<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_03_1528259</id>
	<title>Copyright Should Encourage Derivative Works</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246650420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Techdirt has an interesting look at copyright and the idea that an author is the originator of a new work.  Instead, the piece suggests that <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0230145396.shtml">all works are in some way based on the works of others</a> (even our own copyright law), and the system should be much more encouraging of "remixing" work into new, unique experiences.  <i>"Friedman also points back to another recent post where he discusses the nature of content creation, based on a blog post by Rene Kita. In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally. It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music &mdash; which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to 'protect' such things."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Techdirt has an interesting look at copyright and the idea that an author is the originator of a new work .
Instead , the piece suggests that all works are in some way based on the works of others ( even our own copyright law ) , and the system should be much more encouraging of " remixing " work into new , unique experiences .
" Friedman also points back to another recent post where he discusses the nature of content creation , based on a blog post by Rene Kita .
In it , she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm .
It 's what we do naturally .
It 's only in the last century or so , when we reached a means of recording , manufacturing and selling music    which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it , that copyright was suddenly brought out to 'protect ' such things .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Techdirt has an interesting look at copyright and the idea that an author is the originator of a new work.
Instead, the piece suggests that all works are in some way based on the works of others (even our own copyright law), and the system should be much more encouraging of "remixing" work into new, unique experiences.
"Friedman also points back to another recent post where he discusses the nature of content creation, based on a blog post by Rene Kita.
In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm.
It's what we do naturally.
It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music — which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to 'protect' such things.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580685</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246727520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shitty or ripoff comics don't matter. True fans can tell what is and what isn't canon. Some people also find novelty in such things. And if they spawn their own audience, oh well. The only way it could hurt the originating franchise is if the original actually is of a lesser quality than the spinoff.</p><p>And on a completely different topic about a professor going to jail, these might be of interest (but I can't post to that thread for some reason.):<br><a href="http://jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/html/s\_gdpthr1.htm" title="online.fr" rel="nofollow">Active glow discharge plasma</a> [online.fr]<br><a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/5575/14910/00677456.pdf?arnumber=677456" title="ieee.org" rel="nofollow">1998 IEEE Conference on Plasma Science</a> [ieee.org] (If you have access, look for the article by the same professor.)<br>I would have posted there, but for some annoying reason slashdot isn't letting me. Feel free to post these over to the relevant article. I suspect there is some good irony in those tidbits of info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shitty or ripoff comics do n't matter .
True fans can tell what is and what is n't canon .
Some people also find novelty in such things .
And if they spawn their own audience , oh well .
The only way it could hurt the originating franchise is if the original actually is of a lesser quality than the spinoff.And on a completely different topic about a professor going to jail , these might be of interest ( but I ca n't post to that thread for some reason .
) : Active glow discharge plasma [ online.fr ] 1998 IEEE Conference on Plasma Science [ ieee.org ] ( If you have access , look for the article by the same professor .
) I would have posted there , but for some annoying reason slashdot is n't letting me .
Feel free to post these over to the relevant article .
I suspect there is some good irony in those tidbits of info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shitty or ripoff comics don't matter.
True fans can tell what is and what isn't canon.
Some people also find novelty in such things.
And if they spawn their own audience, oh well.
The only way it could hurt the originating franchise is if the original actually is of a lesser quality than the spinoff.And on a completely different topic about a professor going to jail, these might be of interest (but I can't post to that thread for some reason.
):Active glow discharge plasma [online.fr]1998 IEEE Conference on Plasma Science [ieee.org] (If you have access, look for the article by the same professor.
)I would have posted there, but for some annoying reason slashdot isn't letting me.
Feel free to post these over to the relevant article.
I suspect there is some good irony in those tidbits of info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576873</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>haifastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1246631580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take the analogy further: \_don't\_ look at software. Because this is what patents have done to software:<br><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Patents were the reason for the downfall of a standard HTML 5 video codec.</a> [slashdot.org] Not litigation or the threat of litigation, but the existence of patents and the fact that there is no way for a company (Apple, in this case) to check if someone is trolling a patent or three.</p><p>What has this to do with copyright? Should copyright be pulling in one direction while patents are pulling in the other? Haven't the two traditionally gone hand in hand, to the point where laymen cannot distinguish between the two? What is the intent of protections, and who are they protecting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take the analogy further : \ _do n't \ _ look at software .
Because this is what patents have done to software : Patents were the reason for the downfall of a standard HTML 5 video codec .
[ slashdot.org ] Not litigation or the threat of litigation , but the existence of patents and the fact that there is no way for a company ( Apple , in this case ) to check if someone is trolling a patent or three.What has this to do with copyright ?
Should copyright be pulling in one direction while patents are pulling in the other ?
Have n't the two traditionally gone hand in hand , to the point where laymen can not distinguish between the two ?
What is the intent of protections , and who are they protecting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take the analogy further: \_don't\_ look at software.
Because this is what patents have done to software:Patents were the reason for the downfall of a standard HTML 5 video codec.
[slashdot.org] Not litigation or the threat of litigation, but the existence of patents and the fact that there is no way for a company (Apple, in this case) to check if someone is trolling a patent or three.What has this to do with copyright?
Should copyright be pulling in one direction while patents are pulling in the other?
Haven't the two traditionally gone hand in hand, to the point where laymen cannot distinguish between the two?
What is the intent of protections, and who are they protecting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575655</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>shmlco</author>
	<datestamp>1246619820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music...."</p><p>Since copyright over written materials originated in Britain in 1710, that's 299 years, or nearly THREE centuries ago.</p><p>But the article makes it seem like it's just something we created for the hell of it a decade or so ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's only in the last century or so , when we reached a means of recording , manufacturing and selling music.... " Since copyright over written materials originated in Britain in 1710 , that 's 299 years , or nearly THREE centuries ago.But the article makes it seem like it 's just something we created for the hell of it a decade or so ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music...."Since copyright over written materials originated in Britain in 1710, that's 299 years, or nearly THREE centuries ago.But the article makes it seem like it's just something we created for the hell of it a decade or so ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575763</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246620780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typically when a song is remixed or sampled, the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically when a song is remixed or sampled , the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically when a song is remixed or sampled, the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575125</id>
	<title>Remixing code via LimeBits.com</title>
	<author>LimeBits</author>
	<datestamp>1246615680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A <a href="http://bits.limebits.com/help/content/documents/limebits\_whitepaper\_1.pdf" title="limebits.com" rel="nofollow">white paper on remixing code</a> [limebits.com] was recently released by open-source code-sharing community <a href="http://limebits.com/" title="limebits.com" rel="nofollow">LimeBits.com</a> [limebits.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>A white paper on remixing code [ limebits.com ] was recently released by open-source code-sharing community LimeBits.com [ limebits.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A white paper on remixing code [limebits.com] was recently released by open-source code-sharing community LimeBits.com [limebits.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575457</id>
	<title>imagine that shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246618320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>who woulda thunk that slashtards see ripping something off and relabeling it as something else is innovation. that's all linux and 99\% of all open source is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>who woulda thunk that slashtards see ripping something off and relabeling it as something else is innovation .
that 's all linux and 99 \ % of all open source is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who woulda thunk that slashtards see ripping something off and relabeling it as something else is innovation.
that's all linux and 99\% of all open source is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574619</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1246612140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Queue the trolls spewing bullshit about copyright being just fine as it is, blah blah blah.</p><p>And yes, I meant queue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Queue the trolls spewing bullshit about copyright being just fine as it is , blah blah blah.And yes , I meant queue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Queue the trolls spewing bullshit about copyright being just fine as it is, blah blah blah.And yes, I meant queue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575037</id>
	<title>Derivative works</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246614960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally.</p></div><p>AFAICT, the real point of talking about "derivative works" with copyright is just to close a loophole where someone might say, "Oh, I don't have the right to distribute your work?  Well no problem, this isn't your work.  I changed 5 words in the novel, which makes it a different work.  This new work is mine."
</p><p>Since then, some people have taken it to mean that all new copyrighted works should be 100\% original, not inspired by anything, and not borrowing from anyone's past work.  But that's impossible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In it , she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm .
It 's what we do naturally.AFAICT , the real point of talking about " derivative works " with copyright is just to close a loophole where someone might say , " Oh , I do n't have the right to distribute your work ?
Well no problem , this is n't your work .
I changed 5 words in the novel , which makes it a different work .
This new work is mine .
" Since then , some people have taken it to mean that all new copyrighted works should be 100 \ % original , not inspired by anything , and not borrowing from anyone 's past work .
But that 's impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm.
It's what we do naturally.AFAICT, the real point of talking about "derivative works" with copyright is just to close a loophole where someone might say, "Oh, I don't have the right to distribute your work?
Well no problem, this isn't your work.
I changed 5 words in the novel, which makes it a different work.
This new work is mine.
"
Since then, some people have taken it to mean that all new copyrighted works should be 100\% original, not inspired by anything, and not borrowing from anyone's past work.
But that's impossible.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574769</id>
	<title>Re:No really?</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1246613220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh no, it helps the industry, it just harms culture.</p></div><p>I would say that it helps industry in the short term, but harms it in the long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , it helps the industry , it just harms culture.I would say that it helps industry in the short term , but harms it in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, it helps the industry, it just harms culture.I would say that it helps industry in the short term, but harms it in the long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1246614240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.</p></div><p>Sorry but this is the purest form of assholery enabled by copyright.</p><p>If someone random releases a Batman comic, then there are three possible outcomes:<br>1. It sucks. Nobody cares, the original author does not lose anything. Publisher is annoyed because somebody is using "their" franchise, but since people tend to forget about shitty comics they doesn't care much.<br>2. It is acceptable. Some people will buy and enjoy it, but most probably won't consider it canon. The original author is unaffected. Publisher is annoyed because they think that money should belong to them.<br>3. It is absolutely great. Readers have a great comic, the "unauthorized" artist has a lot of money. The original artist might have a reduced ability to sell his future works if they aren't as good as the "unauthorized" ones, but most probably his earlier works will sell better because of increased popularity of Batman in general. Publisher gnaws his arms off because they did not make any money from the hit.</p><p>Conclusion: this use of copyright does not benefit the authors or the readers in the slightest. They only benefit the publishers, who can turn the creative arts into a money farm. The effect is a cultural land grab that stifles creativity, and prevents a great many works from being created because they would not be authorized. For example, a movie about the Stalinist terror using Disney characters could become a cultural milestone, and yet there is no chance of that ever being authorized.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.Sorry but this is the purest form of assholery enabled by copyright.If someone random releases a Batman comic , then there are three possible outcomes : 1 .
It sucks .
Nobody cares , the original author does not lose anything .
Publisher is annoyed because somebody is using " their " franchise , but since people tend to forget about shitty comics they does n't care much.2 .
It is acceptable .
Some people will buy and enjoy it , but most probably wo n't consider it canon .
The original author is unaffected .
Publisher is annoyed because they think that money should belong to them.3 .
It is absolutely great .
Readers have a great comic , the " unauthorized " artist has a lot of money .
The original artist might have a reduced ability to sell his future works if they are n't as good as the " unauthorized " ones , but most probably his earlier works will sell better because of increased popularity of Batman in general .
Publisher gnaws his arms off because they did not make any money from the hit.Conclusion : this use of copyright does not benefit the authors or the readers in the slightest .
They only benefit the publishers , who can turn the creative arts into a money farm .
The effect is a cultural land grab that stifles creativity , and prevents a great many works from being created because they would not be authorized .
For example , a movie about the Stalinist terror using Disney characters could become a cultural milestone , and yet there is no chance of that ever being authorized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.Sorry but this is the purest form of assholery enabled by copyright.If someone random releases a Batman comic, then there are three possible outcomes:1.
It sucks.
Nobody cares, the original author does not lose anything.
Publisher is annoyed because somebody is using "their" franchise, but since people tend to forget about shitty comics they doesn't care much.2.
