
Fascism with a capital F (ie as stated in Mussolini's manifesto) is exactly what they were doing, to the letter as far as I can tell.I guess I'll get modded down to hell now too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423385</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1245689700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.</p></div><p>I would put that day at about 90 years after the last artist stops using their services.  If they don't get another extension by then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services , which may happen one day.I would put that day at about 90 years after the last artist stops using their services .
If they do n't get another extension by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.I would put that day at about 90 years after the last artist stops using their services.
If they don't get another extension by then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28421611</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized.</i></p><p>Why the hell not?</p><p>It's free (as in no cost and legal) in Canada.  As long as you don't buy any CD-Rs, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloading music for free , as a lot of people want , is not likely to ever be legalized.Why the hell not ? It 's free ( as in no cost and legal ) in Canada .
As long as you do n't buy any CD-Rs , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized.Why the hell not?It's free (as in no cost and legal) in Canada.
As long as you don't buy any CD-Rs, that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417497</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245612060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama: Change you can believe in. It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.</p></div><p>Screw the people who believed in him? Yes, he can!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama : Change you can believe in .
It wo n't happen , but you sure can believe in it.Screw the people who believed in him ?
Yes , he can !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama: Change you can believe in.
It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.Screw the people who believed in him?
Yes, he can!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28425271</id>
	<title>Re:Government only moves slow when governed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245696120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cleaning out the house is equally important.  Both parties do the same thing anyways and at least this provides a minor check on corruption.</p><p>It simply astounds me how little anyone cares about the deficit; it is rarely mentioned in the popular media.  I think it is absolutely shameful that Obama isn't even planning for a balanced budget within 2 terms.  I don't care if it was the previous administrations fault and if it means Obama can't implement his policies.  It is now his responsibility to fix it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cleaning out the house is equally important .
Both parties do the same thing anyways and at least this provides a minor check on corruption.It simply astounds me how little anyone cares about the deficit ; it is rarely mentioned in the popular media .
I think it is absolutely shameful that Obama is n't even planning for a balanced budget within 2 terms .
I do n't care if it was the previous administrations fault and if it means Obama ca n't implement his policies .
It is now his responsibility to fix it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cleaning out the house is equally important.
Both parties do the same thing anyways and at least this provides a minor check on corruption.It simply astounds me how little anyone cares about the deficit; it is rarely mentioned in the popular media.
I think it is absolutely shameful that Obama isn't even planning for a balanced budget within 2 terms.
I don't care if it was the previous administrations fault and if it means Obama can't implement his policies.
It is now his responsibility to fix it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415623</id>
	<title>Re:It means nothing without Public Domain</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1245597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plenty of people are willing to repudiate copyright. Is that close enough?</p><p>If so, the answer is probably something like 5 minutes ago.</p><p>If not, go to weather.gov and look for some data that was generated by a government employee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of people are willing to repudiate copyright .
Is that close enough ? If so , the answer is probably something like 5 minutes ago.If not , go to weather.gov and look for some data that was generated by a government employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of people are willing to repudiate copyright.
Is that close enough?If so, the answer is probably something like 5 minutes ago.If not, go to weather.gov and look for some data that was generated by a government employee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28426665</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1245701220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.</p></div><p>Agree on McCain, but I think that was the factory paint job on Palin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Agree on McCain , but I think that was the factory paint job on Palin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Agree on McCain, but I think that was the factory paint job on Palin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477</id>
	<title>Re:ill believe it when i see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cynical fatalism sure does make life easier.  Not only does it justify  your self-absorbed lifestyle,  it allows you to have an opinion on every issue  without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cynical fatalism sure does make life easier .
Not only does it justify your self-absorbed lifestyle , it allows you to have an opinion on every issue without the nasty bother of reading or thinking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cynical fatalism sure does make life easier.
Not only does it justify  your self-absorbed lifestyle,  it allows you to have an opinion on every issue  without the nasty bother of reading or thinking!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199</id>
	<title>Government moves slow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.<br> <br>
In the case of copyright, it has only been in the past few years that normal people have even cared about copyright.  Up until now, it's mainly been an issue between creators, authors, musicians, performers, and publishers.  And they've had some pretty riotous fights about it.  For the average citizen, who feels it's pretty good for a musician or author to be compensated for his work, and it seemed reasonable to allow longer copyrights.  Better the artist (or his chosen publisher) be compensated for their work, rather than some random publisher who had nothing to do with it.  In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations.<br> <br>
In the last 20 years, it's become more of an issue because anyone can make copies of songs, and the average person can easily get the equipment to reuse the work and make something new and creative from it.  For us who are on the edge of the technological wave, it is obvious that there are problems with copyright, and we have some ideas about what the solutions should be.<br> <br>
The average person, on the other hand, has no idea what the issues are, hasn't really thought about them, and the government tends to be even slower than the average person.  So it isn't that Obama (or Bush) is in the pocket of the RIAA, in fact, if you look at his campaign contributions, they are probably just a small portion.<br> <br>
Ask your non-technical neighbors or family members what they think of copyright.  They will probably think that it is a good thing, even if they pirate songs themselves.  They just haven't thought of all the issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government moves slow , which is probably a good thing .
In the case of copyright , it has only been in the past few years that normal people have even cared about copyright .
Up until now , it 's mainly been an issue between creators , authors , musicians , performers , and publishers .
And they 've had some pretty riotous fights about it .
For the average citizen , who feels it 's pretty good for a musician or author to be compensated for his work , and it seemed reasonable to allow longer copyrights .
Better the artist ( or his chosen publisher ) be compensated for their work , rather than some random publisher who had nothing to do with it .
In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations .
In the last 20 years , it 's become more of an issue because anyone can make copies of songs , and the average person can easily get the equipment to reuse the work and make something new and creative from it .
For us who are on the edge of the technological wave , it is obvious that there are problems with copyright , and we have some ideas about what the solutions should be .
The average person , on the other hand , has no idea what the issues are , has n't really thought about them , and the government tends to be even slower than the average person .
So it is n't that Obama ( or Bush ) is in the pocket of the RIAA , in fact , if you look at his campaign contributions , they are probably just a small portion .
Ask your non-technical neighbors or family members what they think of copyright .
They will probably think that it is a good thing , even if they pirate songs themselves .
They just have n't thought of all the issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.
In the case of copyright, it has only been in the past few years that normal people have even cared about copyright.
Up until now, it's mainly been an issue between creators, authors, musicians, performers, and publishers.
And they've had some pretty riotous fights about it.
For the average citizen, who feels it's pretty good for a musician or author to be compensated for his work, and it seemed reasonable to allow longer copyrights.
Better the artist (or his chosen publisher) be compensated for their work, rather than some random publisher who had nothing to do with it.
In general people favor giving an artist control of their creations.
In the last 20 years, it's become more of an issue because anyone can make copies of songs, and the average person can easily get the equipment to reuse the work and make something new and creative from it.
For us who are on the edge of the technological wave, it is obvious that there are problems with copyright, and we have some ideas about what the solutions should be.
The average person, on the other hand, has no idea what the issues are, hasn't really thought about them, and the government tends to be even slower than the average person.
So it isn't that Obama (or Bush) is in the pocket of the RIAA, in fact, if you look at his campaign contributions, they are probably just a small portion.
Ask your non-technical neighbors or family members what they think of copyright.
They will probably think that it is a good thing, even if they pirate songs themselves.
They just haven't thought of all the issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415453</id>
	<title>Re:Government moves slow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245595980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I'd like to add here. The same way a person can get means to copy a piece of music, a person in the know-how can also record their own music (as in music they have composed/classical works which are in the public domain they have performed). The person in question then can go thru iTunes/Amazon MP3/Magnatue/Jamendo to post and have people get their content. Heck, they can even set up their own site as a channel of distribution, bypassing the need for a 3rd party. Notice here how a music studio is left out. Since distribution is digital, a record company is left out. No involvement on the money making = no profit. That is why I think the RIAA and the like are pushing too much to restrict digital distribution channels: so they can get a piece of the pie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 'd like to add here .
