<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_08_0552209</id>
	<title>Lulu Introduces DRM</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257705420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Print-on-demand publisher <a href="http://www.lulu.com/">Lulu</a> recently announced that they're <a href="http://lulublog.com/2009/11/03/new-lulu-ebooks-are-here/">offering 'eBooks.'</a>  Since they've always offered downloadable books as PDFs, that takes some decoding to figure out what part is new: it turns out that it means now they're handling more formats, they've significantly increased the share they take out of the purchase price ... and for an additional fee, <a href="http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/books/lulu-introduces-drm.php">they now offer DRM</a>.  I have a few items published through Lulu myself; nothing forces me to buy the DRM, but I'm considering taking my business elsewhere on principle.  This isn't what I expected from the people who, when I first signed up with them, were solidly endorsing <a href="http://creativecommons.org/">Creative Commons</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Print-on-demand publisher Lulu recently announced that they 're offering 'eBooks .
' Since they 've always offered downloadable books as PDFs , that takes some decoding to figure out what part is new : it turns out that it means now they 're handling more formats , they 've significantly increased the share they take out of the purchase price ... and for an additional fee , they now offer DRM .
I have a few items published through Lulu myself ; nothing forces me to buy the DRM , but I 'm considering taking my business elsewhere on principle .
This is n't what I expected from the people who , when I first signed up with them , were solidly endorsing Creative Commons .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Print-on-demand publisher Lulu recently announced that they're offering 'eBooks.
'  Since they've always offered downloadable books as PDFs, that takes some decoding to figure out what part is new: it turns out that it means now they're handling more formats, they've significantly increased the share they take out of the purchase price ... and for an additional fee, they now offer DRM.
I have a few items published through Lulu myself; nothing forces me to buy the DRM, but I'm considering taking my business elsewhere on principle.
This isn't what I expected from the people who, when I first signed up with them, were solidly endorsing Creative Commons.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025696</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257679020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You can't live high on the hog without slavery... And that doesn't bother me."</p><p>THAT bothers me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You ca n't live high on the hog without slavery... And that does n't bother me .
" THAT bothers me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You can't live high on the hog without slavery... And that doesn't bother me.
"THAT bothers me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020340</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1257680400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what? DRM still sucks.  If it catches on, it will make life really, really, bad for the rest of us. There is no case where DRM is a good thing. It is always bad.  By supporting companies who use DRM, you are making the world a worse place. Why do you feel the need to support this?  It isn't geek religion, it's practical reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
DRM still sucks .
If it catches on , it will make life really , really , bad for the rest of us .
There is no case where DRM is a good thing .
It is always bad .
By supporting companies who use DRM , you are making the world a worse place .
Why do you feel the need to support this ?
It is n't geek religion , it 's practical reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
DRM still sucks.
If it catches on, it will make life really, really, bad for the rest of us.
There is no case where DRM is a good thing.
It is always bad.
By supporting companies who use DRM, you are making the world a worse place.
Why do you feel the need to support this?
It isn't geek religion, it's practical reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257672540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life. There is no algorithm; there are no unassailable truths. Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense, because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases.

</p><p>We like to think that a totally logically consistent pattern of behavior will yield better results, but it won't, for two basic reasons:

</p><p>1) This idea is inherited from religious/magical thought and is, as far as I am concerned anyway, a crock of horseshit already, because it doesn't scale. You end up with fundamentalist Muslims killing people with rocks over petty shit, or evangelicals who believe that Jesus erases all their sins and that, therefore, even the most offensive crimes against humanity can be fixed with prayer and Kleenex.

</p><p>2) This is actually part of the first reason, but these patterns don't exist in any objective way. They are applied after the fact by humans as shorthand. Religions made up simple rules to get people's minds off the big things so they could improve everyday life, and the cracks only start to really show when life is so good that we can take another look at those rules. Math doesn't exist. Numbers don't exist. Grammar doesn't exist (don't tell Chomsky). Ideas and meaning don't exist. They are all just tools to make our monkey lives better. We can't be frustrated when people's behavior is not logically consistent. It really shouldn't be.

</p><p>So yes, you're right, it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor, but not one which violates your geek religion's creed against DRM. But most people are smart enough to see that those things aren't even slightly similar, and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both.

</p><p>That being said, if you are living in the developed world (and if you're reading this, you probably are), guess what? Virtually every product you enjoy has slave labor tucked away in it somewhere. You can't live high on the hog without slavery. We've just gotten very good at hiding it so we can feel superior. There's always a slave. Always.

</p><p>And that doesn't bother me. I don't like it, but I don't think it can be avoided, and to try to do so would make my life incredibly inconvenient.

</p><p>Maybe there's logical consistency after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life .
There is no algorithm ; there are no unassailable truths .
Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense , because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases .
We like to think that a totally logically consistent pattern of behavior will yield better results , but it wo n't , for two basic reasons : 1 ) This idea is inherited from religious/magical thought and is , as far as I am concerned anyway , a crock of horseshit already , because it does n't scale .
You end up with fundamentalist Muslims killing people with rocks over petty shit , or evangelicals who believe that Jesus erases all their sins and that , therefore , even the most offensive crimes against humanity can be fixed with prayer and Kleenex .
2 ) This is actually part of the first reason , but these patterns do n't exist in any objective way .
They are applied after the fact by humans as shorthand .
Religions made up simple rules to get people 's minds off the big things so they could improve everyday life , and the cracks only start to really show when life is so good that we can take another look at those rules .
Math does n't exist .
Numbers do n't exist .
Grammar does n't exist ( do n't tell Chomsky ) .
Ideas and meaning do n't exist .
They are all just tools to make our monkey lives better .
We ca n't be frustrated when people 's behavior is not logically consistent .
It really should n't be .
So yes , you 're right , it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor , but not one which violates your geek religion 's creed against DRM .
But most people are smart enough to see that those things are n't even slightly similar , and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both .
That being said , if you are living in the developed world ( and if you 're reading this , you probably are ) , guess what ?
Virtually every product you enjoy has slave labor tucked away in it somewhere .
You ca n't live high on the hog without slavery .
We 've just gotten very good at hiding it so we can feel superior .
There 's always a slave .
Always . And that does n't bother me .
I do n't like it , but I do n't think it can be avoided , and to try to do so would make my life incredibly inconvenient .
Maybe there 's logical consistency after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life.
There is no algorithm; there are no unassailable truths.
Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense, because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases.
We like to think that a totally logically consistent pattern of behavior will yield better results, but it won't, for two basic reasons:

1) This idea is inherited from religious/magical thought and is, as far as I am concerned anyway, a crock of horseshit already, because it doesn't scale.
You end up with fundamentalist Muslims killing people with rocks over petty shit, or evangelicals who believe that Jesus erases all their sins and that, therefore, even the most offensive crimes against humanity can be fixed with prayer and Kleenex.
2) This is actually part of the first reason, but these patterns don't exist in any objective way.
They are applied after the fact by humans as shorthand.
Religions made up simple rules to get people's minds off the big things so they could improve everyday life, and the cracks only start to really show when life is so good that we can take another look at those rules.
Math doesn't exist.
Numbers don't exist.
Grammar doesn't exist (don't tell Chomsky).
Ideas and meaning don't exist.
They are all just tools to make our monkey lives better.
We can't be frustrated when people's behavior is not logically consistent.
It really shouldn't be.
So yes, you're right, it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor, but not one which violates your geek religion's creed against DRM.
But most people are smart enough to see that those things aren't even slightly similar, and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both.
That being said, if you are living in the developed world (and if you're reading this, you probably are), guess what?
Virtually every product you enjoy has slave labor tucked away in it somewhere.
You can't live high on the hog without slavery.
We've just gotten very good at hiding it so we can feel superior.
There's always a slave.
Always.