It is acceptable.
Some people will buy and enjoy it, but most probably won't consider it canon.
The original author is unaffected.
Publisher is annoyed because they think that money should belong to them.3.
It is absolutely great.
Readers have a great comic, the "unauthorized" artist has a lot of money.
The original artist might have a reduced ability to sell his future works if they aren't as good as the "unauthorized" ones, but most probably his earlier works will sell better because of increased popularity of Batman in general.
Publisher gnaws his arms off because they did not make any money from the hit.Conclusion: this use of copyright does not benefit the authors or the readers in the slightest.
They only benefit the publishers, who can turn the creative arts into a money farm.
The effect is a cultural land grab that stifles creativity, and prevents a great many works from being created because they would not be authorized.
For example, a movie about the Stalinist terror using Disney characters could become a cultural milestone, and yet there is no chance of that ever being authorized.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578983</id>
	<title>Re:Um, no.</title>
	<author>howlingmadhowie</author>
	<datestamp>1246706100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i would argue that star wars has become so much a part of public culture that everybody should be able to do what they want with it. it is now part of our shared culture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i would argue that star wars has become so much a part of public culture that everybody should be able to do what they want with it .
it is now part of our shared culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i would argue that star wars has become so much a part of public culture that everybody should be able to do what they want with it.
it is now part of our shared culture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576673</id>
	<title>Re:Art without copyright</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1246629420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn, I just lost my leotard too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , I just lost my leotard too .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, I just lost my leotard too ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575033</id>
	<title>Re:No really?</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1246614960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It helps a few major players, but harms industry on the whole. The same is true for other creative arts. The proponents of restrictive IP rights usually misrepresent the good of those few best known players as the good of the industry, but the reality is that prosperity lies in plurality and "lawless free-for-all", not exclusive deals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It helps a few major players , but harms industry on the whole .
The same is true for other creative arts .
The proponents of restrictive IP rights usually misrepresent the good of those few best known players as the good of the industry , but the reality is that prosperity lies in plurality and " lawless free-for-all " , not exclusive deals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It helps a few major players, but harms industry on the whole.
The same is true for other creative arts.
The proponents of restrictive IP rights usually misrepresent the good of those few best known players as the good of the industry, but the reality is that prosperity lies in plurality and "lawless free-for-all", not exclusive deals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574673</id>
	<title>Nothing is wrong with our copyright law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246612440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us. It hasn't been until recently, when we demanded that it was everyone else's responsibility to take care of us, that the corporations stepped in and suddenly everything looks grim for us. Who would'a thought that giving up our responsibility (and therefore freedom) would lead us to a more tyrannical state?</p><p>If anything, Obama's election proves the current mindset of Americans (social welfare for everyone granted by big government.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us .
It has n't been until recently , when we demanded that it was everyone else 's responsibility to take care of us , that the corporations stepped in and suddenly everything looks grim for us .
Who would'a thought that giving up our responsibility ( and therefore freedom ) would lead us to a more tyrannical state ? If anything , Obama 's election proves the current mindset of Americans ( social welfare for everyone granted by big government .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us.
It hasn't been until recently, when we demanded that it was everyone else's responsibility to take care of us, that the corporations stepped in and suddenly everything looks grim for us.
Who would'a thought that giving up our responsibility (and therefore freedom) would lead us to a more tyrannical state?If anything, Obama's election proves the current mindset of Americans (social welfare for everyone granted by big government.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575433</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246618080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is more closely related to trademark law than copyright.  Imagine you create a new Batman film.  You spend a massive amount of money advertising it.  Then someone starts selling a comic book using the same characters that isn't very good.  Two things will happen here.  Firstly, people will buy it because they've seen your adverts and think it will be good.  Secondly, they will be disappointed by the story and decide not to go and see the film.  </p><p>
If you make sure that 'unauthorised' is written very clearly on the cover, I don't see this being a problem, but reusing someone else's setting and characters generally implies some form of endorsement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is more closely related to trademark law than copyright .
Imagine you create a new Batman film .
You spend a massive amount of money advertising it .
Then someone starts selling a comic book using the same characters that is n't very good .
Two things will happen here .
Firstly , people will buy it because they 've seen your adverts and think it will be good .
Secondly , they will be disappointed by the story and decide not to go and see the film .
If you make sure that 'unauthorised ' is written very clearly on the cover , I do n't see this being a problem , but reusing someone else 's setting and characters generally implies some form of endorsement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is more closely related to trademark law than copyright.
Imagine you create a new Batman film.
You spend a massive amount of money advertising it.
Then someone starts selling a comic book using the same characters that isn't very good.
Two things will happen here.
Firstly, people will buy it because they've seen your adverts and think it will be good.
Secondly, they will be disappointed by the story and decide not to go and see the film.
If you make sure that 'unauthorised' is written very clearly on the cover, I don't see this being a problem, but reusing someone else's setting and characters generally implies some form of endorsement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28586097</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1246805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That can be handled without copyright and similarly to trademark law (but not using tradmark as it is currently implemented). There's nothing wong with the basic idea that you cannot create confusion amongst the public. That is the bad comic book author cannot claim thet HE invented Batman nor that his comic is created by the creator if the film. So long as both are made clear to the public, it shouldn't be a problem.We're all quite familiar with the inevitable crappy me-toos that follow any successful anything these days that carefully go right to the edge of infringement (usually) without crossing the line.</p><p>It's not trademark that is the problem, it's the poor implementation of trademark where people are stopped from using a name even where there is no danger of confusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That can be handled without copyright and similarly to trademark law ( but not using tradmark as it is currently implemented ) .
There 's nothing wong with the basic idea that you can not create confusion amongst the public .
That is the bad comic book author can not claim thet HE invented Batman nor that his comic is created by the creator if the film .
So long as both are made clear to the public , it should n't be a problem.We 're all quite familiar with the inevitable crappy me-toos that follow any successful anything these days that carefully go right to the edge of infringement ( usually ) without crossing the line.It 's not trademark that is the problem , it 's the poor implementation of trademark where people are stopped from using a name even where there is no danger of confusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That can be handled without copyright and similarly to trademark law (but not using tradmark as it is currently implemented).
There's nothing wong with the basic idea that you cannot create confusion amongst the public.
That is the bad comic book author cannot claim thet HE invented Batman nor that his comic is created by the creator if the film.
So long as both are made clear to the public, it shouldn't be a problem.We're all quite familiar with the inevitable crappy me-toos that follow any successful anything these days that carefully go right to the edge of infringement (usually) without crossing the line.It's not trademark that is the problem, it's the poor implementation of trademark where people are stopped from using a name even where there is no danger of confusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574979</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing is wrong with our copyright law...</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1246614540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anything, Obama's election proves the current mindset of Americans (social welfare for everyone granted by big government.)</p></div><p>Are you one of those people that present Europe as some kind of hell zone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything , Obama 's election proves the current mindset of Americans ( social welfare for everyone granted by big government .
) Are you one of those people that present Europe as some kind of hell zone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything, Obama's election proves the current mindset of Americans (social welfare for everyone granted by big government.
)Are you one of those people that present Europe as some kind of hell zone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575455</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1246618260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1a. It sucks. People buying it decide that ALL "Batman" stuff sucks. Nobody gets any money for stuff that sucks.</p></div><p>There is another mechanism to prevent that, and which is generally agreed upon as positive: trademarks. You are conflating trademarks with derivative works. You can register a trademark for the "leading" Batman comic (e.g. a distinct graphical symbol.. no idea what that could be) to distinguish it from those from competing authors, and only license it to works you approve of. This way you have a way of extracting some revenue from unrelated authors as well as having some grip on what is considered canon, but at the same you can't be an asshole and prevent others from publishing their work at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Here is another concept of "unauthorized" works. How about a film about the secret passions of Pol Pot enacted with nothing but Disney characters.</p></div><p>Except it wouldn't be marketed as a Disney movie. You might find the idea offensive, but there will be people who won't, and I see no reason to prevent them from making such a movie, as long as they don't misrepresent what it is about (which is an entirely different problem unrelated to copyright).</p><p>When an actor stars in a horror it does not suddenly make a family comedy in which he also appeared unacceptable to the kids. I don't know why it shouldn't be the same with cartoon characters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1a .
It sucks .
People buying it decide that ALL " Batman " stuff sucks .
Nobody gets any money for stuff that sucks.There is another mechanism to prevent that , and which is generally agreed upon as positive : trademarks .
You are conflating trademarks with derivative works .
You can register a trademark for the " leading " Batman comic ( e.g .
a distinct graphical symbol.. no idea what that could be ) to distinguish it from those from competing authors , and only license it to works you approve of .
This way you have a way of extracting some revenue from unrelated authors as well as having some grip on what is considered canon , but at the same you ca n't be an asshole and prevent others from publishing their work at all.Here is another concept of " unauthorized " works .
How about a film about the secret passions of Pol Pot enacted with nothing but Disney characters.Except it would n't be marketed as a Disney movie .
You might find the idea offensive , but there will be people who wo n't , and I see no reason to prevent them from making such a movie , as long as they do n't misrepresent what it is about ( which is an entirely different problem unrelated to copyright ) .When an actor stars in a horror it does not suddenly make a family comedy in which he also appeared unacceptable to the kids .
I do n't know why it should n't be the same with cartoon characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1a.
It sucks.
People buying it decide that ALL "Batman" stuff sucks.
Nobody gets any money for stuff that sucks.There is another mechanism to prevent that, and which is generally agreed upon as positive: trademarks.
You are conflating trademarks with derivative works.
You can register a trademark for the "leading" Batman comic (e.g.
a distinct graphical symbol.. no idea what that could be) to distinguish it from those from competing authors, and only license it to works you approve of.
This way you have a way of extracting some revenue from unrelated authors as well as having some grip on what is considered canon, but at the same you can't be an asshole and prevent others from publishing their work at all.Here is another concept of "unauthorized" works.
How about a film about the secret passions of Pol Pot enacted with nothing but Disney characters.Except it wouldn't be marketed as a Disney movie.
You might find the idea offensive, but there will be people who won't, and I see no reason to prevent them from making such a movie, as long as they don't misrepresent what it is about (which is an entirely different problem unrelated to copyright).When an actor stars in a horror it does not suddenly make a family comedy in which he also appeared unacceptable to the kids.
I don't know why it shouldn't be the same with cartoon characters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574805</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246613460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.</p></div><p>Explain again why I need "permission" to create something?  If I use someone else's backstory, it doesn't lessen the amount of creativity I'm putting into my own creation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines. I think weakening what a copyright means can dilute people's creativity in this way.</p></div><p>That seems like a non-sequitur to me.  If I write a story about "Flying-mouse-male-offspring", how exactly does that "dilute" the creativity of someone else?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.Explain again why I need " permission " to create something ?
If I use someone else 's backstory , it does n't lessen the amount of creativity I 'm putting into my own creation.A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines .
I think weakening what a copyright means can dilute people 's creativity in this way.That seems like a non-sequitur to me .
If I write a story about " Flying-mouse-male-offspring " , how exactly does that " dilute " the creativity of someone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.Explain again why I need "permission" to create something?
If I use someone else's backstory, it doesn't lessen the amount of creativity I'm putting into my own creation.A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines.
I think weakening what a copyright means can dilute people's creativity in this way.That seems like a non-sequitur to me.
If I write a story about "Flying-mouse-male-offspring", how exactly does that "dilute" the creativity of someone else?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574991</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246614660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You nailed it. How many people on YouTube watch Naruto AMVs (just remixed scenes from the anime with their favorite song)? Just a few, because the videos are crap and the remixer is just a hack who lacks the creativity and skill required by true artists. If every wannabe was allowed to create and distribute their own Batman, Superman, Naruto etc. the video content will be the same crap quality as YouTube AMVs. If you force copyright holders to allow derived works, market will be flooded with so many crap Batman comics and movies, nobody will associate Batman with good shows.