The same way a person can get means to copy a piece of music , a person in the know-how can also record their own music ( as in music they have composed/classical works which are in the public domain they have performed ) .
The person in question then can go thru iTunes/Amazon MP3/Magnatue/Jamendo to post and have people get their content .
Heck , they can even set up their own site as a channel of distribution , bypassing the need for a 3rd party .
Notice here how a music studio is left out .
Since distribution is digital , a record company is left out .
No involvement on the money making = no profit .
That is why I think the RIAA and the like are pushing too much to restrict digital distribution channels : so they can get a piece of the pie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I'd like to add here.
The same way a person can get means to copy a piece of music, a person in the know-how can also record their own music (as in music they have composed/classical works which are in the public domain they have performed).
The person in question then can go thru iTunes/Amazon MP3/Magnatue/Jamendo to post and have people get their content.
Heck, they can even set up their own site as a channel of distribution, bypassing the need for a 3rd party.
Notice here how a music studio is left out.
Since distribution is digital, a record company is left out.
No involvement on the money making = no profit.
That is why I think the RIAA and the like are pushing too much to restrict digital distribution channels: so they can get a piece of the pie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415175</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245593160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415775</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans Racist Against Minorities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm...which party still has a grand pooba, or klegle or some KKK bullshit leadership post, in the Senate?</p><p>Which party did that Senator who within the last decad, spoke frankly and openly about, in his own word, "Niggers?"</p><p>Which party created the Jim Crow laws?</p><p>Which party even now promises the black constituency everything and then delivers nothing once in power?</p><p>On the other hand, which party enabled the passage of the civil rights laws because the "other" party could not muster enough of it's majority to pass it?</p><p>Which party argues for a color blind society?</p><p>Which party had the President that wrote the Emancipation Proclamation?</p><p>It's not racist to insist that everyone is just as capable of succeeding as anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm...which party still has a grand pooba , or klegle or some KKK bullshit leadership post , in the Senate ? Which party did that Senator who within the last decad , spoke frankly and openly about , in his own word , " Niggers ?
" Which party created the Jim Crow laws ? Which party even now promises the black constituency everything and then delivers nothing once in power ? On the other hand , which party enabled the passage of the civil rights laws because the " other " party could not muster enough of it 's majority to pass it ? Which party argues for a color blind society ? Which party had the President that wrote the Emancipation Proclamation ? It 's not racist to insist that everyone is just as capable of succeeding as anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm...which party still has a grand pooba, or klegle or some KKK bullshit leadership post, in the Senate?Which party did that Senator who within the last decad, spoke frankly and openly about, in his own word, "Niggers?
"Which party created the Jim Crow laws?Which party even now promises the black constituency everything and then delivers nothing once in power?On the other hand, which party enabled the passage of the civil rights laws because the "other" party could not muster enough of it's majority to pass it?Which party argues for a color blind society?Which party had the President that wrote the Emancipation Proclamation?It's not racist to insist that everyone is just as capable of succeeding as anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415807</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1245599400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very good comment.  One additional point to throw in about the RIAA's desires is that they want to be sure that all music has some cost (and therefore, value) associated with it.  If all of a sudden, the best selling albums and singles become public domain, the record companies will have to work 10x as hard to compete against freely available music which is arguably of better quality than the tripe they're serving up.
<br> <br>
It reminds me of the scene in the Grapes of Wrath where poor, starving farm workers tried to take some imperfect (i.e. not good enough for market, but totally edible) fruits from a farm's dump and they called in the national guard.  If they can eat my garbage for free, the thought was, why would they ever pay for the "market quality" stuff?
<br> <br>
So let's play this out a little bit.  Let's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old.  All of a sudden, everything older than Third Eye Blind is free.  The majority of Metallica music.  U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Paula Abdul...  Jefferson Starship, Beatles, the list goes on.  Anything recorded by Casals, most of Pavarotti's records...  How many people would say, "I've got a lifetime of music to wade through that's free.  Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar?"
<br> <br>
Unless, of course, they actually turn out some product that's better than Britney.  I'm not saying that there's no good music these days, but I'm saying that most of the pop stuff they put out now would have a hard time competing against a practically infinite supply of free music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very good comment .
One additional point to throw in about the RIAA 's desires is that they want to be sure that all music has some cost ( and therefore , value ) associated with it .
If all of a sudden , the best selling albums and singles become public domain , the record companies will have to work 10x as hard to compete against freely available music which is arguably of better quality than the tripe they 're serving up .
It reminds me of the scene in the Grapes of Wrath where poor , starving farm workers tried to take some imperfect ( i.e .
not good enough for market , but totally edible ) fruits from a farm 's dump and they called in the national guard .
If they can eat my garbage for free , the thought was , why would they ever pay for the " market quality " stuff ?
So let 's play this out a little bit .
Let 's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old .
All of a sudden , everything older than Third Eye Blind is free .
The majority of Metallica music .
U2 , Madonna , Pink Floyd , Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship , Beatles , the list goes on .
Anything recorded by Casals , most of Pavarotti 's records... How many people would say , " I 've got a lifetime of music to wade through that 's free .
Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar ?
" Unless , of course , they actually turn out some product that 's better than Britney .
I 'm not saying that there 's no good music these days , but I 'm saying that most of the pop stuff they put out now would have a hard time competing against a practically infinite supply of free music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very good comment.
One additional point to throw in about the RIAA's desires is that they want to be sure that all music has some cost (and therefore, value) associated with it.
If all of a sudden, the best selling albums and singles become public domain, the record companies will have to work 10x as hard to compete against freely available music which is arguably of better quality than the tripe they're serving up.
It reminds me of the scene in the Grapes of Wrath where poor, starving farm workers tried to take some imperfect (i.e.
not good enough for market, but totally edible) fruits from a farm's dump and they called in the national guard.
If they can eat my garbage for free, the thought was, why would they ever pay for the "market quality" stuff?
So let's play this out a little bit.
Let's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old.
All of a sudden, everything older than Third Eye Blind is free.
The majority of Metallica music.
U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Paula Abdul...  Jefferson Starship, Beatles, the list goes on.
Anything recorded by Casals, most of Pavarotti's records...  How many people would say, "I've got a lifetime of music to wade through that's free.
Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar?
"
 
Unless, of course, they actually turn out some product that's better than Britney.
I'm not saying that there's no good music these days, but I'm saying that most of the pop stuff they put out now would have a hard time competing against a practically infinite supply of free music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28453451</id>
	<title>Re:Government only moves slow when governed</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1245862440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> That's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president. That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.</i></p><p><i>That was really the singular reason to vote for McCain to the exclusion of all others good and bad, but the independents who voted for Obama blew it when they could not grasp this fundamental concept (control of the house and senate was never really in question). Never let one party hold all the marbles, it's like crossing the streams...</i></p><p>Wow, where were you teabaggers when Reagan invented the multi-trillion dollar debt and turned us from being the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation?  Where were you teabaggers when George W. Bush was lying us into the Iraq Boondoogle?  Where were the teabaggers when Bush pushed and signed TARP?</p><p>And while you can argue about the danger of large deficits, to do so without mentioning WHY the Democrats are doing so (cleaning up the <b>cesspool</b> that <b>Republicans</b> left them) is just pure sophistry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president .
That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.That was really the singular reason to vote for McCain to the exclusion of all others good and bad , but the independents who voted for Obama blew it when they could not grasp this fundamental concept ( control of the house and senate was never really in question ) .
Never let one party hold all the marbles , it 's like crossing the streams...Wow , where were you teabaggers when Reagan invented the multi-trillion dollar debt and turned us from being the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation ?
Where were you teabaggers when George W. Bush was lying us into the Iraq Boondoogle ?