And that doesn't bother me.
I don't like it, but I don't think it can be avoided, and to try to do so would make my life incredibly inconvenient.
Maybe there's logical consistency after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025272</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257676080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say "You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.</i></p><p>If you approached me with that attitude, I'd be sufficiently annoyed as to buy ten evil chocolate bars.</p><p>You could make serious bucks working for the man just by being your obnoxious hippie self.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say " You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.If you approached me with that attitude , I 'd be sufficiently annoyed as to buy ten evil chocolate bars.You could make serious bucks working for the man just by being your obnoxious hippie self .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say "You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.If you approached me with that attitude, I'd be sufficiently annoyed as to buy ten evil chocolate bars.You could make serious bucks working for the man just by being your obnoxious hippie self.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>TheMCP</author>
	<datestamp>1257673620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery? Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery ?
Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery?
Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022300</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1257699360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't generally. It's actually really fucking annoying how many evil companies there are and how little punishment our society gives them. I'm always amazed that non-smokers are willing to buy items from cigarette companies. Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say "You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't generally .
It 's actually really fucking annoying how many evil companies there are and how little punishment our society gives them .
I 'm always amazed that non-smokers are willing to buy items from cigarette companies .
Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say " You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't generally.
It's actually really fucking annoying how many evil companies there are and how little punishment our society gives them.
I'm always amazed that non-smokers are willing to buy items from cigarette companies.
Or the number of people who bring that chocolate bar up to the cash register after I say "You should get Fair Trade chocolate instead since that one is made with slave labor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021504</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257694140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".</p></div><p>There may not be a commandment that reflects those ideals, but it's sure as hell implied very frequently in the Christian bible. Moses was commanded by God to, with his army of Levi priests, slaughter 3000 Israelites who had started worshiping a golden cow at the bottom of Mount Sinai. (Exodus 32). Sounds like God-directed ethnic cleansing to me.</p><p>Later, Moses takes his army and goes to war against the Midianites. After his soldiers report that they've killed every man in the city but spared the women and children, Moses commands them to go back and slaughter all the child and non-virgin women, but to keep the virgin women for themselves, effectively to use a fuck toys. (Numbers 31)</p><p>There's dozens of other examples of God's "righteous wrath" being used as the sole reasons to slaughter thousands of people and destroy any religious artifact that doesn't make God happy. (Hell, even when people are TRYING to make God happy but don't do it quite the right way, he tortures and/or kills them)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see anything in any religion that says " Thou shalt kill everyone that does n't believe the same things as you " .There may not be a commandment that reflects those ideals , but it 's sure as hell implied very frequently in the Christian bible .
Moses was commanded by God to , with his army of Levi priests , slaughter 3000 Israelites who had started worshiping a golden cow at the bottom of Mount Sinai .
( Exodus 32 ) .
Sounds like God-directed ethnic cleansing to me.Later , Moses takes his army and goes to war against the Midianites .
After his soldiers report that they 've killed every man in the city but spared the women and children , Moses commands them to go back and slaughter all the child and non-virgin women , but to keep the virgin women for themselves , effectively to use a fuck toys .
( Numbers 31 ) There 's dozens of other examples of God 's " righteous wrath " being used as the sole reasons to slaughter thousands of people and destroy any religious artifact that does n't make God happy .
( Hell , even when people are TRYING to make God happy but do n't do it quite the right way , he tortures and/or kills them )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".There may not be a commandment that reflects those ideals, but it's sure as hell implied very frequently in the Christian bible.
Moses was commanded by God to, with his army of Levi priests, slaughter 3000 Israelites who had started worshiping a golden cow at the bottom of Mount Sinai.
(Exodus 32).
Sounds like God-directed ethnic cleansing to me.Later, Moses takes his army and goes to war against the Midianites.
After his soldiers report that they've killed every man in the city but spared the women and children, Moses commands them to go back and slaughter all the child and non-virgin women, but to keep the virgin women for themselves, effectively to use a fuck toys.
(Numbers 31)There's dozens of other examples of God's "righteous wrath" being used as the sole reasons to slaughter thousands of people and destroy any religious artifact that doesn't make God happy.
(Hell, even when people are TRYING to make God happy but don't do it quite the right way, he tortures and/or kills them)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021358</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257693120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Searching for slaves?  Buy them on eBay!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching for slaves ?
Buy them on eBay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Searching for slaves?
Buy them on eBay!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020474</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1257682860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a potential buyer, so his opinion is not irrelevant. He's not saying the author doesn't have the right, he's saying the author is making a bad decision, and there have been multiple cases where removing DRM boosted sales, so it's not a crazy assumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a potential buyer , so his opinion is not irrelevant .
He 's not saying the author does n't have the right , he 's saying the author is making a bad decision , and there have been multiple cases where removing DRM boosted sales , so it 's not a crazy assumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a potential buyer, so his opinion is not irrelevant.
He's not saying the author doesn't have the right, he's saying the author is making a bad decision, and there have been multiple cases where removing DRM boosted sales, so it's not a crazy assumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024740</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257672240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life. There is no algorithm; there are no unassailable truths. Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense, because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases.</p></div><p>You're right that we won't ever be able to make a "general theory of everything" about life. But that shouldn't stop us from analyzing our beliefs to try and find some inconsistencies and contradictions in them.  Sometimes we learn that we are wrong by doing so, and thus become wiser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life .
There is no algorithm ; there are no unassailable truths .
Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense , because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases.You 're right that we wo n't ever be able to make a " general theory of everything " about life .
But that should n't stop us from analyzing our beliefs to try and find some inconsistencies and contradictions in them .
Sometimes we learn that we are wrong by doing so , and thus become wiser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am very tired of people trying to write rules for life.
There is no algorithm; there are no unassailable truths.
Being totally consistent in all things does not actually make any sense, because there is no one right answer to be applied to all cases.You're right that we won't ever be able to make a "general theory of everything" about life.
But that shouldn't stop us from analyzing our beliefs to try and find some inconsistencies and contradictions in them.
Sometimes we learn that we are wrong by doing so, and thus become wiser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022026</id>
	<title>Does the DRM lockout blind peoples screen readers?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257697680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the DRM lockout blind peoples screen readers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the DRM lockout blind peoples screen readers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the DRM lockout blind peoples screen readers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021538</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1257694320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The modern interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" is "You shall not murder", where "murder" means "unlawful killing"</p><p>So if the scripture says you should kill the heathens, or stone somebody for some offense, assuming the scripture equals law, such a thing is lawful, and therefore not murder.</p><p>Taking "Thou shalt not kill" literally would imply that for instance Christianity should be an extremely pacifistic religion, when the Bible is full of killing, including animals for sacrifices and children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The modern interpretation of " Thou shalt not kill " is " You shall not murder " , where " murder " means " unlawful killing " So if the scripture says you should kill the heathens , or stone somebody for some offense , assuming the scripture equals law , such a thing is lawful , and therefore not murder.Taking " Thou shalt not kill " literally would imply that for instance Christianity should be an extremely pacifistic religion , when the Bible is full of killing , including animals for sacrifices and children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The modern interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" is "You shall not murder", where "murder" means "unlawful killing"So if the scripture says you should kill the heathens, or stone somebody for some offense, assuming the scripture equals law, such a thing is lawful, and therefore not murder.Taking "Thou shalt not kill" literally would imply that for instance Christianity should be an extremely pacifistic religion, when the Bible is full of killing, including animals for sacrifices and children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30026752</id>
	<title>Re:CC isn't for everybody.</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257685680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't see why we should force writers to give their work in a format that can be duplicated too easily.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nobody's forcing the writers to do anything in any case. Even if Lulu didn't offer any DRM formats, writers are perfectly to go find some other company that will publish their work to their specifications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why we should force writers to give their work in a format that can be duplicated too easily.Nobody 's forcing the writers to do anything in any case .
Even if Lulu did n't offer any DRM formats , writers are perfectly to go find some other company that will publish their work to their specifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why we should force writers to give their work in a format that can be duplicated too easily.Nobody's forcing the writers to do anything in any case.
Even if Lulu didn't offer any DRM formats, writers are perfectly to go find some other company that will publish their work to their specifications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020450</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1257682440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooo good. I love bad analogies. They're fun. Can I have a go too?</p><p>What if the objectionable thing B was manufacturing blue M&amp;Ms, a colour you dislike - even if you don't purchase M&amp;Ms.  Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.</p><p>Are you really surprised that people care more about enforced slave labour than a company that allows two people to enter into a contract which sets out on what devices they are able to buy a licensed product?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooo good .
I love bad analogies .
They 're fun .
Can I have a go too ? What if the objectionable thing B was manufacturing blue M&amp;Ms , a colour you dislike - even if you do n't purchase M&amp;Ms .
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship ?
I know there are huge differences in the offense , but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.Are you really surprised that people care more about enforced slave labour than a company that allows two people to enter into a contract which sets out on what devices they are able to buy a licensed product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooo good.
I love bad analogies.
They're fun.
Can I have a go too?What if the objectionable thing B was manufacturing blue M&amp;Ms, a colour you dislike - even if you don't purchase M&amp;Ms.
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship?
I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.Are you really surprised that people care more about enforced slave labour than a company that allows two people to enter into a contract which sets out on what devices they are able to buy a licensed product?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30091998</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258107660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human beings do not behave randomly. We all follow rules whether we plan it that way or not.</p><p>The trick is to understand what those rules are, and to ensure that they are consistent with a good life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human beings do not behave randomly .
We all follow rules whether we plan it that way or not.The trick is to understand what those rules are , and to ensure that they are consistent with a good life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human beings do not behave randomly.
We all follow rules whether we plan it that way or not.The trick is to understand what those rules are, and to ensure that they are consistent with a good life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660</id>