</p><p>
I, for one, am sick of the low-quality reality TV shows, low-quality youtube videos, low quality web blogs -- all free. When you demand free stuff, this is the quality you get.

</p><p>
Secondly, I don't understand the entitlement attitude most people have towards copyrighted works. The author used his own time and skill to create a work for your enjoyment. He does not owe you any work unless he is your slave. Therefore, he has the right to charge a reasonable price for his work <b>for his own personal benefit</b>. School, religion and OSS type propaganda has brainwashed you into slaving your life away for the benefit of others, when in reality you should be spending your time primarily for your own benefit. Name a single species, on this planet, other than human, that works primarily for the benefit of others -- none.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines .
You nailed it .
How many people on YouTube watch Naruto AMVs ( just remixed scenes from the anime with their favorite song ) ?
Just a few , because the videos are crap and the remixer is just a hack who lacks the creativity and skill required by true artists .
If every wannabe was allowed to create and distribute their own Batman , Superman , Naruto etc .
the video content will be the same crap quality as YouTube AMVs .
If you force copyright holders to allow derived works , market will be flooded with so many crap Batman comics and movies , nobody will associate Batman with good shows .
I , for one , am sick of the low-quality reality TV shows , low-quality youtube videos , low quality web blogs -- all free .
When you demand free stuff , this is the quality you get .
Secondly , I do n't understand the entitlement attitude most people have towards copyrighted works .
The author used his own time and skill to create a work for your enjoyment .
He does not owe you any work unless he is your slave .
Therefore , he has the right to charge a reasonable price for his work for his own personal benefit .
School , religion and OSS type propaganda has brainwashed you into slaving your life away for the benefit of others , when in reality you should be spending your time primarily for your own benefit .
Name a single species , on this planet , other than human , that works primarily for the benefit of others -- none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines.
You nailed it.
How many people on YouTube watch Naruto AMVs (just remixed scenes from the anime with their favorite song)?
Just a few, because the videos are crap and the remixer is just a hack who lacks the creativity and skill required by true artists.
If every wannabe was allowed to create and distribute their own Batman, Superman, Naruto etc.
the video content will be the same crap quality as YouTube AMVs.
If you force copyright holders to allow derived works, market will be flooded with so many crap Batman comics and movies, nobody will associate Batman with good shows.
I, for one, am sick of the low-quality reality TV shows, low-quality youtube videos, low quality web blogs -- all free.
When you demand free stuff, this is the quality you get.
Secondly, I don't understand the entitlement attitude most people have towards copyrighted works.
The author used his own time and skill to create a work for your enjoyment.
He does not owe you any work unless he is your slave.
Therefore, he has the right to charge a reasonable price for his work for his own personal benefit.
School, religion and OSS type propaganda has brainwashed you into slaving your life away for the benefit of others, when in reality you should be spending your time primarily for your own benefit.
Name a single species, on this planet, other than human, that works primarily for the benefit of others -- none.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580669</id>
	<title>Re:Art without copyright</title>
	<author>Foehg</author>
	<datestamp>1246727400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a good point that a lot of street styles are benefiting from the increased possibilities of information distribution afforded by the internet. But I wonder if you know the impact copyright is really having on dance.</p><p>I heard recently of some ballroom friends saying to their teacher "you know, it would be easier to practice at home if we could make videos of these steps", and the teacher says "Nope! These steps are choreography copyrighted by the man, and we're not to make videos of them."</p><p>Sick, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a good point that a lot of street styles are benefiting from the increased possibilities of information distribution afforded by the internet .
But I wonder if you know the impact copyright is really having on dance.I heard recently of some ballroom friends saying to their teacher " you know , it would be easier to practice at home if we could make videos of these steps " , and the teacher says " Nope !
These steps are choreography copyrighted by the man , and we 're not to make videos of them .
" Sick , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a good point that a lot of street styles are benefiting from the increased possibilities of information distribution afforded by the internet.
But I wonder if you know the impact copyright is really having on dance.I heard recently of some ballroom friends saying to their teacher "you know, it would be easier to practice at home if we could make videos of these steps", and the teacher says "Nope!
These steps are choreography copyrighted by the man, and we're not to make videos of them.
"Sick, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561</id>
	<title>Re:No really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246611720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the <b>industry.</b></p> </div><p>Oh no, it helps the industry, it just harms culture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything more than ~ 30 years is harmful to the industry .
Oh no , it helps the industry , it just harms culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the industry.
Oh no, it helps the industry, it just harms culture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579021</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246707000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that 1710 copyright isn't copyright we have: it doesn't cover performance, recording, software, music apart from your own scoring of it, derived works and doesn't last anywhere near as long as now.</p><p>We didn't get all that until the 30's, really.</p><p>In the 1920's-1920's, Barrelhouse Boogie Woogie was all ripped off derivatives of other Barrelhouse music. No copyright got in the way.</p><p>1930's started the idea that someone owned the recording.</p><p>1970's started the idea that copyright was a property.</p><p>1990's started the idea that you leased not bought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 1710 copyright is n't copyright we have : it does n't cover performance , recording , software , music apart from your own scoring of it , derived works and does n't last anywhere near as long as now.We did n't get all that until the 30 's , really.In the 1920 's-1920 's , Barrelhouse Boogie Woogie was all ripped off derivatives of other Barrelhouse music .
No copyright got in the way.1930 's started the idea that someone owned the recording.1970 's started the idea that copyright was a property.1990 's started the idea that you leased not bought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that 1710 copyright isn't copyright we have: it doesn't cover performance, recording, software, music apart from your own scoring of it, derived works and doesn't last anywhere near as long as now.We didn't get all that until the 30's, really.In the 1920's-1920's, Barrelhouse Boogie Woogie was all ripped off derivatives of other Barrelhouse music.
No copyright got in the way.1930's started the idea that someone owned the recording.1970's started the idea that copyright was a property.1990's started the idea that you leased not bought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607</id>
	<title>If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1246612080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I misunderstand what they are saying, but if everything is copied or derived from something else, then I don't see the issue. Want a superhero comic? Just make your own character and Universe that copies the same thing Batman did. There is nothing stopping this type of "innovation".</p><p>But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission. A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines. I think weakening what a copyright means can dilute people's creativity in this way.</p><p>I personally license everything artistic I do under a creative commons license because I am not personally vested in my works. But I know some people devote their lives to their creations, and I know they would not want to see their works getting lost in a pool of comic strips with Calvin peeing on stuff or Billy from Family Circus telling his mom to do obscene things with that carrot on the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I misunderstand what they are saying , but if everything is copied or derived from something else , then I do n't see the issue .
Want a superhero comic ?
Just make your own character and Universe that copies the same thing Batman did .
There is nothing stopping this type of " innovation " .But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission .
A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines .
I think weakening what a copyright means can dilute people 's creativity in this way.I personally license everything artistic I do under a creative commons license because I am not personally vested in my works .
But I know some people devote their lives to their creations , and I know they would not want to see their works getting lost in a pool of comic strips with Calvin peeing on stuff or Billy from Family Circus telling his mom to do obscene things with that carrot on the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I misunderstand what they are saying, but if everything is copied or derived from something else, then I don't see the issue.
Want a superhero comic?
Just make your own character and Universe that copies the same thing Batman did.
There is nothing stopping this type of "innovation".But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.
A lot of copyright holders put effort into creating a consistent Universe with high quality story lines.
I think weakening what a copyright means can dilute people's creativity in this way.I personally license everything artistic I do under a creative commons license because I am not personally vested in my works.
But I know some people devote their lives to their creations, and I know they would not want to see their works getting lost in a pool of comic strips with Calvin peeing on stuff or Billy from Family Circus telling his mom to do obscene things with that carrot on the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574697</id>
	<title>Re:Just be careful what you wish for...</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1246612740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not possible. The GPL opens up the "closed" program by default. In other words If I see GPL in your code, your program is GPL'd whether you like it or not. And I am allowed to copy, modify, and distribute it under GPL rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not possible .
The GPL opens up the " closed " program by default .
In other words If I see GPL in your code , your program is GPL 'd whether you like it or not .
And I am allowed to copy , modify , and distribute it under GPL rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not possible.
The GPL opens up the "closed" program by default.
In other words If I see GPL in your code, your program is GPL'd whether you like it or not.
And I am allowed to copy, modify, and distribute it under GPL rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576523</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246627860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groups that would immediately support this:</p><p>Rappers (sampling)
<br>Video bloggers/YouTube users (anime music videos, montages, etc.)
<br>Pencil and Paper roleplayers (look at the dearth of systems that exist already!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Groups that would immediately support this : Rappers ( sampling ) Video bloggers/YouTube users ( anime music videos , montages , etc .
) Pencil and Paper roleplayers ( look at the dearth of systems that exist already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groups that would immediately support this:Rappers (sampling)
Video bloggers/YouTube users (anime music videos, montages, etc.
)
Pencil and Paper roleplayers (look at the dearth of systems that exist already!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477</id>
	<title>Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246654380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just look at software. How many developers learn to code without looking at examples? And why does good documentation contain lots of those?</p><p>Face it: once you've seen some code, from that point on everything you write can be considered a remix of all those, coupled with your own ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at software .
How many developers learn to code without looking at examples ?
And why does good documentation contain lots of those ? Face it : once you 've seen some code , from that point on everything you write can be considered a remix of all those , coupled with your own ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at software.
How many developers learn to code without looking at examples?
And why does good documentation contain lots of those?Face it: once you've seen some code, from that point on everything you write can be considered a remix of all those, coupled with your own ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578783</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246701480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a special way of handling it and it is a lot cheaper for them (ie they don't pay the one cent per songwriter that they would usually have to pay, it gets diluted down to deliberately make it affordable).</p><p>I don't know the exact mechanics of it, but the main thing about such remixes and merging of several songs together (like what many rap artists and techno bands do) is getting permission to do so.</p><p>Every so often the artist might run into a song or an artist which won't allow the use of a song/recording etc, but usually they allow it because they get paid for it (it's actually handled through agencies - in Australia it's APRA, I think it's BMI and ASCAP in US etc).</p><p>But the key is PERMISSION, PERMISSION,PERMISSION.  The same holds true for when artists do versions of other artists songs.  It really doesn't cost too much to re-record another artists song or to remix a song or mix several songs together.  The only problems really come when you use them without permission and end up paying 110\% of whatever your music earned (as per what happened to one band who used the James Bond theme in a song without permission).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a special way of handling it and it is a lot cheaper for them ( ie they do n't pay the one cent per songwriter that they would usually have to pay , it gets diluted down to deliberately make it affordable ) .I do n't know the exact mechanics of it , but the main thing about such remixes and merging of several songs together ( like what many rap artists and techno bands do ) is getting permission to do so.Every so often the artist might run into a song or an artist which wo n't allow the use of a song/recording etc , but usually they allow it because they get paid for it ( it 's actually handled through agencies - in Australia it 's APRA , I think it 's BMI and ASCAP in US etc ) .But the key is PERMISSION , PERMISSION,PERMISSION .
The same holds true for when artists do versions of other artists songs .
It really does n't cost too much to re-record another artists song or to remix a song or mix several songs together .
The only problems really come when you use them without permission and end up paying 110 \ % of whatever your music earned ( as per what happened to one band who used the James Bond theme in a song without permission ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a special way of handling it and it is a lot cheaper for them (ie they don't pay the one cent per songwriter that they would usually have to pay, it gets diluted down to deliberately make it affordable).I don't know the exact mechanics of it, but the main thing about such remixes and merging of several songs together (like what many rap artists and techno bands do) is getting permission to do so.Every so often the artist might run into a song or an artist which won't allow the use of a song/recording etc, but usually they allow it because they get paid for it (it's actually handled through agencies - in Australia it's APRA, I think it's BMI and ASCAP in US etc).But the key is PERMISSION, PERMISSION,PERMISSION.
The same holds true for when artists do versions of other artists songs.
It really doesn't cost too much to re-record another artists song or to remix a song or mix several songs together.
The only problems really come when you use them without permission and end up paying 110\% of whatever your music earned (as per what happened to one band who used the James Bond theme in a song without permission).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575843</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246621680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't really see why the creator of Batman should be able to prevent other people from writing other Batman stories.  I mean, I can understand why the creator would want that level of control, but I don't particularly see why we should agree to give it to him.  If you write a story, it makes some sense to me to grant you a certain level of ownership over that particular story.  However, it doesn't make sense to grant you ownership of the ideas and concepts that are present in your story, to give ownership of plot devices or characters.
</p><p>Where it gets a little tricky with derivative works, though, is the question of "how much do you need to change it before it's legal again?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't really see why the creator of Batman should be able to prevent other people from writing other Batman stories .
I mean , I can understand why the creator would want that level of control , but I do n't particularly see why we should agree to give it to him .
If you write a story , it makes some sense to me to grant you a certain level of ownership over that particular story .
However , it does n't make sense to grant you ownership of the ideas and concepts that are present in your story , to give ownership of plot devices or characters .
Where it gets a little tricky with derivative works , though , is the question of " how much do you need to change it before it 's legal again ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't really see why the creator of Batman should be able to prevent other people from writing other Batman stories.
I mean, I can understand why the creator would want that level of control, but I don't particularly see why we should agree to give it to him.
If you write a story, it makes some sense to me to grant you a certain level of ownership over that particular story.
However, it doesn't make sense to grant you ownership of the ideas and concepts that are present in your story, to give ownership of plot devices or characters.
Where it gets a little tricky with derivative works, though, is the question of "how much do you need to change it before it's legal again?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685</id>
	<title>Um, no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246612620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>George Lucas okayed derivative works as long as anyone didn't profit off of it. That's one person controlling HIS copyrights. That's his CHOICE.</p><p>For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)? No. That's my CHOICE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>George Lucas okayed derivative works as long as anyone did n't profit off of it .
That 's one person controlling HIS copyrights .
That 's his CHOICE.For example , do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights ( my novels ) ?
No. That 's my CHOICE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Lucas okayed derivative works as long as anyone didn't profit off of it.
That's one person controlling HIS copyrights.
That's his CHOICE.For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)?
No. That's my CHOICE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28585973</id>
	<title>Re:No really?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1246803180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even that long can be insane for some parts of whats covered by copyright today...</p><p>Thats another problem, one have taken what was a law limited to books, and the act of reproducing them using a printing press, and applied it verbatim to such different media as recorded musica and software code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even that long can be insane for some parts of whats covered by copyright today...Thats another problem , one have taken what was a law limited to books , and the act of reproducing them using a printing press , and applied it verbatim to such different media as recorded musica and software code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even that long can be insane for some parts of whats covered by copyright today...Thats another problem, one have taken what was a law limited to books, and the act of reproducing them using a printing press, and applied it verbatim to such different media as recorded musica and software code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579935</id>
	<title>Think what you like, but...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1246720860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... a system that doesn't accommodate for original works cannot possibly encourage derivative works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... a system that does n't accommodate for original works can not possibly encourage derivative works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a system that doesn't accommodate for original works cannot possibly encourage derivative works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246616580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed the real case.</p><p>1a. It sucks.  People buying it decide that ALL "Batman" stuff sucks.  Nobody gets any money for stuff that sucks.</p><p>This is the problem unless you envision a world where everyone hears about everything on an equal basis.  Sorry, nobody is that well informed, no matter how much time they spend on the Internet looking around and following links.</p><p>It is perfectly possible to destroy a "brand" with inferior merchandise, just as long as the inferior crap is put in front of people.  This is what the battle for "counterfit" goods is all about and "derivative works" as well.  If I can take over any brand and distribute my own version of it it cannot help the original brand much.  It may not hurt it, or it can destroy it.</p><p>Here is another concept of "unauthorized" works.  How about a film about the secret passions of Pol Pot enacted with nothing but Disney characters.  I'll bit Minny Mouse would look real cute in the gangbang scene.  Do you believe this would encourage more parents to bring their children to the Disney store?  Why would you assume that this wouldn't happen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the real case.1a .