Where were the teabaggers when Bush pushed and signed TARP ? And while you can argue about the danger of large deficits , to do so without mentioning WHY the Democrats are doing so ( cleaning up the cesspool that Republicans left them ) is just pure sophistry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president.
That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.That was really the singular reason to vote for McCain to the exclusion of all others good and bad, but the independents who voted for Obama blew it when they could not grasp this fundamental concept (control of the house and senate was never really in question).
Never let one party hold all the marbles, it's like crossing the streams...Wow, where were you teabaggers when Reagan invented the multi-trillion dollar debt and turned us from being the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation?
Where were you teabaggers when George W. Bush was lying us into the Iraq Boondoogle?
Where were the teabaggers when Bush pushed and signed TARP?And while you can argue about the danger of large deficits, to do so without mentioning WHY the Democrats are doing so (cleaning up the cesspool that Republicans left them) is just pure sophistry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423173</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1245689040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was digging my father's albums (60's rock and soul) by the time I was in high school ('81-'85). I think pretty much stopped listening to new groups that started up after '77. 'Course I was also trying to find a friend to play D&amp;D with, back in late 70's. Only found one other guy who'd heard of it on a BBS I was connecting to with my Ti 99/4a.</p><p>So yeah, the cool kids were probably over the Stones and Floyd by then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was digging my father 's albums ( 60 's rock and soul ) by the time I was in high school ( '81-'85 ) .
I think pretty much stopped listening to new groups that started up after '77 .
'Course I was also trying to find a friend to play D&amp;D with , back in late 70 's .
Only found one other guy who 'd heard of it on a BBS I was connecting to with my Ti 99/4a.So yeah , the cool kids were probably over the Stones and Floyd by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was digging my father's albums (60's rock and soul) by the time I was in high school ('81-'85).
I think pretty much stopped listening to new groups that started up after '77.
'Course I was also trying to find a friend to play D&amp;D with, back in late 70's.
Only found one other guy who'd heard of it on a BBS I was connecting to with my Ti 99/4a.So yeah, the cool kids were probably over the Stones and Floyd by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087</id>
	<title>ill believe it when i see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245592200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>meet the new boss, same as the old boss...</htmltext>
<tokenext>meet the new boss , same as the old boss.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meet the new boss, same as the old boss...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</id>
	<title>Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245592080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama was elected thanks to the media. They're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama, they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes, they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.</p><p>Obama owes the media, and you'll bet they'll collect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama was elected thanks to the media .
They 're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama , they 're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates ' votes , they 're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul 's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Obama owes the media , and you 'll bet they 'll collect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama was elected thanks to the media.
They're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama, they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes, they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Obama owes the media, and you'll bet they'll collect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415259</id>
	<title>Political thought</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1245593940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Gee, how can I piss off a bunch of rich and powerful people.. I know, I'll take away their special rights to a government granted monopoly, that sounds like a great idea!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Gee , how can I piss off a bunch of rich and powerful people.. I know , I 'll take away their special rights to a government granted monopoly , that sounds like a great idea !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Gee, how can I piss off a bunch of rich and powerful people.. I know, I'll take away their special rights to a government granted monopoly, that sounds like a great idea!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415381</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>aeschenkarnos</author>
	<datestamp>1245595200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.</i> <p>
That would have taken about a teaspoon of paint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul 's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin .
That would have taken about a teaspoon of paint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.
That would have taken about a teaspoon of paint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28419855</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1245675600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.</p></div><p>I dislike the RIAA ties as much as any slashdotter, and I voted for RP in the primary, but really... this part really wasn't difficult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.I dislike the RIAA ties as much as any slashdotter , and I voted for RP in the primary , but really... this part really was n't difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.I dislike the RIAA ties as much as any slashdotter, and I voted for RP in the primary, but really... this part really wasn't difficult.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415645</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Copyright</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1245597660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Change you can believe in. It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.</p></div><p>That's what I call Christian Values.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Change you can believe in .
It wo n't happen , but you sure can believe in it.That 's what I call Christian Values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change you can believe in.
It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.That's what I call Christian Values.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415759</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it should be the role of politics to find a compromise between two positions, one of them being completely abusive and unreasonable and the other one being, well, rather common sense.</p><p>So if you have a child abusing lobby and a parents association would it still make any sense to find a compromise between the two?</p><p>Politics damn well have the responsibility to also make decisions about right and wrong, otherwise how could laws be made if it wasn't so? Laws are the essential way of saying this or that is right "in our society" at least. The current copyright laws, have failed to say what's right for a long time now. They only say what an abusive industry wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it should be the role of politics to find a compromise between two positions , one of them being completely abusive and unreasonable and the other one being , well , rather common sense.So if you have a child abusing lobby and a parents association would it still make any sense to find a compromise between the two ? Politics damn well have the responsibility to also make decisions about right and wrong , otherwise how could laws be made if it was n't so ?
Laws are the essential way of saying this or that is right " in our society " at least .
The current copyright laws , have failed to say what 's right for a long time now .
They only say what an abusive industry wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it should be the role of politics to find a compromise between two positions, one of them being completely abusive and unreasonable and the other one being, well, rather common sense.So if you have a child abusing lobby and a parents association would it still make any sense to find a compromise between the two?Politics damn well have the responsibility to also make decisions about right and wrong, otherwise how could laws be made if it wasn't so?
Laws are the essential way of saying this or that is right "in our society" at least.
The current copyright laws, have failed to say what's right for a long time now.
They only say what an abusive industry wants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420653</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya, its better if the media shows a president strutting around on a aircraft carrier celebrating victory in a war that is still going on 6 years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya , its better if the media shows a president strutting around on a aircraft carrier celebrating victory in a war that is still going on 6 years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya, its better if the media shows a president strutting around on a aircraft carrier celebrating victory in a war that is still going on 6 years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28418479</id>
	<title>Re:Government moves slow</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245664020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really unfair so much as unjust in its judgements.</p><p>If I get busted for having illegal music on my hard drive I think it would be fair to get charged 2x the going rate for the music or maybe $300, whichever is lower like a speeding ticket.  "You got me!"</p><p>If I park my car an extra 30 minutes on the street after the meter expires I think it's fair that I get charged a $20 ticket.</p><p>I have no problem with the idea of it being illegal and punishable.  What I do have a problem with is $1.9m settlements for 24 songs.  To me that's not really the job of copyright law. And while I do think there are situations where $80k per violation is perhaps even too little for copyright infringement.  In the case of citizens using it for personal use that's more like in the realm of the $30-$200 fine.  We don't even view petty theft as warranting more than a $400 fine.  And that's even worse than a less tangible crime like parking too long or speeding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really unfair so much as unjust in its judgements.If I get busted for having illegal music on my hard drive I think it would be fair to get charged 2x the going rate for the music or maybe $ 300 , whichever is lower like a speeding ticket .
" You got me !
" If I park my car an extra 30 minutes on the street after the meter expires I think it 's fair that I get charged a $ 20 ticket.I have no problem with the idea of it being illegal and punishable .
What I do have a problem with is $ 1.9m settlements for 24 songs .
To me that 's not really the job of copyright law .
And while I do think there are situations where $ 80k per violation is perhaps even too little for copyright infringement .
In the case of citizens using it for personal use that 's more like in the realm of the $ 30- $ 200 fine .
We do n't even view petty theft as warranting more than a $ 400 fine .
And that 's even worse than a less tangible crime like parking too long or speeding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really unfair so much as unjust in its judgements.If I get busted for having illegal music on my hard drive I think it would be fair to get charged 2x the going rate for the music or maybe $300, whichever is lower like a speeding ticket.
"You got me!
"If I park my car an extra 30 minutes on the street after the meter expires I think it's fair that I get charged a $20 ticket.I have no problem with the idea of it being illegal and punishable.
What I do have a problem with is $1.9m settlements for 24 songs.
To me that's not really the job of copyright law.
And while I do think there are situations where $80k per violation is perhaps even too little for copyright infringement.