	<title>Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1257622920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you say, you don't have to use the DRM at all.  I don't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that don't know any better (or think they do).   If people want the rope for whatever reason, just shake your head and let them buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you say , you do n't have to use the DRM at all .
I do n't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that do n't know any better ( or think they do ) .
If people want the rope for whatever reason , just shake your head and let them buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you say, you don't have to use the DRM at all.
I don't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that don't know any better (or think they do).
If people want the rope for whatever reason, just shake your head and let them buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021808</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1257696180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.</p></div><p>This is a false premise in many environments including slashdot, political rallies, FOX news, and anywhere that kids gather.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying , I must conclude it is my fault.This is a false premise in many environments including slashdot , political rallies , FOX news , and anywhere that kids gather .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.This is a false premise in many environments including slashdot, political rallies, FOX news, and anywhere that kids gather.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021640</id>
	<title>timothy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257694980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>timothy, you are a fucking idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>timothy , you are a fucking idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>timothy, you are a fucking idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024762</id>
	<title>Re:Why I'm dropping endorsement/etc of Lulu</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257672420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key (DRM on hardware/software) to be a direct attack on property rights.</p></div><p>For it to be an attack on your property rights, you first have to own the property in question. Now I don't know, maybe Lulu does indeed false-advertise DRMed books as "sales", and doesn't explain the nature and effects of their DRM to their customers. But if they do all that, then I don't see how your property rights are in any way attacked.</p><p>Refusing to sell something to you on the terms you demand is not an attack on your property rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key ( DRM on hardware/software ) to be a direct attack on property rights.For it to be an attack on your property rights , you first have to own the property in question .
Now I do n't know , maybe Lulu does indeed false-advertise DRMed books as " sales " , and does n't explain the nature and effects of their DRM to their customers .
But if they do all that , then I do n't see how your property rights are in any way attacked.Refusing to sell something to you on the terms you demand is not an attack on your property rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key (DRM on hardware/software) to be a direct attack on property rights.For it to be an attack on your property rights, you first have to own the property in question.
Now I don't know, maybe Lulu does indeed false-advertise DRMed books as "sales", and doesn't explain the nature and effects of their DRM to their customers.
But if they do all that, then I don't see how your property rights are in any way attacked.Refusing to sell something to you on the terms you demand is not an attack on your property rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020202</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257678180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...not to mention "made in China" products...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...not to mention " made in China " products.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...not to mention "made in China" products...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020692</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy versus reality</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1257686280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are other ways to make money.  Unless, of course, you can prove to me that the only way to make money in the publishing world is to restrict the ability to read and share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other ways to make money .
Unless , of course , you can prove to me that the only way to make money in the publishing world is to restrict the ability to read and share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other ways to make money.
Unless, of course, you can prove to me that the only way to make money in the publishing world is to restrict the ability to read and share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020324</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1257680040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not for the author's benefit, it's for Lulu's. They make more money for every checkbox that people enable when publishing their vanity books. It would be tough to find many books on the service that people would actually want to read let alone copy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not for the author 's benefit , it 's for Lulu 's .
They make more money for every checkbox that people enable when publishing their vanity books .
It would be tough to find many books on the service that people would actually want to read let alone copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not for the author's benefit, it's for Lulu's.
They make more money for every checkbox that people enable when publishing their vanity books.
It would be tough to find many books on the service that people would actually want to read let alone copy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022586</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257701220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So yes, you're right, it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor, but not one which violates your geek religion's creed against DRM. But most people are smart enough to see that those things aren't even slightly similar, and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both.</p></div><p>You are probably familiar with the lawsuits brought up by Monsanto, against farmers who had their farmlands "infected" by Monsanto seeds, or against farmers that were making their own seeds. In either case, the farmers were sued for copyright infringement. Some of these farmers tried to fight and finally had to settle when the legal expenses exceeded a couple hundred thousand bux. With this tactic, Monsanto has coerced farmers into buying their seeds in perpetuity - or just bankrupted them.</p><p>From this example, I think, one can see some similarity between slave labor and the madness of copyright law, partly embodied in and enforced by DRM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So yes , you 're right , it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor , but not one which violates your geek religion 's creed against DRM .
But most people are smart enough to see that those things are n't even slightly similar , and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both.You are probably familiar with the lawsuits brought up by Monsanto , against farmers who had their farmlands " infected " by Monsanto seeds , or against farmers that were making their own seeds .
In either case , the farmers were sued for copyright infringement .
Some of these farmers tried to fight and finally had to settle when the legal expenses exceeded a couple hundred thousand bux .
With this tactic , Monsanto has coerced farmers into buying their seeds in perpetuity - or just bankrupted them.From this example , I think , one can see some similarity between slave labor and the madness of copyright law , partly embodied in and enforced by DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So yes, you're right, it is logically inconsistent to call for the boycott of a company that uses slave labor, but not one which violates your geek religion's creed against DRM.
But most people are smart enough to see that those things aren't even slightly similar, and only a crazy person would apply the same logic to both.You are probably familiar with the lawsuits brought up by Monsanto, against farmers who had their farmlands "infected" by Monsanto seeds, or against farmers that were making their own seeds.
In either case, the farmers were sued for copyright infringement.
Some of these farmers tried to fight and finally had to settle when the legal expenses exceeded a couple hundred thousand bux.
With this tactic, Monsanto has coerced farmers into buying their seeds in perpetuity - or just bankrupted them.From this example, I think, one can see some similarity between slave labor and the madness of copyright law, partly embodied in and enforced by DRM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020590</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257684360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Muslims do, but Christians are lucky because they told them that they believe in the same god and thus aren't subject to that aggresion (just to standard aggresion).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Muslims do , but Christians are lucky because they told them that they believe in the same god and thus are n't subject to that aggresion ( just to standard aggresion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Muslims do, but Christians are lucky because they told them that they believe in the same god and thus aren't subject to that aggresion (just to standard aggresion).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020772</id>
	<title>There's nothing wrong with killing people.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1257687720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the whole "religious war" charge by the left wing is a bunch of crap.  If you look at nearly every war that has ever been, religion at best was used as an excuse but the real reasons were always about money, and about preserving one's way of life, and those are plenty good reasons to fight a war.</p><p>I mean, the irony of things is that if there is no God, what's really the moral crime of invading another nation and taking it over.  What's the difference between killing a fetus that I can't see or dropping a cluster bomb on a house from 50,000 feet. Either way, I'm just blowing people away without even giving a shit.  In fact, what if I enjoy killing fetuses or dropping cluster bombs... what if I'm really good at walking a woman through an abortion so that I can make her feel good about giving me a couple of hundred bucks, or just guiding my aircraft to right on target so that I can waste some fricking muzzies.</p><p>Why on earth should I care?   When I'm dead, I'm going to be dirt.  The end, that's it.  So there's no fricking point. As long as someone doesn't kill me, its ok... but I can do whatever I want, so long as I can get away with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the whole " religious war " charge by the left wing is a bunch of crap .
If you look at nearly every war that has ever been , religion at best was used as an excuse but the real reasons were always about money , and about preserving one 's way of life , and those are plenty good reasons to fight a war.I mean , the irony of things is that if there is no God , what 's really the moral crime of invading another nation and taking it over .
What 's the difference between killing a fetus that I ca n't see or dropping a cluster bomb on a house from 50,000 feet .
Either way , I 'm just blowing people away without even giving a shit .
In fact , what if I enjoy killing fetuses or dropping cluster bombs... what if I 'm really good at walking a woman through an abortion so that I can make her feel good about giving me a couple of hundred bucks , or just guiding my aircraft to right on target so that I can waste some fricking muzzies.Why on earth should I care ?
When I 'm dead , I 'm going to be dirt .
The end , that 's it .
So there 's no fricking point .
As long as someone does n't kill me , its ok... but I can do whatever I want , so long as I can get away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the whole "religious war" charge by the left wing is a bunch of crap.
If you look at nearly every war that has ever been, religion at best was used as an excuse but the real reasons were always about money, and about preserving one's way of life, and those are plenty good reasons to fight a war.I mean, the irony of things is that if there is no God, what's really the moral crime of invading another nation and taking it over.
What's the difference between killing a fetus that I can't see or dropping a cluster bomb on a house from 50,000 feet.
Either way, I'm just blowing people away without even giving a shit.
In fact, what if I enjoy killing fetuses or dropping cluster bombs... what if I'm really good at walking a woman through an abortion so that I can make her feel good about giving me a couple of hundred bucks, or just guiding my aircraft to right on target so that I can waste some fricking muzzies.Why on earth should I care?
When I'm dead, I'm going to be dirt.
The end, that's it.
So there's no fricking point.
As long as someone doesn't kill me, its ok... but I can do whatever I want, so long as I can get away with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30026640</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key weakness to your argument is:</p><p>DRM != to slave labor</p><p>Also, buyers have the choice to not buy DRM products and Lulu doesn't force authors release their works as DRM-encumbered. And finally, if I am not mistaken, Lulu charges more for the DRMified products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key weakness to your argument is : DRM ! = to slave laborAlso , buyers have the choice to not buy DRM products and Lulu does n't force authors release their works as DRM-encumbered .
And finally , if I am not mistaken , Lulu charges more for the DRMified products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key weakness to your argument is:DRM != to slave laborAlso, buyers have the choice to not buy DRM products and Lulu doesn't force authors release their works as DRM-encumbered.
And finally, if I am not mistaken, Lulu charges more for the DRMified products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020766</id>
	<title>CC isn't for everybody.</title>
	<author>Michael\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1257687600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm with the people who don't think DRM is necessarily evil.
Remember: Lulu is a *print-on-demand* outfit. You want a non-DRM'd version of a book? buy the print version and do whatever you want with it. I don't see why we should force writers to give their work in a format that can be duplicated too easily. If you write technical manuals, software guides, that sort of thing... you're in a market where piracy is very, very strong, to the point you may never make any money on your book, while it may be pirated by thousands or tens of thousands of users. Just look a the book section on Pirate Bay.