It sucks .
People buying it decide that ALL " Batman " stuff sucks .
Nobody gets any money for stuff that sucks.This is the problem unless you envision a world where everyone hears about everything on an equal basis .
Sorry , nobody is that well informed , no matter how much time they spend on the Internet looking around and following links.It is perfectly possible to destroy a " brand " with inferior merchandise , just as long as the inferior crap is put in front of people .
This is what the battle for " counterfit " goods is all about and " derivative works " as well .
If I can take over any brand and distribute my own version of it it can not help the original brand much .
It may not hurt it , or it can destroy it.Here is another concept of " unauthorized " works .
How about a film about the secret passions of Pol Pot enacted with nothing but Disney characters .
I 'll bit Minny Mouse would look real cute in the gangbang scene .
Do you believe this would encourage more parents to bring their children to the Disney store ?
Why would you assume that this would n't happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the real case.1a.
It sucks.
People buying it decide that ALL "Batman" stuff sucks.
Nobody gets any money for stuff that sucks.This is the problem unless you envision a world where everyone hears about everything on an equal basis.
Sorry, nobody is that well informed, no matter how much time they spend on the Internet looking around and following links.It is perfectly possible to destroy a "brand" with inferior merchandise, just as long as the inferior crap is put in front of people.
This is what the battle for "counterfit" goods is all about and "derivative works" as well.
If I can take over any brand and distribute my own version of it it cannot help the original brand much.
It may not hurt it, or it can destroy it.Here is another concept of "unauthorized" works.
How about a film about the secret passions of Pol Pot enacted with nothing but Disney characters.
I'll bit Minny Mouse would look real cute in the gangbang scene.
Do you believe this would encourage more parents to bring their children to the Disney store?
Why would you assume that this wouldn't happen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576869</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246631520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Art feeds off art.  That much we should already know.  Picasso had a tutor, and he had his heroes, just as this article notes that Shakespeare had his influences, and just as (oh I don't know, who is supposed to be the most original-sounding top 40 musician right now?) the Killers borrow a lot from country rock and 80s synthpop.  Art is regenerative.  It takes a truely rare and unique artist in any field to come up with a style totally of their own, the roots of which can't be found in earlier derivative works.  In fact at this late hour I can't think of any.  There's obviously the old saying, good artists emulate, great artists steal outright.  My point being that if art is derivative, copyright only works against this, and thus hinders the regeneration and hence creation of new art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Art feeds off art .
That much we should already know .
Picasso had a tutor , and he had his heroes , just as this article notes that Shakespeare had his influences , and just as ( oh I do n't know , who is supposed to be the most original-sounding top 40 musician right now ?
) the Killers borrow a lot from country rock and 80s synthpop .
Art is regenerative .
It takes a truely rare and unique artist in any field to come up with a style totally of their own , the roots of which ca n't be found in earlier derivative works .
In fact at this late hour I ca n't think of any .
There 's obviously the old saying , good artists emulate , great artists steal outright .
My point being that if art is derivative , copyright only works against this , and thus hinders the regeneration and hence creation of new art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Art feeds off art.
That much we should already know.
Picasso had a tutor, and he had his heroes, just as this article notes that Shakespeare had his influences, and just as (oh I don't know, who is supposed to be the most original-sounding top 40 musician right now?
) the Killers borrow a lot from country rock and 80s synthpop.
Art is regenerative.
It takes a truely rare and unique artist in any field to come up with a style totally of their own, the roots of which can't be found in earlier derivative works.
In fact at this late hour I can't think of any.
There's obviously the old saying, good artists emulate, great artists steal outright.
My point being that if art is derivative, copyright only works against this, and thus hinders the regeneration and hence creation of new art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574741</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246613100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not so much into music, as I am into books.  Over several years, I read almost all of Marion Zimmer Bradley's books.  I'm sure I missed some, but I read a LOT.  Bradley's Darkover books, especially, inspired a huge fan club.  Not only did Bradley tolerate, but she ENCOURAGED new authors to explore her Darkover universe.  I would hate to count, but there are probably 5 or more published books about Bradley's Darkover than she ever published.</p><p>If I recall correctly, all of those derivative works pay tribute to Bradley, somewhere within the pages.  To my knowledge, Bradley never was paid a cent on any of those derivative works.  Bradley DID BENEFIT from them, in that they expanded her sphere of admirers, who in turn bought more of her original works.</p><p>This is the correct and proper way for copyright to work, regarding derivative works.  Pay homage  to the master who showed you the way, but you really owe him nothing more.  Just like education - teachers teach to earn a living, but they HOPE that one or more of their students surpasses them.  If/when a student does surpass his/her teachers, he isn't required to come back and pay them again for teaching him so well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not so much into music , as I am into books .
Over several years , I read almost all of Marion Zimmer Bradley 's books .
I 'm sure I missed some , but I read a LOT .
Bradley 's Darkover books , especially , inspired a huge fan club .
Not only did Bradley tolerate , but she ENCOURAGED new authors to explore her Darkover universe .
I would hate to count , but there are probably 5 or more published books about Bradley 's Darkover than she ever published.If I recall correctly , all of those derivative works pay tribute to Bradley , somewhere within the pages .
To my knowledge , Bradley never was paid a cent on any of those derivative works .
Bradley DID BENEFIT from them , in that they expanded her sphere of admirers , who in turn bought more of her original works.This is the correct and proper way for copyright to work , regarding derivative works .
Pay homage to the master who showed you the way , but you really owe him nothing more .
Just like education - teachers teach to earn a living , but they HOPE that one or more of their students surpasses them .
If/when a student does surpass his/her teachers , he is n't required to come back and pay them again for teaching him so well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not so much into music, as I am into books.
Over several years, I read almost all of Marion Zimmer Bradley's books.
I'm sure I missed some, but I read a LOT.
Bradley's Darkover books, especially, inspired a huge fan club.
Not only did Bradley tolerate, but she ENCOURAGED new authors to explore her Darkover universe.
I would hate to count, but there are probably 5 or more published books about Bradley's Darkover than she ever published.If I recall correctly, all of those derivative works pay tribute to Bradley, somewhere within the pages.
To my knowledge, Bradley never was paid a cent on any of those derivative works.
Bradley DID BENEFIT from them, in that they expanded her sphere of admirers, who in turn bought more of her original works.This is the correct and proper way for copyright to work, regarding derivative works.
Pay homage  to the master who showed you the way, but you really owe him nothing more.
Just like education - teachers teach to earn a living, but they HOPE that one or more of their students surpasses them.
If/when a student does surpass his/her teachers, he isn't required to come back and pay them again for teaching him so well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578141</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it can go a few different ways:</p><p>a random person can get leaked portions of audio tracks in a given song, namely the acapella and instrumental versions. there are a lot of remixes posted on forums by "bedroom producers" that fall under this catagory.</p><p>another way is through channels approved by the labels, where the label releases or gives the channel the right to release music under as promotional material to verified members of the music industry - aka digital record pools for DJs.</p><p>lastly, some musicians and producers actually get sent the portions of the tracks, and in those cases they have to get their remixes approved by the labels before officially releasing it or breaking it on the radio.</p><p>it's all a very grey area, because essentially by making a remix and putting it out there you are promoting their content... some labels unofficially acknowledge this and don't go after remix artist. unfortunately, at the same time that you're promoting it for them, they're losing creative control of their content and some labels don't like that too much.</p><p>fyi, I make music video remixes and have recently been banned from youtube as my collective views approached two million hits.<br>http://www.djcflo.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it can go a few different ways : a random person can get leaked portions of audio tracks in a given song , namely the acapella and instrumental versions .
there are a lot of remixes posted on forums by " bedroom producers " that fall under this catagory.another way is through channels approved by the labels , where the label releases or gives the channel the right to release music under as promotional material to verified members of the music industry - aka digital record pools for DJs.lastly , some musicians and producers actually get sent the portions of the tracks , and in those cases they have to get their remixes approved by the labels before officially releasing it or breaking it on the radio.it 's all a very grey area , because essentially by making a remix and putting it out there you are promoting their content... some labels unofficially acknowledge this and do n't go after remix artist .
unfortunately , at the same time that you 're promoting it for them , they 're losing creative control of their content and some labels do n't like that too much.fyi , I make music video remixes and have recently been banned from youtube as my collective views approached two million hits.http : //www.djcflo.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it can go a few different ways:a random person can get leaked portions of audio tracks in a given song, namely the acapella and instrumental versions.
there are a lot of remixes posted on forums by "bedroom producers" that fall under this catagory.another way is through channels approved by the labels, where the label releases or gives the channel the right to release music under as promotional material to verified members of the music industry - aka digital record pools for DJs.lastly, some musicians and producers actually get sent the portions of the tracks, and in those cases they have to get their remixes approved by the labels before officially releasing it or breaking it on the radio.it's all a very grey area, because essentially by making a remix and putting it out there you are promoting their content... some labels unofficially acknowledge this and don't go after remix artist.
unfortunately, at the same time that you're promoting it for them, they're losing creative control of their content and some labels don't like that too much.fyi, I make music video remixes and have recently been banned from youtube as my collective views approached two million hits.http://www.djcflo.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28586059</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1246804680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key is to brand the creator, not the creation. As long as the really bad fanart can't claim to be by the original author, it's crappiness will only increase people's belief that they should seek out the 'authentic' Batman. A zillion schoolkids draw really terrible fanart every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key is to brand the creator , not the creation .
As long as the really bad fanart ca n't claim to be by the original author , it 's crappiness will only increase people 's belief that they should seek out the 'authentic ' Batman .
A zillion schoolkids draw really terrible fanart every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key is to brand the creator, not the creation.
As long as the really bad fanart can't claim to be by the original author, it's crappiness will only increase people's belief that they should seek out the 'authentic' Batman.
A zillion schoolkids draw really terrible fanart every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578513</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246740360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post contains words.  The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam contains words.</p><p>Your post is therefore a remix of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post contains words .
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam contains words.Your post is therefore a remix of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post contains words.
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam contains words.Your post is therefore a remix of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511</id>
	<title>No really?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246654620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You only need to look at, well anything to see that everything is a derivative work of another thing. That was the point of public domain. Almost all of Shakespeare's work references heavily or is based on another work. Heck, music, movies, etc. Are all based on each other, anyone could tell you that. This is why it is very important to have a <b>limited</b> copyright. Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You only need to look at , well anything to see that everything is a derivative work of another thing .
That was the point of public domain .
Almost all of Shakespeare 's work references heavily or is based on another work .
Heck , music , movies , etc .
Are all based on each other , anyone could tell you that .
This is why it is very important to have a limited copyright .
Anything more than ~ 30 years is harmful to the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You only need to look at, well anything to see that everything is a derivative work of another thing.
That was the point of public domain.
Almost all of Shakespeare's work references heavily or is based on another work.
Heck, music, movies, etc.
Are all based on each other, anyone could tell you that.
This is why it is very important to have a limited copyright.
Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575351</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1246617420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you force copyright holders to allow derived works, market will be flooded with so many crap Batman comics and movies, nobody will associate Batman with good shows. </i></p><p>That's not really correct. All that might happen would be that people wouldn't assume that merely because it was a work about Batman that it was good. Instead, they would look to the author of the particular work. You can see an example of this with classic fairy tales. They're in the public domain, and anyone can publish copies of them or make derivative works based on them. A version of Cinderella by Disney might be good, while a version by Jerry Lewis might be pretty crappy. Rather than just go to anything about the character, the audience will have to check to see which version it is. This is not a tremendous burden.</p><p><i>When you demand free stuff, this is the quality you get. </i></p><p>It is inappropriate for copyright law or policy to care about quality. The government shouldn't be the arbiters of taste for everyone. Copyright should look to quantity instead, by encouraging the creation of as many original and derivative works as possible. Given that 90\% of everything is crap, more of everything is the only sure way to get more of the good stuff. Since no one is forcing you, or anyone else, to watch bad things, it's easy to ignore it.</p><p><i>The author used his own time and skill to create a work for your enjoyment. He does not owe you any work unless he is your slave.</i></p><p>I agree completely.</p><p><i>Therefore, he has the right to charge a reasonable price for his work for his own personal benefit.</i></p><p>Provided that you mean he has a right in transactions in which he is a participant, and given that markets tend to dictate prices (would you pay as much for a DVD of Gigli as you would of Citizen Kane?), I'd agree with that too.</p><p>But copyright isn't about either of those things. Even without copyright, both of those would still hold true.</p><p>What copyright does is it prohibits third parties from making copies of the work, distributing them, etc., instead allowing the copyright holder to monopolize the market for the work, so that he can charge above-market prices, since for some reason copyright proponents don't ever think that the market price is ever "reasonable." There's certainly no natural right to a monopoly. It might be sensible to give such a right to a copyright holder, but given that it means a loss of freedom for everyone else, and having to suffer monopoly pricing, there really ought to be a good reason. The mere fact that the author created the work is not a good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you force copyright holders to allow derived works , market will be flooded with so many crap Batman comics and movies , nobody will associate Batman with good shows .
That 's not really correct .
All that might happen would be that people would n't assume that merely because it was a work about Batman that it was good .
Instead , they would look to the author of the particular work .
You can see an example of this with classic fairy tales .
They 're in the public domain , and anyone can publish copies of them or make derivative works based on them .
A version of Cinderella by Disney might be good , while a version by Jerry Lewis might be pretty crappy .
Rather than just go to anything about the character , the audience will have to check to see which version it is .
This is not a tremendous burden.When you demand free stuff , this is the quality you get .
It is inappropriate for copyright law or policy to care about quality .
The government should n't be the arbiters of taste for everyone .
Copyright should look to quantity instead , by encouraging the creation of as many original and derivative works as possible .
Given that 90 \ % of everything is crap , more of everything is the only sure way to get more of the good stuff .
Since no one is forcing you , or anyone else , to watch bad things , it 's easy to ignore it.The author used his own time and skill to create a work for your enjoyment .
He does not owe you any work unless he is your slave.I agree completely.Therefore , he has the right to charge a reasonable price for his work for his own personal benefit.Provided that you mean he has a right in transactions in which he is a participant , and given that markets tend to dictate prices ( would you pay as much for a DVD of Gigli as you would of Citizen Kane ?
) , I 'd agree with that too.But copyright is n't about either of those things .
Even without copyright , both of those would still hold true.What copyright does is it prohibits third parties from making copies of the work , distributing them , etc. , instead allowing the copyright holder to monopolize the market for the work , so that he can charge above-market prices , since for some reason copyright proponents do n't ever think that the market price is ever " reasonable .
" There 's certainly no natural right to a monopoly .
It might be sensible to give such a right to a copyright holder , but given that it means a loss of freedom for everyone else , and having to suffer monopoly pricing , there really ought to be a good reason .
The mere fact that the author created the work is not a good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you force copyright holders to allow derived works, market will be flooded with so many crap Batman comics and movies, nobody will associate Batman with good shows.
That's not really correct.
All that might happen would be that people wouldn't assume that merely because it was a work about Batman that it was good.
Instead, they would look to the author of the particular work.
You can see an example of this with classic fairy tales.
They're in the public domain, and anyone can publish copies of them or make derivative works based on them.
A version of Cinderella by Disney might be good, while a version by Jerry Lewis might be pretty crappy.
Rather than just go to anything about the character, the audience will have to check to see which version it is.
This is not a tremendous burden.When you demand free stuff, this is the quality you get.
It is inappropriate for copyright law or policy to care about quality.
The government shouldn't be the arbiters of taste for everyone.
Copyright should look to quantity instead, by encouraging the creation of as many original and derivative works as possible.
Given that 90\% of everything is crap, more of everything is the only sure way to get more of the good stuff.
Since no one is forcing you, or anyone else, to watch bad things, it's easy to ignore it.The author used his own time and skill to create a work for your enjoyment.
He does not owe you any work unless he is your slave.I agree completely.Therefore, he has the right to charge a reasonable price for his work for his own personal benefit.Provided that you mean he has a right in transactions in which he is a participant, and given that markets tend to dictate prices (would you pay as much for a DVD of Gigli as you would of Citizen Kane?
), I'd agree with that too.But copyright isn't about either of those things.
Even without copyright, both of those would still hold true.What copyright does is it prohibits third parties from making copies of the work, distributing them, etc., instead allowing the copyright holder to monopolize the market for the work, so that he can charge above-market prices, since for some reason copyright proponents don't ever think that the market price is ever "reasonable.
" There's certainly no natural right to a monopoly.
It might be sensible to give such a right to a copyright holder, but given that it means a loss of freedom for everyone else, and having to suffer monopoly pricing, there really ought to be a good reason.
The mere fact that the author created the work is not a good reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577921</id>
	<title>Re:Art without copyright</title>
	<author>IncandescentFlame</author>
	<datestamp>1246645020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, there is a lesson to be learned from this. And that is you shouldn't compare oranges to apples. <br> <br>