In the case of citizens using it for personal use that's more like in the realm of the $30-$200 fine.
We don't even view petty theft as warranting more than a $400 fine.
And that's even worse than a less tangible crime like parking too long or speeding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a legitimate point of view from a political science point of view: they have their desire, which is essentially to be able to make money from each copy of whatever they made, and have complete control over it.  Others (especially around here) have the desire to be able to take their creations and use it any way they want, without paying them at all.  Both are legitimate, real desires.<br> <br>Politics isn't about deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is about finding a compromise, or workable solution between two conflicting parties.  In this case, the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations, and expanded fair use.  Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized.  The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a legitimate point of view from a political science point of view : they have their desire , which is essentially to be able to make money from each copy of whatever they made , and have complete control over it .
Others ( especially around here ) have the desire to be able to take their creations and use it any way they want , without paying them at all .
Both are legitimate , real desires .
Politics is n't about deciding who is right and who is wrong , it is about finding a compromise , or workable solution between two conflicting parties .
In this case , the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations , and expanded fair use .
Downloading music for free , as a lot of people want , is not likely to ever be legalized .
The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services , which may happen one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a legitimate point of view from a political science point of view: they have their desire, which is essentially to be able to make money from each copy of whatever they made, and have complete control over it.
Others (especially around here) have the desire to be able to take their creations and use it any way they want, without paying them at all.
Both are legitimate, real desires.
Politics isn't about deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is about finding a compromise, or workable solution between two conflicting parties.
In this case, the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations, and expanded fair use.
Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized.
The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417299</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245610080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh huh. Because Hillary would SO have won. Except for that whole giving up thing.</p><p>And pissing off most of the Democrats by being a sore loser.</p><p>Palin was a fucking moron, and it was her own fault.</p><p>Not going to pass judgement on McCain, but I always heard very little from him (talking about words directly from his mouth) except what he thought was wrong about Obama's ideas. Very little on his own ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh huh .
Because Hillary would SO have won .
Except for that whole giving up thing.And pissing off most of the Democrats by being a sore loser.Palin was a fucking moron , and it was her own fault.Not going to pass judgement on McCain , but I always heard very little from him ( talking about words directly from his mouth ) except what he thought was wrong about Obama 's ideas .
Very little on his own ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh huh.
Because Hillary would SO have won.
Except for that whole giving up thing.And pissing off most of the Democrats by being a sore loser.Palin was a fucking moron, and it was her own fault.Not going to pass judgement on McCain, but I always heard very little from him (talking about words directly from his mouth) except what he thought was wrong about Obama's ideas.
Very little on his own ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975</id>
	<title>Government only moves slow when governed</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245607260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.</i></p><p>We are used to government moving slow, because until now it's been regulated by two parties with different goals slowing each other down.</p><p>When the Democrats were elected to control essentially two branches of government and neutralize the third, we removed all governing forces keeping government moving slow.  Government is now free to grow unchecked, at any rate desired.   That's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president.  That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.</p><p>That was really the singular reason to vote for McCain to the exclusion of all others good and bad, but the independents who voted for Obama blew it when they could not grasp this fundamental concept (control of the house and senate was never really in question).  Never let one party hold all the marbles, it's like crossing the streams...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government moves slow , which is probably a good thing.We are used to government moving slow , because until now it 's been regulated by two parties with different goals slowing each other down.When the Democrats were elected to control essentially two branches of government and neutralize the third , we removed all governing forces keeping government moving slow .
Government is now free to grow unchecked , at any rate desired .
That 's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president .
That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.That was really the singular reason to vote for McCain to the exclusion of all others good and bad , but the independents who voted for Obama blew it when they could not grasp this fundamental concept ( control of the house and senate was never really in question ) .
Never let one party hold all the marbles , it 's like crossing the streams.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government moves slow, which is probably a good thing.We are used to government moving slow, because until now it's been regulated by two parties with different goals slowing each other down.When the Democrats were elected to control essentially two branches of government and neutralize the third, we removed all governing forces keeping government moving slow.
Government is now free to grow unchecked, at any rate desired.
That's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president.
That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.That was really the singular reason to vote for McCain to the exclusion of all others good and bad, but the independents who voted for Obama blew it when they could not grasp this fundamental concept (control of the house and senate was never really in question).
Never let one party hold all the marbles, it's like crossing the streams...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415475</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's strange a candidate who has precisely zero chance of every becoming relevant is ignored by the people that are supposed to be covering the news. If only there were some organization with the guts to cover things that nobody really cares about.<br> <br>

Seriously though, what exactly entitles Ron Paul to coverage. At some point you actually have to put up a decent showing if you wish to get time on the national news, it's strange how you have to be involved in the news to make it into the news. Just because the news media has a tendency to give the right wing a free pass doesn't mean that it should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's strange a candidate who has precisely zero chance of every becoming relevant is ignored by the people that are supposed to be covering the news .
If only there were some organization with the guts to cover things that nobody really cares about .
Seriously though , what exactly entitles Ron Paul to coverage .
At some point you actually have to put up a decent showing if you wish to get time on the national news , it 's strange how you have to be involved in the news to make it into the news .
Just because the news media has a tendency to give the right wing a free pass does n't mean that it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's strange a candidate who has precisely zero chance of every becoming relevant is ignored by the people that are supposed to be covering the news.
If only there were some organization with the guts to cover things that nobody really cares about.
Seriously though, what exactly entitles Ron Paul to coverage.
At some point you actually have to put up a decent showing if you wish to get time on the national news, it's strange how you have to be involved in the news to make it into the news.
Just because the news media has a tendency to give the right wing a free pass doesn't mean that it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489</id>
	<title>It means nothing without Public Domain</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245596280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When was the last time anything fell into the public domain?  That has to change before I will sit up and take notice of any positive changes.  These days, if they didn't make their money in the first five years, any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies.  Copyright terms need to be seriously shortened by default and let there be some sort of copyright appeals process if it can be shown that they didn't get adequate return on investment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time anything fell into the public domain ?
That has to change before I will sit up and take notice of any positive changes .
These days , if they did n't make their money in the first five years , any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies .
Copyright terms need to be seriously shortened by default and let there be some sort of copyright appeals process if it can be shown that they did n't get adequate return on investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time anything fell into the public domain?
That has to change before I will sit up and take notice of any positive changes.
These days, if they didn't make their money in the first five years, any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies.
Copyright terms need to be seriously shortened by default and let there be some sort of copyright appeals process if it can be shown that they didn't get adequate return on investment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415529</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but the sheeple will never think he'd do some against his promises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but the sheeple will never think he 'd do some against his promises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but the sheeple will never think he'd do some against his promises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28454663</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1245866580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obama was elected thanks to the media. They're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama, they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes, they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.</i></p><p><i>Obama owes the media, and you'll bet they'll collect.</i></p><p>Some problems with your storyline.  First, remember the months the media spent wringing their hands over Rev. Wright, then google John Hagee.  Then there's the fact that John McCain was an incompetent flip flopping <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/node/23866/print" title="crooksandliars.com">machine</a> [crooksandliars.com] throughout the campaign.</p><p>The media only loved Obama until the moment he passed Clinton in the primaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama was elected thanks to the media .
They 're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama , they 're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates ' votes , they 're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul 's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Obama owes the media , and you 'll bet they 'll collect.Some problems with your storyline .
First , remember the months the media spent wringing their hands over Rev .
Wright , then google John Hagee .
Then there 's the fact that John McCain was an incompetent flip flopping machine [ crooksandliars.com ] throughout the campaign.The media only loved Obama until the moment he passed Clinton in the primaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama was elected thanks to the media.
They're the ones who refused to cover anyone except Obama, they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes, they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence and went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.Obama owes the media, and you'll bet they'll collect.Some problems with your storyline.
First, remember the months the media spent wringing their hands over Rev.
Wright, then google John Hagee.