Yes, I would have preferred if there was some global DRM scheme which was vendor-agnostic and internationally maintained by some non-affiliated organization, so we'd have some assurances our DRM'd media isn't going to just go away one day. But all the arguments I hear against DRM are about the specific implementation, not the idea in general. The idea is... well... necessary if you want people to bother writing professionally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with the people who do n't think DRM is necessarily evil .
Remember : Lulu is a * print-on-demand * outfit .
You want a non-DRM 'd version of a book ?
buy the print version and do whatever you want with it .
I do n't see why we should force writers to give their work in a format that can be duplicated too easily .
If you write technical manuals , software guides , that sort of thing... you 're in a market where piracy is very , very strong , to the point you may never make any money on your book , while it may be pirated by thousands or tens of thousands of users .
Just look a the book section on Pirate Bay .
Yes , I would have preferred if there was some global DRM scheme which was vendor-agnostic and internationally maintained by some non-affiliated organization , so we 'd have some assurances our DRM 'd media is n't going to just go away one day .
But all the arguments I hear against DRM are about the specific implementation , not the idea in general .
The idea is... well... necessary if you want people to bother writing professionally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with the people who don't think DRM is necessarily evil.
Remember: Lulu is a *print-on-demand* outfit.
You want a non-DRM'd version of a book?
buy the print version and do whatever you want with it.
I don't see why we should force writers to give their work in a format that can be duplicated too easily.
If you write technical manuals, software guides, that sort of thing... you're in a market where piracy is very, very strong, to the point you may never make any money on your book, while it may be pirated by thousands or tens of thousands of users.
Just look a the book section on Pirate Bay.
Yes, I would have preferred if there was some global DRM scheme which was vendor-agnostic and internationally maintained by some non-affiliated organization, so we'd have some assurances our DRM'd media isn't going to just go away one day.
But all the arguments I hear against DRM are about the specific implementation, not the idea in general.
The idea is... well... necessary if you want people to bother writing professionally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020654</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to Slashdot, home of the basement-dwelling college crowd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to Slashdot , home of the basement-dwelling college crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to Slashdot, home of the basement-dwelling college crowd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30033902</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>davidbrucehughes</author>
	<datestamp>1257786780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Lulu has also instituted a $1.29 per download charge, even for authors who choose not to use DRM, for "server costs". So all of us have to pay to support their nonsense DRM program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Lulu has also instituted a $ 1.29 per download charge , even for authors who choose not to use DRM , for " server costs " .
So all of us have to pay to support their nonsense DRM program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Lulu has also instituted a $1.29 per download charge, even for authors who choose not to use DRM, for "server costs".
So all of us have to pay to support their nonsense DRM program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024550</id>
	<title>still very friendly toward free information</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1257671220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've been using lulu for several years now. As with most long-term relationships, there are some things I like and others that drive me crazy. In general, however, their positive attitude toward free information is one of the big pluses. They were founded by a former Red Hat guy. They have always offered CC licenses as an explicit option in the menus when you set up your book in their web interface. Also, if you set your own royalty to zero, they do not take their usual cut. (This is what I do, because I'm a college professor, and I feel that taking a royalty raises uncomfortable conflict of interest issues, since I'm using my books in my own classes.) After reading TFA, I updated one of my books to see what the deal was. I have always had my books set so that people can buy printed copies (with zero royalty to me) or just download them for free in PDF format. When I updated my book I got a page like this:
</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt> Download<br>Makes your content available as a download<br>Sell My Download<br> Base Price  $ 1.49<br> <br> The base price covers file hosting, bandwidth, and credit card transaction costs.<br> <br>  *<br> <br> My Revenue  $<br> Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99<br>Lulu  $ 0.00<br> <br>Lulu's commission (20\% of the total profit)<br>Learn more about the Lulu commission<br> <br>  *<br> <br> Price  $<br> Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99<br>Give My Download Away For Free<br> To account for hosting and transaction costs, we had to add a base price of $1.49 if you collect a creator revenue. However, if you want to give your download away for free, Lulu will waive this base price.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>
If you look way down at  the bottom under "Give My Download Away For Free," you'll see that they are not going to charge money unless I do. <a href="http://www.lulu.com/product/download/newtonian-physics/5964455" title="lulu.com">Here</a> [lulu.com] is the book, as updated today. You can still download it without paying any money.
</p><p>
I do feel that DRM is evil. I'm not happy  that lulu is supporting it. However, their over-all support for free information seems to me to be a <i>lot</i> better than you'd expect from Random Corporation, Inc.
</p><p>
For the record, here are the things I like and dislike about lulu:
</p><p> Likes: They are the only POD or vanity publisher I know of that will let you set up and sell your book with zero initial cost. They handle all of the shipping and order processing, which was a <i>huge</i> hassle for me when I was doing it myself. They are relatively friendly toward free information.
</p><p>
Dislikes: They have a business model sort of similar to Paypal, i.e., it is absolutely impossible to get a Lulu employee to talk to you on the phone, and very difficult to communicate with one in any other way, either. I have had repeated technical issues with them before, where the printer they subcontracted out to couldn't output a book that had outputted successfully for a long time before with other subcontractors; lulu wasn't willing/able to help me figure out a workaround, although I eventually figured it out myself. College bookstores have reported problems to me where lulu sent them bogus bills ($700 for books that FedEx tracking showed were shipped to someone's house in a different state), and made it an incredible hassle to straighten out the problem.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using lulu for several years now .
As with most long-term relationships , there are some things I like and others that drive me crazy .
In general , however , their positive attitude toward free information is one of the big pluses .
They were founded by a former Red Hat guy .
They have always offered CC licenses as an explicit option in the menus when you set up your book in their web interface .
Also , if you set your own royalty to zero , they do not take their usual cut .
( This is what I do , because I 'm a college professor , and I feel that taking a royalty raises uncomfortable conflict of interest issues , since I 'm using my books in my own classes .
) After reading TFA , I updated one of my books to see what the deal was .
I have always had my books set so that people can buy printed copies ( with zero royalty to me ) or just download them for free in PDF format .
When I updated my book I got a page like this : DownloadMakes your content available as a downloadSell My Download Base Price $ 1.49 The base price covers file hosting , bandwidth , and credit card transaction costs .
* My Revenue $ Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99Lulu $ 0.00 Lulu 's commission ( 20 \ % of the total profit ) Learn more about the Lulu commission * Price $ Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99Give My Download Away For Free To account for hosting and transaction costs , we had to add a base price of $ 1.49 if you collect a creator revenue .
However , if you want to give your download away for free , Lulu will waive this base price .
If you look way down at the bottom under " Give My Download Away For Free , " you 'll see that they are not going to charge money unless I do .
Here [ lulu.com ] is the book , as updated today .
You can still download it without paying any money .
I do feel that DRM is evil .
I 'm not happy that lulu is supporting it .
However , their over-all support for free information seems to me to be a lot better than you 'd expect from Random Corporation , Inc . For the record , here are the things I like and dislike about lulu : Likes : They are the only POD or vanity publisher I know of that will let you set up and sell your book with zero initial cost .
They handle all of the shipping and order processing , which was a huge hassle for me when I was doing it myself .
They are relatively friendly toward free information .
Dislikes : They have a business model sort of similar to Paypal , i.e. , it is absolutely impossible to get a Lulu employee to talk to you on the phone , and very difficult to communicate with one in any other way , either .
I have had repeated technical issues with them before , where the printer they subcontracted out to could n't output a book that had outputted successfully for a long time before with other subcontractors ; lulu was n't willing/able to help me figure out a workaround , although I eventually figured it out myself .
College bookstores have reported problems to me where lulu sent them bogus bills ( $ 700 for books that FedEx tracking showed were shipped to someone 's house in a different state ) , and made it an incredible hassle to straighten out the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've been using lulu for several years now.
As with most long-term relationships, there are some things I like and others that drive me crazy.
In general, however, their positive attitude toward free information is one of the big pluses.
They were founded by a former Red Hat guy.
They have always offered CC licenses as an explicit option in the menus when you set up your book in their web interface.
Also, if you set your own royalty to zero, they do not take their usual cut.
(This is what I do, because I'm a college professor, and I feel that taking a royalty raises uncomfortable conflict of interest issues, since I'm using my books in my own classes.
) After reading TFA, I updated one of my books to see what the deal was.
I have always had my books set so that people can buy printed copies (with zero royalty to me) or just download them for free in PDF format.
When I updated my book I got a page like this:
  DownloadMakes your content available as a downloadSell My Download Base Price  $ 1.49  The base price covers file hosting, bandwidth, and credit card transaction costs.
*  My Revenue  $ Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99Lulu  $ 0.00 Lulu's commission (20\% of the total profit)Learn more about the Lulu commission   *  Price  $ Please enter a number between 0.00 and 999999.99Give My Download Away For Free To account for hosting and transaction costs, we had to add a base price of $1.49 if you collect a creator revenue.
However, if you want to give your download away for free, Lulu will waive this base price.
If you look way down at  the bottom under "Give My Download Away For Free," you'll see that they are not going to charge money unless I do.
Here [lulu.com] is the book, as updated today.
You can still download it without paying any money.
I do feel that DRM is evil.
I'm not happy  that lulu is supporting it.
However, their over-all support for free information seems to me to be a lot better than you'd expect from Random Corporation, Inc.