Dance is a performance art. So copyright has very little meaning because the cost of reproduction is very high - you have to be able to perform. While your argument may have some validity in the music industry, which IMO will certainly survive without copyright, I don't think dance's success by analogy can be applied to the book or film industry purely because they are such different creatures. <br> <br>

The book or film industry would be very different without copyright - I'm not saying they wouldn't survive or thrive but I think your analogy is misleading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , there is a lesson to be learned from this .
And that is you should n't compare oranges to apples .
Dance is a performance art .
So copyright has very little meaning because the cost of reproduction is very high - you have to be able to perform .
While your argument may have some validity in the music industry , which IMO will certainly survive without copyright , I do n't think dance 's success by analogy can be applied to the book or film industry purely because they are such different creatures .
The book or film industry would be very different without copyright - I 'm not saying they would n't survive or thrive but I think your analogy is misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, there is a lesson to be learned from this.
And that is you shouldn't compare oranges to apples.
Dance is a performance art.
So copyright has very little meaning because the cost of reproduction is very high - you have to be able to perform.
While your argument may have some validity in the music industry, which IMO will certainly survive without copyright, I don't think dance's success by analogy can be applied to the book or film industry purely because they are such different creatures.
The book or film industry would be very different without copyright - I'm not saying they wouldn't survive or thrive but I think your analogy is misleading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576779</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246630620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remix Releases 101

Let's say artist A makes a track, and artist B wants to remix it.  B will most likely create a remix from just the CD audio of A's track, or from acapella tracks (only the vocal from the original song - often obtained from studio contacts or second hand from the same source, but many hip-hop and electronic acts make acapellas freely available, see the Beastie Boys, or even release them as B-sides, see Eminem) and send it to A's label, perhaps along with a description of what B would do given better access to A's master recording (every instrument as a seperate audio file).

A's label now has three options.  It can ignore B's correspondence altogether - the most common option by far.  B can then either leave it at that, or can release the remix as an unnamed, unbranded release, which will be termed a White Label or VIP remix.  B's name will not appear on the release and B will likely only be recognised as the remixer by rumour and hearsay, as the release is in effect a copyright infringement.  It will most likely only appear on vinyl, at pressings of between 100-3000 copies, so intended for DJ play only.  A's label can pursue the originator, as the vinyl pressing house's mark will appear on the disc, but as a cost vs benefit thing, they probably wont.  If a house DJ plays a house remix of a U2 track at a house club, it lets a room full of people who likely wouldn't listen to U2 hear a U2 track, thus promoting U2 at no expense to the label.

A's label's second option is to release B's 'rough draft' remix as it stands.  This happens rarely, but does happen.  The remix will most likely be found as the B-side to the 5th single off the album, or on the Japanese release, or as a DVD extra to the tour video, or appears as an 'exlusive' on a A-label-promoted DJ mix album.  Point being that it does get released but not so as you'd notice as a consumer.  B gets paid some money for this and A owns the copyright to the remix, and everyone's happy.

Third option is that A's label likes where B is going with the remix, and releases the track stems (every individual instrument) to B to finish the remix.  B will then finish the remix as planned, but A's label (and often A himself) will have more creative control, as if B was an artist on the label.  B will get paid well for this, but at the expense of his creative control.  The remix would then get released as a B-side to the original song's single or to the lead or second single off the album.  These days, these third option remixes would get put on iTunes Store etc, but the 2nd option remixes probably wouldn't.  In the case of A and B both being on seperate independent labels, A's label would release the stem tracks in exchange for someone from B's label being remixed by someone from A's.  Then B would get paid less well, but both labels would be cross-promoting each other effectively.

Note that this is when B WANTS to remix A.  It is often that A's label thinks that B is *so hot right now* that they will actively pursue a remix from B.  Hence last year you get Burial (Mercury award winner, NME and Radio 1 favourite, but with plenty integrity in the underground, exclusively signed to an independent) remixing Bloc Party (on V2, owned by Virgin, difficult indie rock band on their difficult 2nd album) and Thom Yorke (Radiohead frontman on his inaccessible but admittedly brilliant first solo album).  This will follow the 3rd model above, but B can pretty much name his price for the remix.

And just to end with my favourite internet cliche, hope that helps!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remix Releases 101 Let 's say artist A makes a track , and artist B wants to remix it .
B will most likely create a remix from just the CD audio of A 's track , or from acapella tracks ( only the vocal from the original song - often obtained from studio contacts or second hand from the same source , but many hip-hop and electronic acts make acapellas freely available , see the Beastie Boys , or even release them as B-sides , see Eminem ) and send it to A 's label , perhaps along with a description of what B would do given better access to A 's master recording ( every instrument as a seperate audio file ) .
A 's label now has three options .
It can ignore B 's correspondence altogether - the most common option by far .
B can then either leave it at that , or can release the remix as an unnamed , unbranded release , which will be termed a White Label or VIP remix .
B 's name will not appear on the release and B will likely only be recognised as the remixer by rumour and hearsay , as the release is in effect a copyright infringement .
It will most likely only appear on vinyl , at pressings of between 100-3000 copies , so intended for DJ play only .
A 's label can pursue the originator , as the vinyl pressing house 's mark will appear on the disc , but as a cost vs benefit thing , they probably wont .
If a house DJ plays a house remix of a U2 track at a house club , it lets a room full of people who likely would n't listen to U2 hear a U2 track , thus promoting U2 at no expense to the label .
A 's label 's second option is to release B 's 'rough draft ' remix as it stands .
This happens rarely , but does happen .
The remix will most likely be found as the B-side to the 5th single off the album , or on the Japanese release , or as a DVD extra to the tour video , or appears as an 'exlusive ' on a A-label-promoted DJ mix album .
Point being that it does get released but not so as you 'd notice as a consumer .
B gets paid some money for this and A owns the copyright to the remix , and everyone 's happy .
Third option is that A 's label likes where B is going with the remix , and releases the track stems ( every individual instrument ) to B to finish the remix .
B will then finish the remix as planned , but A 's label ( and often A himself ) will have more creative control , as if B was an artist on the label .
B will get paid well for this , but at the expense of his creative control .
The remix would then get released as a B-side to the original song 's single or to the lead or second single off the album .
These days , these third option remixes would get put on iTunes Store etc , but the 2nd option remixes probably would n't .
In the case of A and B both being on seperate independent labels , A 's label would release the stem tracks in exchange for someone from B 's label being remixed by someone from A 's .
Then B would get paid less well , but both labels would be cross-promoting each other effectively .
Note that this is when B WANTS to remix A. It is often that A 's label thinks that B is * so hot right now * that they will actively pursue a remix from B. Hence last year you get Burial ( Mercury award winner , NME and Radio 1 favourite , but with plenty integrity in the underground , exclusively signed to an independent ) remixing Bloc Party ( on V2 , owned by Virgin , difficult indie rock band on their difficult 2nd album ) and Thom Yorke ( Radiohead frontman on his inaccessible but admittedly brilliant first solo album ) .
This will follow the 3rd model above , but B can pretty much name his price for the remix .
And just to end with my favourite internet cliche , hope that helps !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remix Releases 101