Then there's the fact that John McCain was an incompetent flip flopping machine [crooksandliars.com] throughout the campaign.The media only loved Obama until the moment he passed Clinton in the primaries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417523</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1245612240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ron Paul was in the news more than his actual chances warranted, and I don't think I've seen any statistic that showed Obama getting a lot more media coverage than McCain. I believe Obama's coverage was on average more positive than McCain's, but then, McCain did everything to ensure that this was the case. Palin got depicted as a crazy country bumpkin because she was unable to answer even softball questions like "what papers do you read."</p><p>It's easy to see some kind of narrative when there is none. In this case, I believe you're vastly exaggerating what actually happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ron Paul was in the news more than his actual chances warranted , and I do n't think I 've seen any statistic that showed Obama getting a lot more media coverage than McCain .
I believe Obama 's coverage was on average more positive than McCain 's , but then , McCain did everything to ensure that this was the case .
Palin got depicted as a crazy country bumpkin because she was unable to answer even softball questions like " what papers do you read .
" It 's easy to see some kind of narrative when there is none .
In this case , I believe you 're vastly exaggerating what actually happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ron Paul was in the news more than his actual chances warranted, and I don't think I've seen any statistic that showed Obama getting a lot more media coverage than McCain.
I believe Obama's coverage was on average more positive than McCain's, but then, McCain did everything to ensure that this was the case.
Palin got depicted as a crazy country bumpkin because she was unable to answer even softball questions like "what papers do you read.
"It's easy to see some kind of narrative when there is none.
In this case, I believe you're vastly exaggerating what actually happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28427505</id>
	<title>Re:Government only moves slow when governed</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245703680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When the Democrats were elected to control essentially two branches of government and neutralize the third, we removed all governing forces keeping government moving slow. Government is now free to grow unchecked, at any rate desired. That's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president. That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.</p></div></blockquote><p>Gee, I wonder if your arguement could be applied to the Republicans circa 2002.  They ran up the budget, and spent a whole lot of money for war on credit...  Oh, but <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=iokiyar&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com">IOKIYAR!</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Democrats were elected to control essentially two branches of government and neutralize the third , we removed all governing forces keeping government moving slow .
Government is now free to grow unchecked , at any rate desired .
That 's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president .
That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.Gee , I wonder if your arguement could be applied to the Republicans circa 2002 .
They ran up the budget , and spent a whole lot of money for war on credit... Oh , but IOKIYAR !
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Democrats were elected to control essentially two branches of government and neutralize the third, we removed all governing forces keeping government moving slow.
Government is now free to grow unchecked, at any rate desired.
That's how you got an almost order of magnitude increase in the federal deficit in the first month of a new president.
That was of course before any of the other multi-trillion dollar projects come up and get added to the grand total.Gee, I wonder if your arguement could be applied to the Republicans circa 2002.
They ran up the budget, and spent a whole lot of money for war on credit...  Oh, but IOKIYAR!
[google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416755</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245605460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415431</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1245595620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It comes down to how you define legitimate. If laws are for sale, shouldn't the people buying them expect that they will be enforced?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It comes down to how you define legitimate .
If laws are for sale , should n't the people buying them expect that they will be enforced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It comes down to how you define legitimate.
If laws are for sale, shouldn't the people buying them expect that they will be enforced?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415711</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1245598380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Politics isn't about deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is about finding a compromise, or workable solution between two conflicting parties.  In this case, the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations, and expanded fair use.  Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized.  The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.</p></div><p>Compromises only work if both sides have equal say, and no one is allowed to bribe the mediator.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics is n't about deciding who is right and who is wrong , it is about finding a compromise , or workable solution between two conflicting parties .
In this case , the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations , and expanded fair use .
Downloading music for free , as a lot of people want , is not likely to ever be legalized .
The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services , which may happen one day.Compromises only work if both sides have equal say , and no one is allowed to bribe the mediator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics isn't about deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is about finding a compromise, or workable solution between two conflicting parties.
In this case, the compromise is likely to be reduced copyright durations, and expanded fair use.
Downloading music for free, as a lot of people want, is not likely to ever be legalized.
The RIAA will not disappear until artists stop using their services, which may happen one day.Compromises only work if both sides have equal say, and no one is allowed to bribe the mediator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28437927</id>
	<title>Re:ill believe it when i see it</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1245767340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to my sigquote collection.  Well said!</p><p><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915" title="google.com">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to my sigquote collection .
Well said ! http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = -572077907195969915 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to my sigquote collection.
Well said!http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416523</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245603960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [slashdot.org], and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [wired.com] to various positions in his administration.</i></p><p>Yes... god forbid teh ev1l goverment should hire people familiar with copyright law to work in the justice department...</p><p>FYI: lawyers defend who they're paid to defend, and prosecute who they're paid to prosecute.  That's their job.  Just because they worked for the RIAA, doesn't mean they are, by default, shills for the media conglomerates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [ slashdot.org ] , and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [ wired.com ] to various positions in his administration.Yes... god forbid teh ev1l goverment should hire people familiar with copyright law to work in the justice department...FYI : lawyers defend who they 're paid to defend , and prosecute who they 're paid to prosecute .
That 's their job .
Just because they worked for the RIAA , does n't mean they are , by default , shills for the media conglomerates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [slashdot.org], and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [wired.com] to various positions in his administration.Yes... god forbid teh ev1l goverment should hire people familiar with copyright law to work in the justice department...FYI: lawyers defend who they're paid to defend, and prosecute who they're paid to prosecute.
That's their job.
Just because they worked for the RIAA, doesn't mean they are, by default, shills for the media conglomerates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415533</id>
	<title>Republicans Racist Against Minorities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245596820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you think that Blacks should have voted for the racist Republican party?</p><p>All that dog whistle racist nonsense taught a generation of minorities what the Republican party really represents.</p><p>Keep your racist bullshit. We are never voting Republican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think that Blacks should have voted for the racist Republican party ? All that dog whistle racist nonsense taught a generation of minorities what the Republican party really represents.Keep your racist bullshit .
We are never voting Republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think that Blacks should have voted for the racist Republican party?All that dog whistle racist nonsense taught a generation of minorities what the Republican party really represents.Keep your racist bullshit.
We are never voting Republican.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415827</id>
	<title>Criticism of Obama is Racist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245599580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When commenting on this thread, please remember that any criticism of Obama is "straight up" racism.</p><p>Under Bush:  "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!"<br>Under Obama: "Dissent is the highest form of racism!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When commenting on this thread , please remember that any criticism of Obama is " straight up " racism.Under Bush : " Dissent is the highest form of patriotism !
" Under Obama : " Dissent is the highest form of racism !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When commenting on this thread, please remember that any criticism of Obama is "straight up" racism.Under Bush:  "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!
"Under Obama: "Dissent is the highest form of racism!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107</id>
	<title>Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245592440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>from the media conglomerates (who, after all, have a very legitimate point of view &#226;" even if not the only point of view)</p></div></blockquote><p>It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view, then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.</p><p>They have paid for legislation and administration policy.  To want your paid-for laws to be enforced is not a "legitimate point of view".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the media conglomerates ( who , after all , have a very legitimate point of view   " even if not the only point of view ) It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view , then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.They have paid for legislation and administration policy .
To want your paid-for laws to be enforced is not a " legitimate point of view " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the media conglomerates (who, after all, have a very legitimate point of view â" even if not the only point of view)It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view, then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.They have paid for legislation and administration policy.