For the record, here are the things I like and dislike about lulu:
 Likes: They are the only POD or vanity publisher I know of that will let you set up and sell your book with zero initial cost.
They handle all of the shipping and order processing, which was a huge hassle for me when I was doing it myself.
They are relatively friendly toward free information.
Dislikes: They have a business model sort of similar to Paypal, i.e., it is absolutely impossible to get a Lulu employee to talk to you on the phone, and very difficult to communicate with one in any other way, either.
I have had repeated technical issues with them before, where the printer they subcontracted out to couldn't output a book that had outputted successfully for a long time before with other subcontractors; lulu wasn't willing/able to help me figure out a workaround, although I eventually figured it out myself.
College bookstores have reported problems to me where lulu sent them bogus bills ($700 for books that FedEx tracking showed were shipped to someone's house in a different state), and made it an incredible hassle to straighten out the problem.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30023832</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257708600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the only one that i've seen is <em>No Logo</em>, but it's by a Canadian journalist.  Great video though.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_Logo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the only one that i 've seen is No Logo , but it 's by a Canadian journalist .
Great video though.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No \ _Logo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only one that i've seen is No Logo, but it's by a Canadian journalist.
Great video though.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_Logo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020434</id>
	<title>If slavery was only offered as an option</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257682200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If slavery was only offered as an option then why not deal with the company that offered it eh? It's not as though they would be forcing you to use slave produced work...</p><p>The point is, it does matter what they offer, and it is doesn't only come down to the option which you choose. If you believe in something strongly enough, you will not deal with any company which supports the thing you object to.</p><p>The majority of people who use creative commons and open source are just in it for the free goods (as in costs nothing), but there are a few who are in it on point of principle. It's the latter group who made it happen and will ensure it continues to be available. The former group are just leaches benefiting off the effort of others. You obviously belong to the former group</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If slavery was only offered as an option then why not deal with the company that offered it eh ?
It 's not as though they would be forcing you to use slave produced work...The point is , it does matter what they offer , and it is does n't only come down to the option which you choose .
If you believe in something strongly enough , you will not deal with any company which supports the thing you object to.The majority of people who use creative commons and open source are just in it for the free goods ( as in costs nothing ) , but there are a few who are in it on point of principle .
It 's the latter group who made it happen and will ensure it continues to be available .
The former group are just leaches benefiting off the effort of others .
You obviously belong to the former group</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If slavery was only offered as an option then why not deal with the company that offered it eh?
It's not as though they would be forcing you to use slave produced work...The point is, it does matter what they offer, and it is doesn't only come down to the option which you choose.
If you believe in something strongly enough, you will not deal with any company which supports the thing you object to.The majority of people who use creative commons and open source are just in it for the free goods (as in costs nothing), but there are a few who are in it on point of principle.
It's the latter group who made it happen and will ensure it continues to be available.
The former group are just leaches benefiting off the effort of others.
You obviously belong to the former group</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021638</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>t\_ban</author>
	<datestamp>1257694980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the underlying argument is the same for both buying from someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.</p></div><p>It is a typical strategy of advanced capitalism to rationalise economic oppression by explaining the ethics in terms of personal/private preference, thus robbing it of any general significance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you really surprised that people care more about enforced slave labour than a company that allows two people to enter into a contract which sets out on what devices they are able to buy a licensed product?</p></div><p>There often is no real difference. Consider the 'contract' between the capitalist and the labourer. Is that a valid contract if the only real choice for the labourer is either to agree to unfair/exploitative terms of service or to starve?</p><p>The GP's analogy wasn't really bad.</p><p>Not monsters, but regular people like you and me (okay, may be a bit richer than us) once owned slaves and supported slavery.</p><p>Not monsters, but regular people like you and me support DRM today.</p><p>The two world-views are different not fundamentally, but in degree, because both entail curbing the freedom of others in order to maximise profit.</p><p>Given a choice, I wouldn't do business with a company that thought DRM was acceptable. Certain things really do have universal human significance.</p><p>Translation for those irrevocably sold to the capitalist trope of absolute ethical relativity: <b> <i>I believe that</i> </b> certain things really do have universal human significance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the underlying argument is the same for both buying from someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.It is a typical strategy of advanced capitalism to rationalise economic oppression by explaining the ethics in terms of personal/private preference , thus robbing it of any general significance.Are you really surprised that people care more about enforced slave labour than a company that allows two people to enter into a contract which sets out on what devices they are able to buy a licensed product ? There often is no real difference .
Consider the 'contract ' between the capitalist and the labourer .
Is that a valid contract if the only real choice for the labourer is either to agree to unfair/exploitative terms of service or to starve ? The GP 's analogy was n't really bad.Not monsters , but regular people like you and me ( okay , may be a bit richer than us ) once owned slaves and supported slavery.Not monsters , but regular people like you and me support DRM today.The two world-views are different not fundamentally , but in degree , because both entail curbing the freedom of others in order to maximise profit.Given a choice , I would n't do business with a company that thought DRM was acceptable .
Certain things really do have universal human significance.Translation for those irrevocably sold to the capitalist trope of absolute ethical relativity : I believe that certain things really do have universal human significance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the underlying argument is the same for both buying from someone who makes confectionary in an objectionable colour and a slave created goods provider.It is a typical strategy of advanced capitalism to rationalise economic oppression by explaining the ethics in terms of personal/private preference, thus robbing it of any general significance.Are you really surprised that people care more about enforced slave labour than a company that allows two people to enter into a contract which sets out on what devices they are able to buy a licensed product?There often is no real difference.
Consider the 'contract' between the capitalist and the labourer.
Is that a valid contract if the only real choice for the labourer is either to agree to unfair/exploitative terms of service or to starve?The GP's analogy wasn't really bad.Not monsters, but regular people like you and me (okay, may be a bit richer than us) once owned slaves and supported slavery.Not monsters, but regular people like you and me support DRM today.The two world-views are different not fundamentally, but in degree, because both entail curbing the freedom of others in order to maximise profit.Given a choice, I wouldn't do business with a company that thought DRM was acceptable.
Certain things really do have universal human significance.Translation for those irrevocably sold to the capitalist trope of absolute ethical relativity:  I believe that  certain things really do have universal human significance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022450</id>
	<title>Why I'm dropping endorsement/etc of Lulu</title>
	<author>Russell McOrmond</author>
	<datestamp>1257700440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read some of the comments.  There appears to be a lack of support for a boycott.  Some because they don't consider DRM to be a problem or believe that it should be the authors choice, and some because they don't support the concept of consumer boycotts at all.