Let's say artist A makes a track, and artist B wants to remix it.
B will most likely create a remix from just the CD audio of A's track, or from acapella tracks (only the vocal from the original song - often obtained from studio contacts or second hand from the same source, but many hip-hop and electronic acts make acapellas freely available, see the Beastie Boys, or even release them as B-sides, see Eminem) and send it to A's label, perhaps along with a description of what B would do given better access to A's master recording (every instrument as a seperate audio file).
A's label now has three options.
It can ignore B's correspondence altogether - the most common option by far.
B can then either leave it at that, or can release the remix as an unnamed, unbranded release, which will be termed a White Label or VIP remix.
B's name will not appear on the release and B will likely only be recognised as the remixer by rumour and hearsay, as the release is in effect a copyright infringement.
It will most likely only appear on vinyl, at pressings of between 100-3000 copies, so intended for DJ play only.
A's label can pursue the originator, as the vinyl pressing house's mark will appear on the disc, but as a cost vs benefit thing, they probably wont.
If a house DJ plays a house remix of a U2 track at a house club, it lets a room full of people who likely wouldn't listen to U2 hear a U2 track, thus promoting U2 at no expense to the label.
A's label's second option is to release B's 'rough draft' remix as it stands.
This happens rarely, but does happen.
The remix will most likely be found as the B-side to the 5th single off the album, or on the Japanese release, or as a DVD extra to the tour video, or appears as an 'exlusive' on a A-label-promoted DJ mix album.
Point being that it does get released but not so as you'd notice as a consumer.
B gets paid some money for this and A owns the copyright to the remix, and everyone's happy.
Third option is that A's label likes where B is going with the remix, and releases the track stems (every individual instrument) to B to finish the remix.
B will then finish the remix as planned, but A's label (and often A himself) will have more creative control, as if B was an artist on the label.
B will get paid well for this, but at the expense of his creative control.
The remix would then get released as a B-side to the original song's single or to the lead or second single off the album.
These days, these third option remixes would get put on iTunes Store etc, but the 2nd option remixes probably wouldn't.
In the case of A and B both being on seperate independent labels, A's label would release the stem tracks in exchange for someone from B's label being remixed by someone from A's.
Then B would get paid less well, but both labels would be cross-promoting each other effectively.
Note that this is when B WANTS to remix A.  It is often that A's label thinks that B is *so hot right now* that they will actively pursue a remix from B.  Hence last year you get Burial (Mercury award winner, NME and Radio 1 favourite, but with plenty integrity in the underground, exclusively signed to an independent) remixing Bloc Party (on V2, owned by Virgin, difficult indie rock band on their difficult 2nd album) and Thom Yorke (Radiohead frontman on his inaccessible but admittedly brilliant first solo album).
This will follow the 3rd model above, but B can pretty much name his price for the remix.
And just to end with my favourite internet cliche, hope that helps!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577477</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246639200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had a struggle with this, I have taught myself different programming languages since the C64 was released. They came with extensive programming manuals with code snippets.<br>
&nbsp; I have also learned C , VB.NET,C# etc from kindly released code, but I am not a programmer.</p><p>The last program I wrote is to my surprise actually very good, fast, small and useful. It is a file browser with some new innovative features (at least features I can't find in any other manager anyway)</p><p>Would I release or sell it -- No</p><p>I learned from code snippets the problem with that is people fall into patterns.<br>The function I use now for listing a directory  is very similar to the function I used last year, and the year befor... and it was produced by learning through code examples.- it may even be an existing example.<br>I wrote a large routine to compare 2 images for my app, it compares the image pixels and its fast- but on review I found I used some previously available code in some areas. I didn't intend to the code is just part of my learned patterns.<br>How do others deal with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had a struggle with this , I have taught myself different programming languages since the C64 was released .
They came with extensive programming manuals with code snippets .
  I have also learned C , VB.NET,C # etc from kindly released code , but I am not a programmer.The last program I wrote is to my surprise actually very good , fast , small and useful .
It is a file browser with some new innovative features ( at least features I ca n't find in any other manager anyway ) Would I release or sell it -- NoI learned from code snippets the problem with that is people fall into patterns.The function I use now for listing a directory is very similar to the function I used last year , and the year befor... and it was produced by learning through code examples.- it may even be an existing example.I wrote a large routine to compare 2 images for my app , it compares the image pixels and its fast- but on review I found I used some previously available code in some areas .
I did n't intend to the code is just part of my learned patterns.How do others deal with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had a struggle with this, I have taught myself different programming languages since the C64 was released.
They came with extensive programming manuals with code snippets.
  I have also learned C , VB.NET,C# etc from kindly released code, but I am not a programmer.The last program I wrote is to my surprise actually very good, fast, small and useful.
It is a file browser with some new innovative features (at least features I can't find in any other manager anyway)Would I release or sell it -- NoI learned from code snippets the problem with that is people fall into patterns.The function I use now for listing a directory  is very similar to the function I used last year, and the year befor... and it was produced by learning through code examples.- it may even be an existing example.I wrote a large routine to compare 2 images for my app, it compares the image pixels and its fast- but on review I found I used some previously available code in some areas.
I didn't intend to the code is just part of my learned patterns.How do others deal with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</id>
	<title>Remixes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246654020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music -- which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to "protect" such things."</p></div><p>Which actually brings me to ask an interesting question; I've always liked remixes of songs and find they're great listening if you like the original song aswell, and sometimes even if you dont. But how do they handle the copyright issues with labels? And how do those professional remixes create them anyways, do they get all the different tracks from labels or what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only in the last century or so , when we reached a means of recording , manufacturing and selling music -- which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it , that copyright was suddenly brought out to " protect " such things .
" Which actually brings me to ask an interesting question ; I 've always liked remixes of songs and find they 're great listening if you like the original song aswell , and sometimes even if you dont .
But how do they handle the copyright issues with labels ?
And how do those professional remixes create them anyways , do they get all the different tracks from labels or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music -- which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to "protect" such things.
"Which actually brings me to ask an interesting question; I've always liked remixes of songs and find they're great listening if you like the original song aswell, and sometimes even if you dont.
But how do they handle the copyright issues with labels?
And how do those professional remixes create them anyways, do they get all the different tracks from labels or what?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576731</id>
	<title>Re:Art without copyright</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1246630020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Then consider the case of Michael Jackson.  His moon walk elicited countless imitation by hordes of pimply teenagers, inflicting irreparable mental and emotional damages to all exposed to the hordes' douchebaggery.
</p><p>
Yes, there is a lesson to be had from this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then consider the case of Michael Jackson .
His moon walk elicited countless imitation by hordes of pimply teenagers , inflicting irreparable mental and emotional damages to all exposed to the hordes ' douchebaggery .
Yes , there is a lesson to be had from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Then consider the case of Michael Jackson.
His moon walk elicited countless imitation by hordes of pimply teenagers, inflicting irreparable mental and emotional damages to all exposed to the hordes' douchebaggery.
Yes, there is a lesson to be had from this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576171</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1246624620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That happens all the time actually they are called Fanfics. By using the Fanfic name it is implied that it was not a story of the original owners, but of fans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That happens all the time actually they are called Fanfics .
By using the Fanfic name it is implied that it was not a story of the original owners , but of fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That happens all the time actually they are called Fanfics.
By using the Fanfic name it is implied that it was not a story of the original owners, but of fans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574731</id>
	<title>Content Ancestry &amp; Cascading Microtransactions</title>
	<author>digestor</author>
	<datestamp>1246612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote something related to this topic back in February, more from the point of view of a solution framework rather than the cultural root of problem (which I agree with). I think prevailing attitudes are stagnating any movement forward to a digital economy... from a developer point of view I abhor the idea of any else touching my code, but I publicly acknowledge the necessity of it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

<a href="http://langhornewollamshram.blogspot.com/2009/02/information-age-bottleneck-part-ii.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://langhornewollamshram.blogspot.com/2009/02/information-age-bottleneck-part-ii.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote something related to this topic back in February , more from the point of view of a solution framework rather than the cultural root of problem ( which I agree with ) .
I think prevailing attitudes are stagnating any movement forward to a digital economy... from a developer point of view I abhor the idea of any else touching my code , but I publicly acknowledge the necessity of it : ) http : //langhornewollamshram.blogspot.com/2009/02/information-age-bottleneck-part-ii.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote something related to this topic back in February, more from the point of view of a solution framework rather than the cultural root of problem (which I agree with).
I think prevailing attitudes are stagnating any movement forward to a digital economy... from a developer point of view I abhor the idea of any else touching my code, but I publicly acknowledge the necessity of it :)

http://langhornewollamshram.blogspot.com/2009/02/information-age-bottleneck-part-ii.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575715</id>
	<title>Pete Seeger, Malvina Reynolds, Little Boxes</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1246620420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes me think of an old recording, circa the 1980s, of Malvina Reynolds singing "Little Boxes" at a live performance. That's the one that goes "Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky-tacky, Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes all the same..." Although she wrote it, it was popularized by Pete Seeger.</p><p>Now, Pete Seeger is always talking about the "folk process" and the continuous process by which folk songs evolve, as singers change and add material. And Pete Seeger himself always, always, always puts his own twist on the songs he sings.</p><p>So Malvina Reynolds opens by saying, "Pete, you know, he does it a little different. And now, when I sing it, people say 'That's not the way it goes!' But it's <em>my</em> song! Yeah! I wrote it!" She doesn't sound angry about it, though, and I can't for a moment imagine her suing Pete Seeger.</p><p>But, yes, all creative people know that they borrow material from others... just as scientists know that they "stand on the shoulders of giants." Where would we be if Brahms hadn't been allowed to write "Variations on a Theme by Haydn?" Any entity that tries to stop the process of creative borrowing and transformation is the enemy of the artist, not his friend.</p><p>Copyright infringement should be restricted to mean the activities of the business entrepreneur who issues and sells near-exact reproductions of large-scale works, markets them in competition with the legitimate rightsholder, and clearly hijacks dollars that would otherwise have flowed to the author or artist. That's what everyone always thought copyright infringement meant, until the nuttiness started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me think of an old recording , circa the 1980s , of Malvina Reynolds singing " Little Boxes " at a live performance .
That 's the one that goes " Little boxes on the hillside , Little boxes made of ticky-tacky , Little boxes on the hillside , Little boxes all the same... " Although she wrote it , it was popularized by Pete Seeger.Now , Pete Seeger is always talking about the " folk process " and the continuous process by which folk songs evolve , as singers change and add material .
And Pete Seeger himself always , always , always puts his own twist on the songs he sings.So Malvina Reynolds opens by saying , " Pete , you know , he does it a little different .
And now , when I sing it , people say 'That 's not the way it goes !
' But it 's my song !
Yeah ! I wrote it !
" She does n't sound angry about it , though , and I ca n't for a moment imagine her suing Pete Seeger.But , yes , all creative people know that they borrow material from others... just as scientists know that they " stand on the shoulders of giants .
" Where would we be if Brahms had n't been allowed to write " Variations on a Theme by Haydn ?
" Any entity that tries to stop the process of creative borrowing and transformation is the enemy of the artist , not his friend.Copyright infringement should be restricted to mean the activities of the business entrepreneur who issues and sells near-exact reproductions of large-scale works , markets them in competition with the legitimate rightsholder , and clearly hijacks dollars that would otherwise have flowed to the author or artist .
That 's what everyone always thought copyright infringement meant , until the nuttiness started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me think of an old recording, circa the 1980s, of Malvina Reynolds singing "Little Boxes" at a live performance.
That's the one that goes "Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky-tacky, Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes all the same..." Although she wrote it, it was popularized by Pete Seeger.Now, Pete Seeger is always talking about the "folk process" and the continuous process by which folk songs evolve, as singers change and add material.
And Pete Seeger himself always, always, always puts his own twist on the songs he sings.So Malvina Reynolds opens by saying, "Pete, you know, he does it a little different.
And now, when I sing it, people say 'That's not the way it goes!
' But it's my song!
Yeah! I wrote it!
" She doesn't sound angry about it, though, and I can't for a moment imagine her suing Pete Seeger.But, yes, all creative people know that they borrow material from others... just as scientists know that they "stand on the shoulders of giants.
" Where would we be if Brahms hadn't been allowed to write "Variations on a Theme by Haydn?
" Any entity that tries to stop the process of creative borrowing and transformation is the enemy of the artist, not his friend.Copyright infringement should be restricted to mean the activities of the business entrepreneur who issues and sells near-exact reproductions of large-scale works, markets them in competition with the legitimate rightsholder, and clearly hijacks dollars that would otherwise have flowed to the author or artist.
That's what everyone always thought copyright infringement meant, until the nuttiness started.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575393</id>
	<title>Re:No really?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246617840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it helps a subset of the industry, to a limited degree.  There have been three studies I can think of (one from Harvard, one from MIT, and the Gowers' Report by the British Government) that show that it doesn't help the entire industry.  Unfortunately, the part of the industry it does help spends a significant proportion of their money on lobbying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it helps a subset of the industry , to a limited degree .
There have been three studies I can think of ( one from Harvard , one from MIT , and the Gowers ' Report by the British Government ) that show that it does n't help the entire industry .
Unfortunately , the part of the industry it does help spends a significant proportion of their money on lobbying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it helps a subset of the industry, to a limited degree.
There have been three studies I can think of (one from Harvard, one from MIT, and the Gowers' Report by the British Government) that show that it doesn't help the entire industry.
Unfortunately, the part of the industry it does help spends a significant proportion of their money on lobbying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575115</id>
	<title>Ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246615620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lemme just copy what you did and then add a clock to it.  Done!  A derived work.  Money please!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lem me just copy what you did and then add a clock to it .
Done ! A derived work .
Money please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lemme just copy what you did and then add a clock to it.
Done!  A derived work.
Money please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575439</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246618200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, these are English trolls?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , these are English trolls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, these are English trolls?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28597613</id>
	<title>This right here</title>
	<author>Biozard</author>
	<datestamp>1246908720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This right here is why the Organization for Transformative Works (http://transformativeworks.org/) exists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This right here is why the Organization for Transformative Works ( http : //transformativeworks.org/ ) exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This right here is why the Organization for Transformative Works (http://transformativeworks.org/) exists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575105</id>
	<title>Re:No really?</title>
	<author>ChoboMog</author>
	<datestamp>1246615560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the <b>industry.</b> </p></div><p>Oh no, it helps the industry, it just harms culture.</p></div><p>If anything it only helps monopolies and established business models while actually harming both industry (in general) and culture.  There is plenty of evidence that industry can flourish where innovation (ie derivative works) are encouraged.  A ~30 year duration of copyright strikes a balance between this innovation and the exclusive rights of the original creator which allow them to profit from their work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything more than ~ 30 years is harmful to the industry .
Oh no , it helps the industry , it just harms culture.If anything it only helps monopolies and established business models while actually harming both industry ( in general ) and culture .
There is plenty of evidence that industry can flourish where innovation ( ie derivative works ) are encouraged .
A ~ 30 year duration of copyright strikes a balance between this innovation and the exclusive rights of the original creator which allow them to profit from their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the industry.
Oh no, it helps the industry, it just harms culture.If anything it only helps monopolies and established business models while actually harming both industry (in general) and culture.
There is plenty of evidence that industry can flourish where innovation (ie derivative works) are encouraged.
A ~30 year duration of copyright strikes a balance between this innovation and the exclusive rights of the original creator which allow them to profit from their work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28581691</id>
	<title>Re:If Everything is copied...</title>
	<author>xtrafe</author>
	<datestamp>1246735500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'real' case? Can you think of a time when what you're describing actually happened?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would you assume that this wouldn't happen?</p></div><p>Because the illicit Disney gangbang you're describing \_has\_ happened, <a href="http://disneyporn.xlogz.com/" title="xlogz.com" rel="nofollow">over, and over, and over again,</a> [xlogz.com], with virtually no effect. I'll admit that, in my travels through the internet, I've seen Ariel and Pocahontas doing things to eachother that one really can't describe in polite company, but seeing this type of thing doesn't affect my decision of whether or not I'd take my kids to Disneyland one iota. Disney's lobbying for copyright, however, which I have yet to be convinced really helps consumers or artists at all, does affect that decision.</p><p>I'd venture to say you've been sold a lame argument. The concept of suck-by-association is tenuous, and probably wouldn't affect the sales of a quality product or business much at all. I might agree with you on the point that counterfeit is damaging and should be prevented. But counterfeit is conceptually a lot more similar to plagiarism than a notion of illegal reproduction, so copyright law is not the right avenue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'real ' case ?
Can you think of a time when what you 're describing actually happened ? Why would you assume that this would n't happen ? Because the illicit Disney gangbang you 're describing \ _has \ _ happened , over , and over , and over again , [ xlogz.com ] , with virtually no effect .
I 'll admit that , in my travels through the internet , I 've seen Ariel and Pocahontas doing things to eachother that one really ca n't describe in polite company , but seeing this type of thing does n't affect my decision of whether or not I 'd take my kids to Disneyland one iota .
Disney 's lobbying for copyright , however , which I have yet to be convinced really helps consumers or artists at all , does affect that decision.I 'd venture to say you 've been sold a lame argument .
The concept of suck-by-association is tenuous , and probably would n't affect the sales of a quality product or business much at all .
I might agree with you on the point that counterfeit is damaging and should be prevented .
But counterfeit is conceptually a lot more similar to plagiarism than a notion of illegal reproduction , so copyright law is not the right avenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'real' case?
Can you think of a time when what you're describing actually happened?Why would you assume that this wouldn't happen?Because the illicit Disney gangbang you're describing \_has\_ happened, over, and over, and over again, [xlogz.com], with virtually no effect.
I'll admit that, in my travels through the internet, I've seen Ariel and Pocahontas doing things to eachother that one really can't describe in polite company, but seeing this type of thing doesn't affect my decision of whether or not I'd take my kids to Disneyland one iota.
Disney's lobbying for copyright, however, which I have yet to be convinced really helps consumers or artists at all, does affect that decision.I'd venture to say you've been sold a lame argument.
The concept of suck-by-association is tenuous, and probably wouldn't affect the sales of a quality product or business much at all.
I might agree with you on the point that counterfeit is damaging and should be prevented.
But counterfeit is conceptually a lot more similar to plagiarism than a notion of illegal reproduction, so copyright law is not the right avenue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577271</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>mrsurb</author>
	<datestamp>1246637160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Queue... because it makes it easier to 'eliminate' them?