To want your paid-for laws to be enforced is not a "legitimate point of view".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28424349</id>
	<title>Re:ill believe it when i see it</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1245692940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't garner wisdom from the same guy who guaranteed unemployment wouldn't exceed 8\% (now over 10\%) and that GM and Chrysler would be saved from bankruptcy (now sorta-bankrupt, except instead of a legal bankruptcy they were given away to the unions) if we JUST PASSED THE STIMULUS BILL RIGHT AWAY!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't garner wisdom from the same guy who guaranteed unemployment would n't exceed 8 \ % ( now over 10 \ % ) and that GM and Chrysler would be saved from bankruptcy ( now sorta-bankrupt , except instead of a legal bankruptcy they were given away to the unions ) if we JUST PASSED THE STIMULUS BILL RIGHT AWAY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't garner wisdom from the same guy who guaranteed unemployment wouldn't exceed 8\% (now over 10\%) and that GM and Chrysler would be saved from bankruptcy (now sorta-bankrupt, except instead of a legal bankruptcy they were given away to the unions) if we JUST PASSED THE STIMULUS BILL RIGHT AWAY!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416031</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245601020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.. went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.</p></div><p>If by "went out of thier way," you meant "turned the cameras on and stepped back," then I agree with you completely.  You can't blame everything on the media, the dancing monkeys on TV performed their act as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.If by " went out of thier way , " you meant " turned the cameras on and stepped back , " then I agree with you completely .
You ca n't blame everything on the media , the dancing monkeys on TV performed their act as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. went out of their way to paint McCain as a senile old man and Palin as a crazy country bumpkin.If by "went out of thier way," you meant "turned the cameras on and stepped back," then I agree with you completely.
You can't blame everything on the media, the dancing monkeys on TV performed their act as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417997</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So let's play this out a little bit. Let's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old. All of a sudden, everything older than Third Eye Blind is free. The majority of Metallica music. U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship, Beatles, the list goes on. Anything recorded by Casals, most of Pavarotti's records... How many people would say, "I've got a lifetime of music to wade through that's free. Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar?"<br>Unless, of course, they actually turn out some product that's better than Britney. I'm not saying that there's no good music these days, but I'm saying that most of the pop stuff they put out now would have a hard time competing against a practically infinite supply of free music.</p></div><p>I don't think that would be the case for a good chunk of listeners. Especially youth culture is all about identification and peer pressure. Therfore, I guess Britney and her ilk are not so much about music.<br>Plus, it's totally uncool to listen to the same stuff as one's parents, however good it may be.<br>I know I didn't start listening to older stuff before being well into my twens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's play this out a little bit .
Let 's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old .
All of a sudden , everything older than Third Eye Blind is free .
The majority of Metallica music .
U2 , Madonna , Pink Floyd , Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship , Beatles , the list goes on .
Anything recorded by Casals , most of Pavarotti 's records... How many people would say , " I 've got a lifetime of music to wade through that 's free .
Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar ?
" Unless , of course , they actually turn out some product that 's better than Britney .
I 'm not saying that there 's no good music these days , but I 'm saying that most of the pop stuff they put out now would have a hard time competing against a practically infinite supply of free music.I do n't think that would be the case for a good chunk of listeners .
Especially youth culture is all about identification and peer pressure .
Therfore , I guess Britney and her ilk are not so much about music.Plus , it 's totally uncool to listen to the same stuff as one 's parents , however good it may be.I know I did n't start listening to older stuff before being well into my twens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's play this out a little bit.
Let's say we drop the copyrights on everything over 17 years old.
All of a sudden, everything older than Third Eye Blind is free.
The majority of Metallica music.
U2, Madonna, Pink Floyd, Paula Abdul... Jefferson Starship, Beatles, the list goes on.
Anything recorded by Casals, most of Pavarotti's records... How many people would say, "I've got a lifetime of music to wade through that's free.
Why would I buy this top-40 crap for even a dollar?
"Unless, of course, they actually turn out some product that's better than Britney.
I'm not saying that there's no good music these days, but I'm saying that most of the pop stuff they put out now would have a hard time competing against a practically infinite supply of free music.I don't think that would be the case for a good chunk of listeners.
Especially youth culture is all about identification and peer pressure.
Therfore, I guess Britney and her ilk are not so much about music.Plus, it's totally uncool to listen to the same stuff as one's parents, however good it may be.I know I didn't start listening to older stuff before being well into my twens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415575</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1245597120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view, then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.</p></div><p>One can hope that we'll continue to keep the pressure on until Federal policies begin to align with something approaching a workable consensus. Faint hope perhaps, but it keeps me going.  </p><p>There has to be some plateau when a balance can be struck where we can abjure both the trading of works that aren't ours to trade, and the egregious, obscene litigation history of the RIAA with their $1.9M judgement against a poor, naiive mother who walked into an open candy store.</p><p>A new business model has to arise from the wreckage of this one, and a new set of lessons for the courts has to replace the rollover we've witnessed to date.  It has to happen.</p><p>But until it does, the only hope we have for an ultimately equitable model is to keep the vociferous debate going. We have to keep the pressure up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view , then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.One can hope that we 'll continue to keep the pressure on until Federal policies begin to align with something approaching a workable consensus .
Faint hope perhaps , but it keeps me going .
There has to be some plateau when a balance can be struck where we can abjure both the trading of works that are n't ours to trade , and the egregious , obscene litigation history of the RIAA with their $ 1.9M judgement against a poor , naiive mother who walked into an open candy store.A new business model has to arise from the wreckage of this one , and a new set of lessons for the courts has to replace the rollover we 've witnessed to date .
It has to happen.But until it does , the only hope we have for an ultimately equitable model is to keep the vociferous debate going .
We have to keep the pressure up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It the MPAA/RIAA have a legitimate point of view, then I can barely comprehend what illegitimate is.One can hope that we'll continue to keep the pressure on until Federal policies begin to align with something approaching a workable consensus.
Faint hope perhaps, but it keeps me going.
There has to be some plateau when a balance can be struck where we can abjure both the trading of works that aren't ours to trade, and the egregious, obscene litigation history of the RIAA with their $1.9M judgement against a poor, naiive mother who walked into an open candy store.A new business model has to arise from the wreckage of this one, and a new set of lessons for the courts has to replace the rollover we've witnessed to date.
It has to happen.But until it does, the only hope we have for an ultimately equitable model is to keep the vociferous debate going.
We have to keep the pressure up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417673</id>
	<title>Re:Legitimate?</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1245613560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>have complete control over it</p></div></blockquote><p>I think that is the crux of the problem right there.</p><p>IMO, reasonable people would interpret that to mean they have complete control over distribution, licensing, and profits derived from such activities from their copyrighted works.  I have no problem with that.  I BELIEVE in copyrights.  Not as they exist now, but the idea of what a copyright is and provides, is beneficial to society.  I think everything should be 20 years.  Or 25, 17, whatever.  Not 75 years, or the lifetime of anyone plus anything.</p><p>The RIAA, Big Media, and *especially* SONY (rootkit), interpret that to mean complete control over how and when their customers enjoy their works.  I myself think, and that most reasonable people, would think that is an unreasonable and unethical position to take.</p><p>Does Tyson tell you how to cook your chicken?  How to cut it?  Does Shake-n-Bake mandate exactly 6 shakes?  Does Toyota tell you that your Prius can only be driven in the Southwest U.S?</p><p>Why do we put up with the idea that after, most importantly AFTER, we give our money to these companies that they get to control us in any way shape or form?  That is not normal.  That expectation is not realistic or even what a normal person has ever expected.</p><p>What these companies are fighting so hard for is something we would have never agreed to in the first place, and is certainly not in society's best interest.  Their purported* financial best interests, but not our society's, or freedom for that matter.</p><p>* - That is not even certain.  I don't believe that an instance of piracy equals a lost sale.  I think if piracy stopped completely tomorrow that CD sales would rise marginally.  A few percentage points.  Not year over year multi-digit gains.  The business models have to change.  Like or not, music is a 99c world and albums just don't sell for 20$+ like they used to.  They are panicking and desperate, if not suicidal.  It reminds me when aluminum was worth more than gold, and then suddenly was worth less than 1c on the dollar.  My concern is that they seem hell bent on destroying our freedoms, destroying copyrights, and basically making life a living hell till they finally die.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>have complete control over itI think that is the crux of the problem right there.IMO , reasonable people would interpret that to mean they have complete control over distribution , licensing , and profits derived from such activities from their copyrighted works .