<p>Here is why I'm likely to boycott Lulu, and recommend against them whenever asked.  I've already <a href="http://stores.lulu.com/russell" title="lulu.com" rel="nofollow">cleaned up my storefront</a> [lulu.com] to only indicate this removal of support.

</p><p>First I offer <a href="http://www.flora.ca/own" title="flora.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.flora.ca/own</a> [flora.ca] for what I consider DRM to be, given there isn't a universal meaning for this acronym.  It is also an explanation for less technical people about how DRM works, rather than the unscientific "magic" that some people believe it to be.

</p><p>I believe that authors imposing technology brands on audiences (DRM on content) is even less legitimate/moral than audiences imposing prices on authors (IE: copyright infringement). I don't condone either, but consider DRM to be worse.

</p><p>I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key (DRM on hardware/software) to be a direct attack on property rights. I consider this a form of "theft" that should be made clearly illegal -- not encouraged (through locks on content), legalised or legally protected.

</p><p>In the case of Lulu the blog article was clearly encouraging authors to put DRM on their content, making false (but common) claims that DRM would reduce infringement.  DRM on content then imposes/encourages specific brands of technology, specifically technology that is locked down against the interests of their owners.

</p><p>Lulu is and should also be held to a higher standard.   This is a company founded by Bob Young who knows better when it comes to the harms of DRM.  If this were an old-economy publisher adding DRM-free digital distribution to an existing DRM-only system, this would be seen as a step in a positive direction.  In this case this is a theoretically new-economy publisher adding and promoting DRM in addition to a long-standing DRM-free system, clearly a step in a negative direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read some of the comments .
There appears to be a lack of support for a boycott .
Some because they do n't consider DRM to be a problem or believe that it should be the authors choice , and some because they do n't support the concept of consumer boycotts at all .
Here is why I 'm likely to boycott Lulu , and recommend against them whenever asked .
I 've already cleaned up my storefront [ lulu.com ] to only indicate this removal of support .
First I offer http : //www.flora.ca/own [ flora.ca ] for what I consider DRM to be , given there is n't a universal meaning for this acronym .
It is also an explanation for less technical people about how DRM works , rather than the unscientific " magic " that some people believe it to be .
I believe that authors imposing technology brands on audiences ( DRM on content ) is even less legitimate/moral than audiences imposing prices on authors ( IE : copyright infringement ) .
I do n't condone either , but consider DRM to be worse .
I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key ( DRM on hardware/software ) to be a direct attack on property rights .
I consider this a form of " theft " that should be made clearly illegal -- not encouraged ( through locks on content ) , legalised or legally protected .
In the case of Lulu the blog article was clearly encouraging authors to put DRM on their content , making false ( but common ) claims that DRM would reduce infringement .
DRM on content then imposes/encourages specific brands of technology , specifically technology that is locked down against the interests of their owners .
Lulu is and should also be held to a higher standard .
This is a company founded by Bob Young who knows better when it comes to the harms of DRM .
If this were an old-economy publisher adding DRM-free digital distribution to an existing DRM-only system , this would be seen as a step in a positive direction .
In this case this is a theoretically new-economy publisher adding and promoting DRM in addition to a long-standing DRM-free system , clearly a step in a negative direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read some of the comments.
There appears to be a lack of support for a boycott.
Some because they don't consider DRM to be a problem or believe that it should be the authors choice, and some because they don't support the concept of consumer boycotts at all.
Here is why I'm likely to boycott Lulu, and recommend against them whenever asked.
I've already cleaned up my storefront [lulu.com] to only indicate this removal of support.
First I offer http://www.flora.ca/own [flora.ca] for what I consider DRM to be, given there isn't a universal meaning for this acronym.
It is also an explanation for less technical people about how DRM works, rather than the unscientific "magic" that some people believe it to be.
I believe that authors imposing technology brands on audiences (DRM on content) is even less legitimate/moral than audiences imposing prices on authors (IE: copyright infringement).
I don't condone either, but consider DRM to be worse.
I consider the activity of locking technology such that the owner does not have the key (DRM on hardware/software) to be a direct attack on property rights.
I consider this a form of "theft" that should be made clearly illegal -- not encouraged (through locks on content), legalised or legally protected.
In the case of Lulu the blog article was clearly encouraging authors to put DRM on their content, making false (but common) claims that DRM would reduce infringement.
DRM on content then imposes/encourages specific brands of technology, specifically technology that is locked down against the interests of their owners.
Lulu is and should also be held to a higher standard.
This is a company founded by Bob Young who knows better when it comes to the harms of DRM.
If this were an old-economy publisher adding DRM-free digital distribution to an existing DRM-only system, this would be seen as a step in a positive direction.
In this case this is a theoretically new-economy publisher adding and promoting DRM in addition to a long-standing DRM-free system, clearly a step in a negative direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022264</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1257699180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM is NOT slave labor. Hershey's, Nestle, Dove, M&amp;M/Mars, and almost all other chocolate companies use slave labor. People also don't care about lying murderers (tobacco companies like kraft), or animal torture (the meat you can buy at your local supermarket). Why would you expect people to boycott DRM using companies when they're supporting slavers, killers, and torturers?</p><p>DRM is annoying, but if you don't want it don't buy it. Even better, pirate anything with DRM.</p><p>When Lulu offers DRM they get more authors because they get the paranoid people who think DRM will make them money. This in turn encourages more readers. This in turn helps the DRM free stuff spread.</p><p>On the other hand people could deprive them of revenue because they're doing DRM at which point they see their non-DRM based revenue drop and their DRM based revenue rise. Now they switch everything to DRM and we all lose.</p><p>At least, that's what I see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM is NOT slave labor .
Hershey 's , Nestle , Dove , M&amp;M/Mars , and almost all other chocolate companies use slave labor .
People also do n't care about lying murderers ( tobacco companies like kraft ) , or animal torture ( the meat you can buy at your local supermarket ) .
Why would you expect people to boycott DRM using companies when they 're supporting slavers , killers , and torturers ? DRM is annoying , but if you do n't want it do n't buy it .
Even better , pirate anything with DRM.When Lulu offers DRM they get more authors because they get the paranoid people who think DRM will make them money .
This in turn encourages more readers .
This in turn helps the DRM free stuff spread.On the other hand people could deprive them of revenue because they 're doing DRM at which point they see their non-DRM based revenue drop and their DRM based revenue rise .
Now they switch everything to DRM and we all lose.At least , that 's what I see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM is NOT slave labor.
Hershey's, Nestle, Dove, M&amp;M/Mars, and almost all other chocolate companies use slave labor.
People also don't care about lying murderers (tobacco companies like kraft), or animal torture (the meat you can buy at your local supermarket).
Why would you expect people to boycott DRM using companies when they're supporting slavers, killers, and torturers?DRM is annoying, but if you don't want it don't buy it.
Even better, pirate anything with DRM.When Lulu offers DRM they get more authors because they get the paranoid people who think DRM will make them money.
This in turn encourages more readers.
This in turn helps the DRM free stuff spread.On the other hand people could deprive them of revenue because they're doing DRM at which point they see their non-DRM based revenue drop and their DRM based revenue rise.
Now they switch everything to DRM and we all lose.At least, that's what I see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021778</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257695940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences."</p></div><p>DRM is a scam. Do you want to do business with people that scam their customers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy ?
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship ?
I know there are huge differences in the offense , but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider : " I do n't directly deal in those products , so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences .
" DRM is a scam .
Do you want to do business with people that scam their customers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy?
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship?
I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences.
"DRM is a scam.
Do you want to do business with people that scam their customers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021488</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1257694020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong; I think DRM is stupid, that it drastically lowers the value of the product, and I think it harms the publisher/author more than it helps them, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it immoral.</p><p>Slave labour is a terrible horrible thing. It harms people, directly, seriously, and without their consent. DRM doesn't harm anyone except the author stupid enough to use it and the customer stupid enough to buy it, and they both do so of their own free will.</p><p>It's like calling a shoe company immoral because they sell a shoe filled with shards of glass. I can't understand why they'd want to sell it, and I can't understand why anyone would want to buy it, but if that's what they want to churn out of their factories then more power to them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong ; I think DRM is stupid , that it drastically lowers the value of the product , and I think it harms the publisher/author more than it helps them , but I would n't go as far as calling it immoral.Slave labour is a terrible horrible thing .
It harms people , directly , seriously , and without their consent .
DRM does n't harm anyone except the author stupid enough to use it and the customer stupid enough to buy it , and they both do so of their own free will.It 's like calling a shoe company immoral because they sell a shoe filled with shards of glass .
I ca n't understand why they 'd want to sell it , and I ca n't understand why anyone would want to buy it , but if that 's what they want to churn out of their factories then more power to them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong; I think DRM is stupid, that it drastically lowers the value of the product, and I think it harms the publisher/author more than it helps them, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it immoral.Slave labour is a terrible horrible thing.
It harms people, directly, seriously, and without their consent.
DRM doesn't harm anyone except the author stupid enough to use it and the customer stupid enough to buy it, and they both do so of their own free will.It's like calling a shoe company immoral because they sell a shoe filled with shards of glass.
I can't understand why they'd want to sell it, and I can't understand why anyone would want to buy it, but if that's what they want to churn out of their factories then more power to them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019920</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257671940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Complain because of the brand damage.</p><p>Once someone has a bad experience with a DRM'd eBook from Lulu they may be less inclined to buy any books through Lulu, even non-DRM'd ones, so all publishers are impacted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Complain because of the brand damage.Once someone has a bad experience with a DRM 'd eBook from Lulu they may be less inclined to buy any books through Lulu , even non-DRM 'd ones , so all publishers are impacted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complain because of the brand damage.Once someone has a bad experience with a DRM'd eBook from Lulu they may be less inclined to buy any books through Lulu, even non-DRM'd ones, so all publishers are impacted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30023386</id>
	<title>Its simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257705840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me (as a consumer) its simple.  DRM is ALWAYS a bad thing for the consumer.  I will not buy from anyone that uses or supports DRM unless I cannot find DRM free versions.  If I do end up with DRMed versions, I try to find a way to get rid of the DRM (converting to a different format etc...).  AND I ALWAYS complain about the DRM to the entity which I got the DRMed product from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me ( as a consumer ) its simple .
DRM is ALWAYS a bad thing for the consumer .
I will not buy from anyone that uses or supports DRM unless I can not find DRM free versions .
If I do end up with DRMed versions , I try to find a way to get rid of the DRM ( converting to a different format etc... ) .
AND I ALWAYS complain about the DRM to the entity which I got the DRMed product from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me (as a consumer) its simple.
DRM is ALWAYS a bad thing for the consumer.
I will not buy from anyone that uses or supports DRM unless I cannot find DRM free versions.
If I do end up with DRMed versions, I try to find a way to get rid of the DRM (converting to a different format etc...).
AND I ALWAYS complain about the DRM to the entity which I got the DRMed product from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021944</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257697140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No. I was not. Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.</p></div><p>Yes, it is.  You should never have brought up slavery in the way you did, if at all, as it really just makes your point unclear.  It would have been better had you come up with at least one other example to highlight the point you were trying to make about different things being more or less objectionable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I was not .
Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying , I must conclude it is my fault.Yes , it is .
You should never have brought up slavery in the way you did , if at all , as it really just makes your point unclear .
It would have been better had you come up with at least one other example to highlight the point you were trying to make about different things being more or less objectionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I was not.
Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.Yes, it is.
You should never have brought up slavery in the way you did, if at all, as it really just makes your point unclear.
It would have been better had you come up with at least one other example to highlight the point you were trying to make about different things being more or less objectionable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022080</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy versus reality</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1257698040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I see Lulu as in a very precarious position here.  It's likely just as much a result of new competition in the market, and not just Lulu needing more money to pay the bills.</p><p>
The self-publishing market is very small.
Lulu cannot afford to give up business to competitors, as there may very well be not enough of it to go around.
</p><p>
Lulu sells or used to sell things via retailers Amazon.
</p><p>
However: recently, Amazon is now in direct competition with Lulu through Amazon Publishing Services and CreateSpace.
</p><p>
The new competition from Amazon and others has the potential to cut off Lulu's air supply.
</p><p>
In addition, Amazon has the Kindle, and their own proprietary file format, soon Barnes and Noble will too.   They can publish eBooks for authors, and the authors then don't <b>need</b> Lulu.
</p><p>
With Amazon's services, authors can even get their books printed, in addition to making eBooks,  so it is likely the authors simply take all their business to Amazon, which means, they no longer have a need to buy anything from Lulu.
</p><p>
If Lulu doesn't get new books, they don't get to take a cut from sales of new books, and then they die.
</p><p>
For many authors:  DRM is considered essential or mandatory for eBook publication.
Or at least, considered an advantage, extra protection for the author's work.
</p><p>
So..  any publication / distribution channel that doesn't offer an option to utilize DRM technologies could be seen to be at a substantial competitive disadvantage, while they are simply <b>handing</b> customers over to the likes of Amazon, who do offer DRM.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see Lulu as in a very precarious position here .
It 's likely just as much a result of new competition in the market , and not just Lulu needing more money to pay the bills .
The self-publishing market is very small .
Lulu can not afford to give up business to competitors , as there may very well be not enough of it to go around .
Lulu sells or used to sell things via retailers Amazon .
However : recently , Amazon is now in direct competition with Lulu through Amazon Publishing Services and CreateSpace .
The new competition from Amazon and others has the potential to cut off Lulu 's air supply .
In addition , Amazon has the Kindle , and their own proprietary file format , soon Barnes and Noble will too .
They can publish eBooks for authors , and the authors then do n't need Lulu .
With Amazon 's services , authors can even get their books printed , in addition to making eBooks , so it is likely the authors simply take all their business to Amazon , which means , they no longer have a need to buy anything from Lulu .
If Lulu does n't get new books , they do n't get to take a cut from sales of new books , and then they die .
For many authors : DRM is considered essential or mandatory for eBook publication .
Or at least , considered an advantage , extra protection for the author 's work .
So.. any publication / distribution channel that does n't offer an option to utilize DRM technologies could be seen to be at a substantial competitive disadvantage , while they are simply handing customers over to the likes of Amazon , who do offer DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I see Lulu as in a very precarious position here.
It's likely just as much a result of new competition in the market, and not just Lulu needing more money to pay the bills.
The self-publishing market is very small.
Lulu cannot afford to give up business to competitors, as there may very well be not enough of it to go around.
Lulu sells or used to sell things via retailers Amazon.
However: recently, Amazon is now in direct competition with Lulu through Amazon Publishing Services and CreateSpace.
The new competition from Amazon and others has the potential to cut off Lulu's air supply.
In addition, Amazon has the Kindle, and their own proprietary file format, soon Barnes and Noble will too.
They can publish eBooks for authors, and the authors then don't need Lulu.
With Amazon's services, authors can even get their books printed, in addition to making eBooks,  so it is likely the authors simply take all their business to Amazon, which means, they no longer have a need to buy anything from Lulu.
If Lulu doesn't get new books, they don't get to take a cut from sales of new books, and then they die.
For many authors:  DRM is considered essential or mandatory for eBook publication.
Or at least, considered an advantage, extra protection for the author's work.
So..  any publication / distribution channel that doesn't offer an option to utilize DRM technologies could be seen to be at a substantial competitive disadvantage, while they are simply handing customers over to the likes of Amazon, who do offer DRM.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021412</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1257693540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm.  The bible certainly has some stories that suggest "thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you" isn't something that God really disagrees with.  Even in the new testament.  In the old it's pretty much in the theme song.  And by the way, it's thou shalt not <i>murder</i>, which is different.</p><p>Nevertheless, nobody ever really goes to war over religion.  Religion can lower the barrier of entry, but the real reason is almost always economic.  Either you want something they have, or you've got enough problems in your society that war looks like a useful way out.</p><p>The crusades are often held up as an example of a religious war.  What is seldom mentioned is that the feudal system had produced way too many second (and third, fourth, fifth) sons who were landless and poor but also nobility.  The countries in question knew they needed a good war, and the church volunteered a convenient target that would meet with popular approval.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm .
The bible certainly has some stories that suggest " thou shalt kill everyone that does n't believe the same things as you " is n't something that God really disagrees with .
Even in the new testament .
In the old it 's pretty much in the theme song .
And by the way , it 's thou shalt not murder , which is different.Nevertheless , nobody ever really goes to war over religion .
Religion can lower the barrier of entry , but the real reason is almost always economic .
Either you want something they have , or you 've got enough problems in your society that war looks like a useful way out.The crusades are often held up as an example of a religious war .
What is seldom mentioned is that the feudal system had produced way too many second ( and third , fourth , fifth ) sons who were landless and poor but also nobility .
The countries in question knew they needed a good war , and the church volunteered a convenient target that would meet with popular approval .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm.
The bible certainly has some stories that suggest "thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you" isn't something that God really disagrees with.
Even in the new testament.
In the old it's pretty much in the theme song.
And by the way, it's thou shalt not murder, which is different.Nevertheless, nobody ever really goes to war over religion.
Religion can lower the barrier of entry, but the real reason is almost always economic.
Either you want something they have, or you've got enough problems in your society that war looks like a useful way out.The crusades are often held up as an example of a religious war.
What is seldom mentioned is that the feudal system had produced way too many second (and third, fourth, fifth) sons who were landless and poor but also nobility.
The countries in question knew they needed a good war, and the church volunteered a convenient target that would meet with popular approval.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020886</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Gorbag</author>
	<datestamp>1257689400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship?</p></div></blockquote><p>