"Your copyright has expired..." BANG BANG BANG.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Queue... because it makes it easier to 'eliminate ' them ?
" Your copyright has expired... " BANG BANG BANG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Queue... because it makes it easier to 'eliminate' them?
"Your copyright has expired..." BANG BANG BANG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575217</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>EEBaum</author>
	<datestamp>1246616400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC, the labels handle all the busywork for the artists on this.  Lawyers and accountants call lawyers and accountants, hammer out agreements, establish a rapport over the years.  Might even be some even-trades going on (you can use X of ours if we can use Y of yours).  Works all right if you're signed with a label.  Sucks majorly for indie artists who can't afford the fees demanded and/or don't have corresponding in-demand works to trade access for, assuming the labels will give them the time of day at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , the labels handle all the busywork for the artists on this .
Lawyers and accountants call lawyers and accountants , hammer out agreements , establish a rapport over the years .
Might even be some even-trades going on ( you can use X of ours if we can use Y of yours ) .
Works all right if you 're signed with a label .
Sucks majorly for indie artists who ca n't afford the fees demanded and/or do n't have corresponding in-demand works to trade access for , assuming the labels will give them the time of day at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, the labels handle all the busywork for the artists on this.
Lawyers and accountants call lawyers and accountants, hammer out agreements, establish a rapport over the years.
Might even be some even-trades going on (you can use X of ours if we can use Y of yours).
Works all right if you're signed with a label.
Sucks majorly for indie artists who can't afford the fees demanded and/or don't have corresponding in-demand works to trade access for, assuming the labels will give them the time of day at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576777</id>
	<title>Re:Um, no.</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1246630560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)? No. That's my CHOICE.</i></p><p>So we can do whatever we want with it after you die?  There is no you anymore, so your choice is irrelevant.  What happens when you give it to someone else, then it is no longer yours and you have no choice.</p><p>In my dream world copyright would last for 10 years, life with extension, and would be completely nontransferable.  Yes, your children and shareholders will have to get a job, just like the rest of us.  Doing business with a creative type, or being related to one, shouldn't give you special privileges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights ( my novels ) ?
No. That 's my CHOICE.So we can do whatever we want with it after you die ?
There is no you anymore , so your choice is irrelevant .
What happens when you give it to someone else , then it is no longer yours and you have no choice.In my dream world copyright would last for 10 years , life with extension , and would be completely nontransferable .
Yes , your children and shareholders will have to get a job , just like the rest of us .
Doing business with a creative type , or being related to one , should n't give you special privileges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)?
No. That's my CHOICE.So we can do whatever we want with it after you die?
There is no you anymore, so your choice is irrelevant.
What happens when you give it to someone else, then it is no longer yours and you have no choice.In my dream world copyright would last for 10 years, life with extension, and would be completely nontransferable.
Yes, your children and shareholders will have to get a job, just like the rest of us.
Doing business with a creative type, or being related to one, shouldn't give you special privileges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579777</id>
	<title>Dearth</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246719120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>n.
</p><p>
   1. A scarce supply; a lack</p></div><p>from</p><p> <a href="http://www.answers.com/dearth" title="answers.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.answers.com/dearth</a> [answers.com] </p><p>Maybe that is what you meant, but I read your comment as if you meant 'multitude' or some such.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>n . 1. A scarce supply ; a lackfrom http : //www.answers.com/dearth [ answers.com ] Maybe that is what you meant , but I read your comment as if you meant 'multitude ' or some such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n.