I have no problem with that .
I BELIEVE in copyrights .
Not as they exist now , but the idea of what a copyright is and provides , is beneficial to society .
I think everything should be 20 years .
Or 25 , 17 , whatever .
Not 75 years , or the lifetime of anyone plus anything.The RIAA , Big Media , and * especially * SONY ( rootkit ) , interpret that to mean complete control over how and when their customers enjoy their works .
I myself think , and that most reasonable people , would think that is an unreasonable and unethical position to take.Does Tyson tell you how to cook your chicken ?
How to cut it ?
Does Shake-n-Bake mandate exactly 6 shakes ?
Does Toyota tell you that your Prius can only be driven in the Southwest U.S ? Why do we put up with the idea that after , most importantly AFTER , we give our money to these companies that they get to control us in any way shape or form ?
That is not normal .
That expectation is not realistic or even what a normal person has ever expected.What these companies are fighting so hard for is something we would have never agreed to in the first place , and is certainly not in society 's best interest .
Their purported * financial best interests , but not our society 's , or freedom for that matter .
* - That is not even certain .
I do n't believe that an instance of piracy equals a lost sale .
I think if piracy stopped completely tomorrow that CD sales would rise marginally .
A few percentage points .
Not year over year multi-digit gains .
The business models have to change .
Like or not , music is a 99c world and albums just do n't sell for 20 $ + like they used to .
They are panicking and desperate , if not suicidal .
It reminds me when aluminum was worth more than gold , and then suddenly was worth less than 1c on the dollar .
My concern is that they seem hell bent on destroying our freedoms , destroying copyrights , and basically making life a living hell till they finally die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have complete control over itI think that is the crux of the problem right there.IMO, reasonable people would interpret that to mean they have complete control over distribution, licensing, and profits derived from such activities from their copyrighted works.
I have no problem with that.
I BELIEVE in copyrights.
Not as they exist now, but the idea of what a copyright is and provides, is beneficial to society.
I think everything should be 20 years.
Or 25, 17, whatever.
Not 75 years, or the lifetime of anyone plus anything.The RIAA, Big Media, and *especially* SONY (rootkit), interpret that to mean complete control over how and when their customers enjoy their works.
I myself think, and that most reasonable people, would think that is an unreasonable and unethical position to take.Does Tyson tell you how to cook your chicken?
How to cut it?
Does Shake-n-Bake mandate exactly 6 shakes?
Does Toyota tell you that your Prius can only be driven in the Southwest U.S?Why do we put up with the idea that after, most importantly AFTER, we give our money to these companies that they get to control us in any way shape or form?
That is not normal.
That expectation is not realistic or even what a normal person has ever expected.What these companies are fighting so hard for is something we would have never agreed to in the first place, and is certainly not in society's best interest.
Their purported* financial best interests, but not our society's, or freedom for that matter.
* - That is not even certain.
I don't believe that an instance of piracy equals a lost sale.
I think if piracy stopped completely tomorrow that CD sales would rise marginally.
A few percentage points.
Not year over year multi-digit gains.
The business models have to change.
Like or not, music is a 99c world and albums just don't sell for 20$+ like they used to.
They are panicking and desperate, if not suicidal.
It reminds me when aluminum was worth more than gold, and then suddenly was worth less than 1c on the dollar.
My concern is that they seem hell bent on destroying our freedoms, destroying copyrights, and basically making life a living hell till they finally die.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28418417</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying that the media elected Obama is an obvious lie.</p><p>1) The media wanted Hillary Clinton if anyone elected.   Not Barack Obama.   And yet despite the 'media bias' for Hillary (which is to say she was well known and popular before the start of the campaign).<br>2) George Bush won twice.  Somehow the same media which covered the John Kerry "Veterans for Truth" smear campaign also has a bias for Obama?<br>3) We went to war with a country with almost no media investigation or inquiry.   Somehow the same media which hung on Bush's every lie in the leadup to the Iraq war is the same media which wanted Obama to win?</p><p>Cable news is many things.  But plotting to elect Barack Obama was not one of the accomplishments.</p><p>And Palin has NOBODY but herself to blame for being thought of as a crazy country bumpkin.  "I can field dress a moose".  Wow what a cultured and intellectual girl she must be! She played "I'm normal folk" from day one at the top of her lungs.  The fact that people decided they didn't want a moose hunter and small town mayor as their VP is to say they listened to HER PITCH and decided that wasn't what they wanted.</p><p>And Ron Paul.  People listen to Ron Paul.  And people don't like Ron Paul.   It's as simple as that.   Notice that Ron Paul got infinitely more coverage than Dennis Kucinich.</p><p>The day that Dennis Kucinich or the Green Party gets regular media coverage is the day I'll believe there is a strong pro-liberal slant in the media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that the media elected Obama is an obvious lie.1 ) The media wanted Hillary Clinton if anyone elected .
Not Barack Obama .
And yet despite the 'media bias ' for Hillary ( which is to say she was well known and popular before the start of the campaign ) .2 ) George Bush won twice .
Somehow the same media which covered the John Kerry " Veterans for Truth " smear campaign also has a bias for Obama ? 3 ) We went to war with a country with almost no media investigation or inquiry .
Somehow the same media which hung on Bush 's every lie in the leadup to the Iraq war is the same media which wanted Obama to win ? Cable news is many things .
But plotting to elect Barack Obama was not one of the accomplishments.And Palin has NOBODY but herself to blame for being thought of as a crazy country bumpkin .
" I can field dress a moose " .
Wow what a cultured and intellectual girl she must be !
She played " I 'm normal folk " from day one at the top of her lungs .
The fact that people decided they did n't want a moose hunter and small town mayor as their VP is to say they listened to HER PITCH and decided that was n't what they wanted.And Ron Paul .
People listen to Ron Paul .
And people do n't like Ron Paul .
It 's as simple as that .
Notice that Ron Paul got infinitely more coverage than Dennis Kucinich.The day that Dennis Kucinich or the Green Party gets regular media coverage is the day I 'll believe there is a strong pro-liberal slant in the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that the media elected Obama is an obvious lie.1) The media wanted Hillary Clinton if anyone elected.
Not Barack Obama.
And yet despite the 'media bias' for Hillary (which is to say she was well known and popular before the start of the campaign).2) George Bush won twice.
Somehow the same media which covered the John Kerry "Veterans for Truth" smear campaign also has a bias for Obama?3) We went to war with a country with almost no media investigation or inquiry.
Somehow the same media which hung on Bush's every lie in the leadup to the Iraq war is the same media which wanted Obama to win?Cable news is many things.
But plotting to elect Barack Obama was not one of the accomplishments.And Palin has NOBODY but herself to blame for being thought of as a crazy country bumpkin.
"I can field dress a moose".
Wow what a cultured and intellectual girl she must be!
She played "I'm normal folk" from day one at the top of her lungs.
The fact that people decided they didn't want a moose hunter and small town mayor as their VP is to say they listened to HER PITCH and decided that wasn't what they wanted.And Ron Paul.
People listen to Ron Paul.
And people don't like Ron Paul.
It's as simple as that.
Notice that Ron Paul got infinitely more coverage than Dennis Kucinich.The day that Dennis Kucinich or the Green Party gets regular media coverage is the day I'll believe there is a strong pro-liberal slant in the media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415355</id>
	<title>Out come the assholes and karma whores</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is insightful?  It's the same old crap that gets intoned every time the subject of Obama comes up.</p><p>And anyone who <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1275385&amp;cid=28397441" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">points it out</a> [slashdot.org] gets modded down.</p><p>I guess I'll wait until the next article, post "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and get modded up to +5, Original and Witty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is insightful ?
It 's the same old crap that gets intoned every time the subject of Obama comes up.And anyone who points it out [ slashdot.org ] gets modded down.I guess I 'll wait until the next article , post " Meet the new boss , same as the old boss " and get modded up to + 5 , Original and Witty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is insightful?