And yet I maintain my citizenship, despite what the government or the rascals in Congress does.
</p><p>
Life is compromise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy ?
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship ?
And yet I maintain my citizenship , despite what the government or the rascals in Congress does .
Life is compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy?
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship?
And yet I maintain my citizenship, despite what the government or the rascals in Congress does.
Life is compromise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30023498</id>
	<title>Yes you can make a stand</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1257706440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If we followed that philosophy, we would not be making a stand against DRM.</i></p><p>And if every seller supports some form of DRM?  A much stronger statement is made in not buying DRM products.  Also if you are with a publisher that supports DRM, tell them you will never make use of the feature and find it distasteful.  An author that is making money for them carries more weight still than consumers...</p><p>If you want to defeat anything, the best path to success is from the inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we followed that philosophy , we would not be making a stand against DRM.And if every seller supports some form of DRM ?
A much stronger statement is made in not buying DRM products .
Also if you are with a publisher that supports DRM , tell them you will never make use of the feature and find it distasteful .
An author that is making money for them carries more weight still than consumers...If you want to defeat anything , the best path to success is from the inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we followed that philosophy, we would not be making a stand against DRM.And if every seller supports some form of DRM?
A much stronger statement is made in not buying DRM products.
Also if you are with a publisher that supports DRM, tell them you will never make use of the feature and find it distasteful.
An author that is making money for them carries more weight still than consumers...If you want to defeat anything, the best path to success is from the inside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020708</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1257686520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we followed that philosophy, we would not be making a stand against DRM.  There is a big difference between passively resisting DRM as you suggested, and actively resisting by refusing to do business with a company that is promoting it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we followed that philosophy , we would not be making a stand against DRM .
There is a big difference between passively resisting DRM as you suggested , and actively resisting by refusing to do business with a company that is promoting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we followed that philosophy, we would not be making a stand against DRM.
There is a big difference between passively resisting DRM as you suggested, and actively resisting by refusing to do business with a company that is promoting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1257682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saying that consistent behavior isn't a good thing because people go to war in the name of religion doesn't make sense.  I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".  All these religious wars are done by people acting AGAINST critical portions of their own religion.  "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty universal and yet people are killing each other in the name of religion.  That's not consistent behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that consistent behavior is n't a good thing because people go to war in the name of religion does n't make sense .
I have yet to see anything in any religion that says " Thou shalt kill everyone that does n't believe the same things as you " .
All these religious wars are done by people acting AGAINST critical portions of their own religion .
" Thou shalt not kill " is pretty universal and yet people are killing each other in the name of religion .
That 's not consistent behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that consistent behavior isn't a good thing because people go to war in the name of religion doesn't make sense.
I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".
All these religious wars are done by people acting AGAINST critical portions of their own religion.
"Thou shalt not kill" is pretty universal and yet people are killing each other in the name of religion.
That's not consistent behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257671280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet you buy from adidas, Coca-Cola, McDonald&rsquo;s, DaimlerChrysler, Nestl&#233;, Procter&amp;Gamble and Siemens although they profit from torture, slavery, illegal medication trials on humans, political and social discrimination, destruction of resources and the environment.<br>And you do not actually want to hear that.</p><p>Source: <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzbuch\_Markenfirmen" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzbuch\_Markenfirmen</a> [wikipedia.org] (where is the English equivalent? Don't they criticize globalization where it is due?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet you buy from adidas , Coca-Cola , McDonald    s , DaimlerChrysler , Nestl   , Procter&amp;Gamble and Siemens although they profit from torture , slavery , illegal medication trials on humans , political and social discrimination , destruction of resources and the environment.And you do not actually want to hear that.Source : http : //de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzbuch \ _Markenfirmen [ wikipedia.org ] ( where is the English equivalent ?
Do n't they criticize globalization where it is due ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet you buy from adidas, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, DaimlerChrysler, Nestlé, Procter&amp;Gamble and Siemens although they profit from torture, slavery, illegal medication trials on humans, political and social discrimination, destruction of resources and the environment.And you do not actually want to hear that.Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzbuch\_Markenfirmen [wikipedia.org] (where is the English equivalent?
Don't they criticize globalization where it is due?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020432</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Jerry Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1257682200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery? Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?</p></div><p>No, he compares different visions on business practices, and being it an example, exaggeration is in order. No he did not equate it, he equated the public's possible views on those diverse practices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery ?
Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind ? No , he compares different visions on business practices , and being it an example , exaggeration is in order .
No he did not equate it , he equated the public 's possible views on those diverse practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery?
Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?No, he compares different visions on business practices, and being it an example, exaggeration is in order.
No he did not equate it, he equated the public's possible views on those diverse practices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022666</id>
	<title>Waaaaah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257701700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Waaah! Waaah! Somebody call the Waaahmbulance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Waaah !
Waaah ! Somebody call the Waaahmbulance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waaah!
Waaah! Somebody call the Waaahmbulance!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>KTheorem</author>
	<datestamp>1257712320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Already there are a lot of comments like this in the general form of "just because company A, whom you do business with, starts to do something B that you find objectionable doesn't mean you should inconvenience yourself, especially if B doesn't directly affect your business dealing with them." It quite frankly baffles me.
<br> <br>
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy? Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship? I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences."
<br> <br>
Obviously&mdash;I hope&mdash;refusing to buying from a company with some products manufactured by slaves, even if the products you would be interested in aren't, would be a reasonable action. It is therefor clear that what people using the argument really mean is that they don't care about DRM enough to stop purchasing on priciple and don't thing you should either, and not that they actually think their argument really applies. In which case, they should really stop making the "boycotting is hard so don't do it" argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Already there are a lot of comments like this in the general form of " just because company A , whom you do business with , starts to do something B that you find objectionable does n't mean you should inconvenience yourself , especially if B does n't directly affect your business dealing with them .
" It quite frankly baffles me .
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy ?
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship ?
I know there are huge differences in the offense , but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider : " I do n't directly deal in those products , so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences .
" Obviously    I hope    refusing to buying from a company with some products manufactured by slaves , even if the products you would be interested in are n't , would be a reasonable action .
It is therefor clear that what people using the argument really mean is that they do n't care about DRM enough to stop purchasing on priciple and do n't thing you should either , and not that they actually think their argument really applies .
In which case , they should really stop making the " boycotting is hard so do n't do it " argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already there are a lot of comments like this in the general form of "just because company A, whom you do business with, starts to do something B that you find objectionable doesn't mean you should inconvenience yourself, especially if B doesn't directly affect your business dealing with them.
" It quite frankly baffles me.
What if the objectionable thing B was using slave labor for a product you do not use or buy?
Does it suddenly become okay to continue the business relationship?
I know there are huge differences in the offense, but the underlying argument is the same for both buying from a DRM encumbered goods provider and a slave created goods provider: "I don't directly deal in those products, so I will continue to buy other products from them and let the ones who DO buy them deal with the consequences.
"
 