   1. A scarce supply; a lackfrom http://www.answers.com/dearth [answers.com] Maybe that is what you meant, but I read your comment as if you meant 'multitude' or some such.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580459</id>
	<title>Re:No really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually anything more than a limited, non-renewable copyright longer than 5 years harms society as a whole.  As do software patents, and business method patents, which should not exist at all.  Authors, artists, programmers and musicians should get paid for their work, but they should  expect that they will have to keep creating new works to have a continuing income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually anything more than a limited , non-renewable copyright longer than 5 years harms society as a whole .
As do software patents , and business method patents , which should not exist at all .
Authors , artists , programmers and musicians should get paid for their work , but they should expect that they will have to keep creating new works to have a continuing income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually anything more than a limited, non-renewable copyright longer than 5 years harms society as a whole.
As do software patents, and business method patents, which should not exist at all.
Authors, artists, programmers and musicians should get paid for their work, but they should  expect that they will have to keep creating new works to have a continuing income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577003</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>OECD</author>
	<datestamp>1246633740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Typically when a song is remixed or sampled, the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties.</p></div><p>I don't have figures, but no, not for the notable ones at least.
</p><p>The artists and marketing guys know and encourage remixing, but it's not normally a contract situation. That often leads to conflicts with the RIAA in their 'super SWAT team' form. See <a href="http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21160" title="boycott-riaa.com">this</a> [boycott-riaa.com] for example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typically when a song is remixed or sampled , the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties.I do n't have figures , but no , not for the notable ones at least .
The artists and marketing guys know and encourage remixing , but it 's not normally a contract situation .
That often leads to conflicts with the RIAA in their 'super SWAT team ' form .
See this [ boycott-riaa.com ] for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typically when a song is remixed or sampled, the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties.I don't have figures, but no, not for the notable ones at least.
The artists and marketing guys know and encourage remixing, but it's not normally a contract situation.
That often leads to conflicts with the RIAA in their 'super SWAT team' form.
See this [boycott-riaa.com] for example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575901</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing is wrong with our copyright law...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us</i> </p><p>The geek has no sense of history.</p><p>When English authors could be easily and safely pirated there was little chance for an American to make it into print.</p><p> Writers at Emerson's level had to beg friends for the money to self-publish.</p><p> That's possible for the social and economic elite - an Adams or a Parkman - but much harder for the middle or lower class.</p><p>Here is a simple test: "I have a mule, her name is Sal. Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal."</p><p>Folk song or the New York stage? 1830 or 1905?</p><p>Now try the same with a fragment of any old American song or story you seem to remember.</p><p> I'm betting you will be wrong about the date and wrong about its origins.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us The geek has no sense of history.When English authors could be easily and safely pirated there was little chance for an American to make it into print .
Writers at Emerson 's level had to beg friends for the money to self-publish .
That 's possible for the social and economic elite - an Adams or a Parkman - but much harder for the middle or lower class.Here is a simple test : " I have a mule , her name is Sal .
Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal .
" Folk song or the New York stage ?
1830 or 1905 ? Now try the same with a fragment of any old American song or story you seem to remember .
I 'm betting you will be wrong about the date and wrong about its origins .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is virtually nothing wrong with our copyright law... that our founding fathers wrote for us The geek has no sense of history.When English authors could be easily and safely pirated there was little chance for an American to make it into print.
Writers at Emerson's level had to beg friends for the money to self-publish.
That's possible for the social and economic elite - an Adams or a Parkman - but much harder for the middle or lower class.Here is a simple test: "I have a mule, her name is Sal.
Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal.
"Folk song or the New York stage?
1830 or 1905?Now try the same with a fragment of any old American song or story you seem to remember.
I'm betting you will be wrong about the date and wrong about its origins.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191</id>
	<title>Art without copyright</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1246616220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider a form of art unhindered by copyright: dance.</p><p>The age of Internet is also the golden age of dance. Little known or local styles like Melbourne Shuffle gain worldwide recognition. A plurality of others, like the many variants of Jumpstyle, Tecktonik or Hardstep are created, because the elements from many styles can be combined to form a new mix, while the Internet and Youtube in particular allows easy sharing of demos and tutorial videos that allow anyone to learn a particular move they like. Classical styles are becoming more popular as well. Never before in human history was there such a vibrant dance scene. And even though "anybody" can dance, professional dancers still have jobs (see Riverdance, Stomp, any music video).</p><p>There is a lesson to be learned from this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider a form of art unhindered by copyright : dance.The age of Internet is also the golden age of dance .
Little known or local styles like Melbourne Shuffle gain worldwide recognition .
A plurality of others , like the many variants of Jumpstyle , Tecktonik or Hardstep are created , because the elements from many styles can be combined to form a new mix , while the Internet and Youtube in particular allows easy sharing of demos and tutorial videos that allow anyone to learn a particular move they like .
Classical styles are becoming more popular as well .
Never before in human history was there such a vibrant dance scene .
And even though " anybody " can dance , professional dancers still have jobs ( see Riverdance , Stomp , any music video ) .There is a lesson to be learned from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider a form of art unhindered by copyright: dance.The age of Internet is also the golden age of dance.
Little known or local styles like Melbourne Shuffle gain worldwide recognition.
A plurality of others, like the many variants of Jumpstyle, Tecktonik or Hardstep are created, because the elements from many styles can be combined to form a new mix, while the Internet and Youtube in particular allows easy sharing of demos and tutorial videos that allow anyone to learn a particular move they like.
Classical styles are becoming more popular as well.
Never before in human history was there such a vibrant dance scene.
And even though "anybody" can dance, professional dancers still have jobs (see Riverdance, Stomp, any music video).There is a lesson to be learned from this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578599</id>
	<title>This is exactly what copyright was about</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246698480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason, the ONLY reason, why copyright came into existance was to encourage artists to produce and publish art. Until the advent of copyright, the only chance for artists was to keep their manuscripts secret until the very last moment so nobody could publish it first. The copies of a play, used by actors, were closely guarded, many theaters had security personnel whose only task was to ensure that no actor took his copy with him. Operas were practiced at secret locations so nobody could hear the new songs before they were performed the first time. Autors had to print as many copies of their books as possible so nobody would rip off their works. And many artists couldn't live off their works unless they found a wealthy patron, so many good artists could not produce more than a handful of pieces, a loss to humanity.</p><p>So copyright should enable artists to perform and reap the rewards of their works. They should produce and produce much, as much as possible, so their talent does not go to waste.</p><p>It was perverted in many ways by now, though. First of all, the lengh of copyright is beyond sensible. We're close to a decade of protection by now. Why should that encourage anyone to produce, if anything, it discourages the invention of new material. I'm fairly sure Disney would be very productive in the creation of a new icon if they could no longer milk Mickey and Donald. Did they produce any new icons lately? Hardly. They created new throwaway toons but nothing really creative or original. Nothing that could take the place of their old heroes which, let me be frank here, feel dated and stale. They're not the spirit of the century anymore. Or how about Marvel and DC, who have been milking the same superheroes for decades as well? Don't you think a new icon hero would have a positive impact on the spirit of the country?</p><p>Which leads to mixing, remixing and reuse of art. The lengthy protection periods ban this, disallowing rejuvenating those old icons with new ideas and a new spirit. Sure, we'd get a lot of crap. And of course "Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd" porn (as if we don't already...). But with so many talented people, the internet and the spread of information, don't you think we'd also get new and exciting ways to look at our old heroes of the past? A new angle, a new twist, a new beginning?</p><p>Same for music and movies. If you're strict about it, you can't even use the icon lines of movies that became part of our everyday life. Themes of music which are just too good to let them waste away lie around and nobody may use them to create the next piece of art. At least not unless he's willing to give a sizable amount of his reward to those that did nothing but provide the foundation. And they already got paid for that!</p><p>So if anything we need <i>less</i> protection for art, and here especially the time until it may be used by other artists to create new art out of it. At least if we want to continue creating. Else we'll eventually find out that every idea has been exploited, every song written, every comic drawn, every movie made, and some company is sitting on it like a hen on its eggs and we can't do much but stare blankly, wondering what happened to art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason , the ONLY reason , why copyright came into existance was to encourage artists to produce and publish art .
Until the advent of copyright , the only chance for artists was to keep their manuscripts secret until the very last moment so nobody could publish it first .
The copies of a play , used by actors , were closely guarded , many theaters had security personnel whose only task was to ensure that no actor took his copy with him .
Operas were practiced at secret locations so nobody could hear the new songs before they were performed the first time .
Autors had to print as many copies of their books as possible so nobody would rip off their works .
And many artists could n't live off their works unless they found a wealthy patron , so many good artists could not produce more than a handful of pieces , a loss to humanity.So copyright should enable artists to perform and reap the rewards of their works .
They should produce and produce much , as much as possible , so their talent does not go to waste.It was perverted in many ways by now , though .
First of all , the lengh of copyright is beyond sensible .
We 're close to a decade of protection by now .
Why should that encourage anyone to produce , if anything , it discourages the invention of new material .
I 'm fairly sure Disney would be very productive in the creation of a new icon if they could no longer milk Mickey and Donald .
Did they produce any new icons lately ?
Hardly. They created new throwaway toons but nothing really creative or original .
Nothing that could take the place of their old heroes which , let me be frank here , feel dated and stale .
They 're not the spirit of the century anymore .
Or how about Marvel and DC , who have been milking the same superheroes for decades as well ?
Do n't you think a new icon hero would have a positive impact on the spirit of the country ? Which leads to mixing , remixing and reuse of art .
The lengthy protection periods ban this , disallowing rejuvenating those old icons with new ideas and a new spirit .
Sure , we 'd get a lot of crap .
And of course " Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd " porn ( as if we do n't already... ) .
But with so many talented people , the internet and the spread of information , do n't you think we 'd also get new and exciting ways to look at our old heroes of the past ?
A new angle , a new twist , a new beginning ? Same for music and movies .
If you 're strict about it , you ca n't even use the icon lines of movies that became part of our everyday life .
Themes of music which are just too good to let them waste away lie around and nobody may use them to create the next piece of art .
At least not unless he 's willing to give a sizable amount of his reward to those that did nothing but provide the foundation .
And they already got paid for that ! So if anything we need less protection for art , and here especially the time until it may be used by other artists to create new art out of it .
At least if we want to continue creating .
Else we 'll eventually find out that every idea has been exploited , every song written , every comic drawn , every movie made , and some company is sitting on it like a hen on its eggs and we ca n't do much but stare blankly , wondering what happened to art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason, the ONLY reason, why copyright came into existance was to encourage artists to produce and publish art.
Until the advent of copyright, the only chance for artists was to keep their manuscripts secret until the very last moment so nobody could publish it first.
The copies of a play, used by actors, were closely guarded, many theaters had security personnel whose only task was to ensure that no actor took his copy with him.
Operas were practiced at secret locations so nobody could hear the new songs before they were performed the first time.
Autors had to print as many copies of their books as possible so nobody would rip off their works.
And many artists couldn't live off their works unless they found a wealthy patron, so many good artists could not produce more than a handful of pieces, a loss to humanity.So copyright should enable artists to perform and reap the rewards of their works.
They should produce and produce much, as much as possible, so their talent does not go to waste.It was perverted in many ways by now, though.
First of all, the lengh of copyright is beyond sensible.
We're close to a decade of protection by now.
Why should that encourage anyone to produce, if anything, it discourages the invention of new material.
I'm fairly sure Disney would be very productive in the creation of a new icon if they could no longer milk Mickey and Donald.
Did they produce any new icons lately?
Hardly. They created new throwaway toons but nothing really creative or original.
Nothing that could take the place of their old heroes which, let me be frank here, feel dated and stale.
They're not the spirit of the century anymore.
Or how about Marvel and DC, who have been milking the same superheroes for decades as well?
Don't you think a new icon hero would have a positive impact on the spirit of the country?Which leads to mixing, remixing and reuse of art.
The lengthy protection periods ban this, disallowing rejuvenating those old icons with new ideas and a new spirit.
Sure, we'd get a lot of crap.
And of course "Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd" porn (as if we don't already...).
But with so many talented people, the internet and the spread of information, don't you think we'd also get new and exciting ways to look at our old heroes of the past?
A new angle, a new twist, a new beginning?Same for music and movies.
If you're strict about it, you can't even use the icon lines of movies that became part of our everyday life.
Themes of music which are just too good to let them waste away lie around and nobody may use them to create the next piece of art.
At least not unless he's willing to give a sizable amount of his reward to those that did nothing but provide the foundation.
And they already got paid for that!So if anything we need less protection for art, and here especially the time until it may be used by other artists to create new art out of it.
At least if we want to continue creating.
Else we'll eventually find out that every idea has been exploited, every song written, every comic drawn, every movie made, and some company is sitting on it like a hen on its eggs and we can't do much but stare blankly, wondering what happened to art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574799</id>
	<title>Really now!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246613460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why shouldn't we be allowed to rip off other people's work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should n't we be allowed to rip off other people 's work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why shouldn't we be allowed to rip off other people's work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575333</id>
	<title>An even more interesting article related to is</title>
	<author>peripatetic\_bum</author>
	<datestamp>1246617300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo\_books\_gladwell" title="newyorker.com">http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo\_books\_gladwell</a> [newyorker.com]</p><p>It questions the idea of information wanting to be free</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo \ _books \ _gladwell [ newyorker.com ] It questions the idea of information wanting to be free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo\_books\_gladwell [newyorker.com]It questions the idea of information wanting to be free</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579189</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1246710180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most remixes are done with the finished recordings (that's how the culture started), but it's much easier if you have the masters or at least the instrumental/a capella tracks.  Most hip hop singles and a lot of other stuff is released on 12" vinyl with instrumental and a capella versions of the songs.  There are also certain dark corners of the internet where you can find these things.  I imagine most "professional" recordings use the actual master tracks, but I guess it would depend on who controlled the recordings.</p><p>As for copyright issues, most remixes, mashups, dubs, samplings, etc. are not officially legal.  Most stuff slips below the radar or is just let alone because even record company lawyers don't have enough time to go after every little infraction.  You can probably pull a break from an old soul song and be fine, but if you use the Beatles a la Danger Mouse's Grey Album you'll be asking for some trouble.</p><p>Pretty much all commercial remixes have the rights cleared, but people are constantly being sued or having their records pulled because they didn't get samples cleared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most remixes are done with the finished recordings ( that 's how the culture started ) , but it 's much easier if you have the masters or at least the instrumental/a capella tracks .
Most hip hop singles and a lot of other stuff is released on 12 " vinyl with instrumental and a capella versions of the songs .
There are also certain dark corners of the internet where you can find these things .
I imagine most " professional " recordings use the actual master tracks , but I guess it would depend on who controlled the recordings.As for copyright issues , most remixes , mashups , dubs , samplings , etc .
are not officially legal .
Most stuff slips below the radar or is just let alone because even record company lawyers do n't have enough time to go after every little infraction .
You can probably pull a break from an old soul song and be fine , but if you use the Beatles a la Danger Mouse 's Grey Album you 'll be asking for some trouble.Pretty much all commercial remixes have the rights cleared , but people are constantly being sued or having their records pulled because they did n't get samples cleared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most remixes are done with the finished recordings (that's how the culture started), but it's much easier if you have the masters or at least the instrumental/a capella tracks.
Most hip hop singles and a lot of other stuff is released on 12" vinyl with instrumental and a capella versions of the songs.
There are also certain dark corners of the internet where you can find these things.
I imagine most "professional" recordings use the actual master tracks, but I guess it would depend on who controlled the recordings.As for copyright issues, most remixes, mashups, dubs, samplings, etc.
are not officially legal.
Most stuff slips below the radar or is just let alone because even record company lawyers don't have enough time to go after every little infraction.
You can probably pull a break from an old soul song and be fine, but if you use the Beatles a la Danger Mouse's Grey Album you'll be asking for some trouble.Pretty much all commercial remixes have the rights cleared, but people are constantly being sued or having their records pulled because they didn't get samples cleared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576813</id>
	<title>Re:Remixes</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1246630980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you consider that Hollywood is still making movies out of 3500 year old material,<br>the characterization that you are complaining about is actually rather reasonable and<br>accurate. In terms of MORAL ideas, a few centuries really isn't terribly significant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you consider that Hollywood is still making movies out of 3500 year old material,the characterization that you are complaining about is actually rather reasonable andaccurate .
In terms of MORAL ideas , a few centuries really is n't terribly significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you consider that Hollywood is still making movies out of 3500 year old material,the characterization that you are complaining about is actually rather reasonable andaccurate.
In terms of MORAL ideas, a few centuries really isn't terribly significant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574865</id>
	<title>Re:Um, no.</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1246613820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)? No. That's my CHOICE.</i></p><p>No, it's a government granted PRIVILEGE. Hopefully, it will be revoked some day. Even your copyrights are derivative works with little more than personal anecdotes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights ( my novels ) ?
No. That 's my CHOICE.No , it 's a government granted PRIVILEGE .
Hopefully , it will be revoked some day .
Even your copyrights are derivative works with little more than personal anecdotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)?
No. That's my CHOICE.No, it's a government granted PRIVILEGE.
Hopefully, it will be revoked some day.
Even your copyrights are derivative works with little more than personal anecdotes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574617</id>
	<title>heresy !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246612080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Burn the witch ! Burn the Witch !</p><p>Reverend M. Mouse, Church of Disney</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Burn the witch !
Burn the Witch ! Reverend M. Mouse , Church of Disney</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burn the witch !
Burn the Witch !Reverend M. Mouse, Church of Disney</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575103</id>
	<title>Re:Um, no.</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1246615560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your 'novels' are the sum of your experience built upon millennia of human knowledge. To take an idea and then claim its yours and no one else's is arrogance at its finest. No art is made from the void.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your 'novels ' are the sum of your experience built upon millennia of human knowledge .
To take an idea and then claim its yours and no one else 's is arrogance at its finest .
No art is made from the void .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your 'novels' are the sum of your experience built upon millennia of human knowledge.
To take an idea and then claim its yours and no one else's is arrogance at its finest.
No art is made from the void.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574485</id>
	<title>Just be careful what you wish for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246654440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could also mean someone can take GPL code and make it into closed source with few changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could also mean someone can take GPL code and make it into closed source with few changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could also mean someone can take GPL code and make it into closed source with few changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28585123</id>
	<title>One correction</title>
	<author>Frantactical Fruke</author>
	<datestamp>1246785840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to point out that I'm male.<br>And thanks for the mention. First time anyone has considered me an authoritative source for anything.</p><p>Yours truly,</p><p>Rene "random ranting blogger" Kita</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to point out that I 'm male.And thanks for the mention .
First time anyone has considered me an authoritative source for anything.Yours truly,Rene " random ranting blogger " Kita</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to point out that I'm male.And thanks for the mention.
First time anyone has considered me an authoritative source for anything.Yours truly,Rene "random ranting blogger" Kita</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28586097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28586059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28581691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28585973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_1528259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575433
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28586097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575233
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28581691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28586059
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28580459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28585973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28577003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28579189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28578141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28575115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28576869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_1528259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_1528259.28574697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