It's the same old crap that gets intoned every time the subject of Obama comes up.And anyone who points it out [slashdot.org] gets modded down.I guess I'll wait until the next article, post "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and get modded up to +5, Original and Witty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415121</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>ysth</author>
	<datestamp>1245592620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existence</p></div><p>Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul 's existenceDennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're the ones who completely ignored Ron Paul's existenceDennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28428813</id>
	<title>Re:Obama and Copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question, those working for the Obama Administration are not allowed to work on past lobbies/etc right? If thats right, could Obama be taking these people off the market for RIAA/ MPAA... so they cant be used by those bastards. Someone please tell me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question , those working for the Obama Administration are not allowed to work on past lobbies/etc right ?
If thats right , could Obama be taking these people off the market for RIAA/ MPAA... so they cant be used by those bastards .
Someone please tell me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question, those working for the Obama Administration are not allowed to work on past lobbies/etc right?
If thats right, could Obama be taking these people off the market for RIAA/ MPAA... so they cant be used by those bastards.
Someone please tell me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28424287</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1245692700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>The fact that people decided they didn't want a moose hunter and small town mayor as their VP is to say they listened to HER PITCH and decided that wasn't what they wanted.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Apparently, the people decided they wanted a blowhard who likes to put his foot in his mouth for VP, instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that people decided they did n't want a moose hunter and small town mayor as their VP is to say they listened to HER PITCH and decided that was n't what they wanted .
Apparently , the people decided they wanted a blowhard who likes to put his foot in his mouth for VP , instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The fact that people decided they didn't want a moose hunter and small town mayor as their VP is to say they listened to HER PITCH and decided that wasn't what they wanted.
Apparently, the people decided they wanted a blowhard who likes to put his foot in his mouth for VP, instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28418417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415695</id>
	<title>Re:ill believe it when i see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245598200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>meet the new boss, same as the old boss...</p></div><p>Thank you for using these lyrics. The bill for the copyright licensing bills are in the mail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>meet the new boss , same as the old boss...Thank you for using these lyrics .
The bill for the copyright licensing bills are in the mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meet the new boss, same as the old boss...Thank you for using these lyrics.
The bill for the copyright licensing bills are in the mail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415835</id>
	<title>Re:Republicans Racist Against Minorities</title>
	<author>Grimbleton</author>
	<datestamp>1245599700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lincoln was a Republican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lincoln was a Republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lincoln was a Republican.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415157</id>
	<title>Can't resist:</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1245592980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama's Copyright Policies?  All Copyright belongs to the Federal Govt.  Next up, Mr. Conway Twitty!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's Copyright Policies ?
All Copyright belongs to the Federal Govt .
Next up , Mr. Conway Twitty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's Copyright Policies?
All Copyright belongs to the Federal Govt.
Next up, Mr. Conway Twitty!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415671</id>
	<title>Re:It means nothing without Public Domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245597840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; These days, if they didn't make their money in the first five years, any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies.</p><p>No... not really.  This was the feeling during the studio system of Hollywood.  It's not really true today.  There are many titles (and not all ones you'd think of like Star Wars) that are making money years and years down the road.  As a matter of fact, if I remember by college film studies correctly... there are very few titles that done *eventually* make their money back.  In the U.S. we tend to focus on domestic money made at the theaters, but movies are sold to Broadcast TV, Cable TV, International markets of all sorts, Airlines, Cruise Ships, DVD sales, online sales... the list goes on and on.  Also.. don't forget all the movies that finally broke even when they ended up on TV shows like MST3k!  All this goes on for years and years and years.</p><p>I think copyright has to accommodate this somewhat.  However I agree with the parent's point... they are not falling into Public Domain at all these days and that should be corrected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; These days , if they did n't make their money in the first five years , any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies.No... not really .
This was the feeling during the studio system of Hollywood .
It 's not really true today .
There are many titles ( and not all ones you 'd think of like Star Wars ) that are making money years and years down the road .
As a matter of fact , if I remember by college film studies correctly... there are very few titles that done * eventually * make their money back .
In the U.S. we tend to focus on domestic money made at the theaters , but movies are sold to Broadcast TV , Cable TV , International markets of all sorts , Airlines , Cruise Ships , DVD sales , online sales... the list goes on and on .
Also.. do n't forget all the movies that finally broke even when they ended up on TV shows like MST3k !
All this goes on for years and years and years.I think copyright has to accommodate this somewhat .
However I agree with the parent 's point... they are not falling into Public Domain at all these days and that should be corrected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; These days, if they didn't make their money in the first five years, any given work is nearly dead -- especially movies.No... not really.
This was the feeling during the studio system of Hollywood.
It's not really true today.
There are many titles (and not all ones you'd think of like Star Wars) that are making money years and years down the road.
As a matter of fact, if I remember by college film studies correctly... there are very few titles that done *eventually* make their money back.
In the U.S. we tend to focus on domestic money made at the theaters, but movies are sold to Broadcast TV, Cable TV, International markets of all sorts, Airlines, Cruise Ships, DVD sales, online sales... the list goes on and on.
Also.. don't forget all the movies that finally broke even when they ended up on TV shows like MST3k!
All this goes on for years and years and years.I think copyright has to accommodate this somewhat.
However I agree with the parent's point... they are not falling into Public Domain at all these days and that should be corrected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28430449</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Doomdark</author>
	<datestamp>1245670800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes,
</i>
<p>
Nice conspiracy theory, but a misguided one. DP itself wanted to skip it (except for mrs. Clinton), to "show unity". As in, grouping behind the most likely candidate that could win the general election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates ' votes , Nice conspiracy theory , but a misguided one .
DP itself wanted to skip it ( except for mrs. Clinton ) , to " show unity " .
As in , grouping behind the most likely candidate that could win the general election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
they're the ones who forced the Democratic Party to skip the part of their convention where they count delegates' votes,


Nice conspiracy theory, but a misguided one.
DP itself wanted to skip it (except for mrs. Clinton), to "show unity".
As in, grouping behind the most likely candidate that could win the general election.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28425929</id>
	<title>Re:Don't bet on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.And it had nothing to do with the Republican Party being a bunch of greedy megalomanics and everybody was sick of them turning their country into a Fascist state?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415363</id>
	<title>OBAMA WILL STEAL ALL YOUR MONEY!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245594960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks America for being so stupid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks America for being so stupid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks America for being so stupid!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189</id>
	<title>Obama and Copyright</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1245593280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/20/2018255/EFF-and-PK-Reluctantly-Drop-Lawsuit-For-ACTA-Info?art\_pos=14&amp;art\_pos=14" title="slashdot.org">a matter of national security</a> [slashdot.org], and has <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/" title="wired.com">appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers</a> [wired.com] to various positions in his administration. I think it's pretty clear whose side Obama is on, and it does not bode well for the future of the Internet.</p><p>Obama: Change you can believe in. It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [ slashdot.org ] , and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [ wired.com ] to various positions in his administration .
I think it 's pretty clear whose side Obama is on , and it does not bode well for the future of the Internet.Obama : Change you can believe in .
It wo n't happen , but you sure can believe in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security [slashdot.org], and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers [wired.com] to various positions in his administration.
I think it's pretty clear whose side Obama is on, and it does not bode well for the future of the Internet.Obama: Change you can believe in.
It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28425929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28418479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28428813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28430449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28435067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28453333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28421611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28427505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28454663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28424287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28418417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28426567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28419855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28424349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28426665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28437927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28453451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_2327214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28425271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2327214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28418479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28453451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28425271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28427505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28453333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2327214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2327214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2327214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415807
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417997
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28421611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415533
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415775
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2327214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28418417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28424287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28454663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28419855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28430449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28423795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28420653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28425929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28435067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28426567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28426665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2327214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28417497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28428813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_2327214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416101
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28424349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28437927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28415833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_2327214.28416241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