Obviously—I hope—refusing to buying from a company with some products manufactured by slaves, even if the products you would be interested in aren't, would be a reasonable action.
It is therefor clear that what people using the argument really mean is that they don't care about DRM enough to stop purchasing on priciple and don't thing you should either, and not that they actually think their argument really applies.
In which case, they should really stop making the "boycotting is hard so don't do it" argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30046846</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy versus reality</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1257873900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Amusing to see what happens when "information wants to be free" collides with "your bills are past due".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I thought the that information wanted to be free as in speech, not free as in beer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amusing to see what happens when " information wants to be free " collides with " your bills are past due " .
I thought the that information wanted to be free as in speech , not free as in beer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amusing to see what happens when "information wants to be free" collides with "your bills are past due".
I thought the that information wanted to be free as in speech, not free as in beer?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656</id>
	<title>Philosophy versus reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257622860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amusing to see what happens when "information wants to be free" collides with "your bills are past due".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amusing to see what happens when " information wants to be free " collides with " your bills are past due " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amusing to see what happens when "information wants to be free" collides with "your bills are past due".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021874</id>
	<title>Re:Philosophy versus reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257696660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, "Information wants to be free" is from an essay and it's only half the idea.<br>The basic concept is:<br>* Information wants to be free, because it's hard to keep a secret (or as the old saying goes, two can keep a secret if one is dead)<br>* Information wants to be expressive because knowledge is power<br>* The next century will be a struggle between these two forces.</p><p>This is still true and will likely always be true.</p><p>This struggle appears within all people. Even the strongest proponent of "information wants to be free" would balk if his/her privacy is violated, his/her identity is stolen, the paparazzi take intimate pictures from his/her closes family, and all his knowledge and his abilities are reproduced by Country X whose residents are so poor that they are willing to work 20 hour days for a bowl of gruel made with tainted water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , " Information wants to be free " is from an essay and it 's only half the idea.The basic concept is : * Information wants to be free , because it 's hard to keep a secret ( or as the old saying goes , two can keep a secret if one is dead ) * Information wants to be expressive because knowledge is power * The next century will be a struggle between these two forces.This is still true and will likely always be true.This struggle appears within all people .
Even the strongest proponent of " information wants to be free " would balk if his/her privacy is violated , his/her identity is stolen , the paparazzi take intimate pictures from his/her closes family , and all his knowledge and his abilities are reproduced by Country X whose residents are so poor that they are willing to work 20 hour days for a bowl of gruel made with tainted water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, "Information wants to be free" is from an essay and it's only half the idea.The basic concept is:* Information wants to be free, because it's hard to keep a secret (or as the old saying goes, two can keep a secret if one is dead)* Information wants to be expressive because knowledge is power* The next century will be a struggle between these two forces.This is still true and will likely always be true.This struggle appears within all people.
Even the strongest proponent of "information wants to be free" would balk if his/her privacy is violated, his/her identity is stolen, the paparazzi take intimate pictures from his/her closes family, and all his knowledge and his abilities are reproduced by Country X whose residents are so poor that they are willing to work 20 hour days for a bowl of gruel made with tainted water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020268</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1257679140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that don't know any better (or think they do).</p></div> </blockquote><p>Isn't that a bit presumptuous?  Each author has the right to do what he wants with his own work.  It's his decision and your opinion is irrelevant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that do n't know any better ( or think they do ) .
Is n't that a bit presumptuous ?
Each author has the right to do what he wants with his own work .
It 's his decision and your opinion is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any benefit in punishing anyone that simply supports that as an option for authors that don't know any better (or think they do).
Isn't that a bit presumptuous?
Each author has the right to do what he wants with his own work.
It's his decision and your opinion is irrelevant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021434</id>
	<title>"nothing forces me to buy the DRM"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257693720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, then, so the problem is what again?</p><p>They are giving people choice. That is good.  When they start mandating, then we can talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , then , so the problem is what again ? They are giving people choice .
That is good .
When they start mandating , then we can talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, then, so the problem is what again?They are giving people choice.
That is good.
When they start mandating, then we can talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020612</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery? Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>No; he was choosing something that is clearly objectionable to everyone, unlike DRM. When a discussion isn't about some subjective quality of X, using Y which has fewer subjective qualities can simplify the discussion. And no, I'm not trying to equate X to Y here; they're two different letters of the alphabet, and I respect that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery ?
Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind ?
No ; he was choosing something that is clearly objectionable to everyone , unlike DRM .
When a discussion is n't about some subjective quality of X , using Y which has fewer subjective qualities can simplify the discussion .
And no , I 'm not trying to equate X to Y here ; they 're two different letters of the alphabet , and I respect that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate DRM to slavery?
Have you COMPLETELY lost your mind?
No; he was choosing something that is clearly objectionable to everyone, unlike DRM.
When a discussion isn't about some subjective quality of X, using Y which has fewer subjective qualities can simplify the discussion.
And no, I'm not trying to equate X to Y here; they're two different letters of the alphabet, and I respect that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020026</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>KTheorem</author>
	<datestamp>1257674400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. I was not. Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.
<br> <br>
I was trying to point out that the reasoning behind opposing boycotts based on a company's support of DRM was flawed, by applying it to something damn near everybody is opposed to vehemently.
<br> <br>
I don't think they are in any sane way comparable. I was using that fact to show that what the people who opposed boycotting because of DRM really meant was "this doesn't bother me enough to boycott and inconvenience myself" and not "you shouldn't boycott if it inconveniences you" as was implied by the wordings of many of the posters who thought that boycotting because of DRM was silly.
<br> <br>
I really don't give a damn if anyone boycotts Lulu for any reason. My only goal was to point out the flawed reasoning being used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I was not .
Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying , I must conclude it is my fault .
I was trying to point out that the reasoning behind opposing boycotts based on a company 's support of DRM was flawed , by applying it to something damn near everybody is opposed to vehemently .
I do n't think they are in any sane way comparable .
I was using that fact to show that what the people who opposed boycotting because of DRM really meant was " this does n't bother me enough to boycott and inconvenience myself " and not " you should n't boycott if it inconveniences you " as was implied by the wordings of many of the posters who thought that boycotting because of DRM was silly .
I really do n't give a damn if anyone boycotts Lulu for any reason .
My only goal was to point out the flawed reasoning being used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I was not.
Since you are the third person to have misinterpreted what I was saying, I must conclude it is my fault.
I was trying to point out that the reasoning behind opposing boycotts based on a company's support of DRM was flawed, by applying it to something damn near everybody is opposed to vehemently.
I don't think they are in any sane way comparable.
I was using that fact to show that what the people who opposed boycotting because of DRM really meant was "this doesn't bother me enough to boycott and inconvenience myself" and not "you shouldn't boycott if it inconveniences you" as was implied by the wordings of many of the posters who thought that boycotting because of DRM was silly.
I really don't give a damn if anyone boycotts Lulu for any reason.
My only goal was to point out the flawed reasoning being used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025784</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain about choice?</title>
	<author>Oligonicella</author>
	<datestamp>1257679680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they don't believe your definition of slave labor.  Might be a little loose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they do n't believe your definition of slave labor .
Might be a little loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they don't believe your definition of slave labor.
Might be a little loose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30036576</id>
	<title>Re:CC isn't for everybody.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257797520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea is... well... necessary if you want people to bother writing professionally.</p></div><p>Horsepuckey!  Professional writers can easily make MORE revenue by giving the content away and offering <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogPZ5CY9KoM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">live performances</a> [youtube.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is... well... necessary if you want people to bother writing professionally.Horsepuckey !
Professional writers can easily make MORE revenue by giving the content away and offering live performances [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is... well... necessary if you want people to bother writing professionally.Horsepuckey!
Professional writers can easily make MORE revenue by giving the content away and offering live performances [youtube.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020766</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30023498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30033902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30026640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30036576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30046846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30023832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30026752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30091998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0552209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0552209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0552209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0552209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30036576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30026752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0552209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30046846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0552209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30023498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020450
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019940
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30024740
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30091998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020442
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020590
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021504
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021538
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020772
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30033902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020026
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021944
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30026640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30019888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30022300
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025784
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30025272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30023832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30020202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0552209.30021358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
