<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_1413254</id>
	<title>Regulator Blocks BBC DRM Plans</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257863580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>TheRaven64 writes <i>"The BBC's plans to introduce DRM for over-the-air digital broadcasts were today dealt a setback when the regulator, Ofcom, asked them the same question that has been asked of many DRM systems: '<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm">How does this benefit the consumer?</a>'  The letter to the BBC is quoted in the article as saying that 'Ofcom received a large number of responses to this consultation, in particular from consumers and consumer groups, who raised a number of potentially significant consumer "fair use" and competition issues that were not addressed in our original consultation.'  This does not end the chance of the BBC being allowed to introduce DRM in the future, but it at least delays their opportunity to do so."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>TheRaven64 writes " The BBC 's plans to introduce DRM for over-the-air digital broadcasts were today dealt a setback when the regulator , Ofcom , asked them the same question that has been asked of many DRM systems : 'How does this benefit the consumer ?
' The letter to the BBC is quoted in the article as saying that 'Ofcom received a large number of responses to this consultation , in particular from consumers and consumer groups , who raised a number of potentially significant consumer " fair use " and competition issues that were not addressed in our original consultation .
' This does not end the chance of the BBC being allowed to introduce DRM in the future , but it at least delays their opportunity to do so .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TheRaven64 writes "The BBC's plans to introduce DRM for over-the-air digital broadcasts were today dealt a setback when the regulator, Ofcom, asked them the same question that has been asked of many DRM systems: 'How does this benefit the consumer?
'  The letter to the BBC is quoted in the article as saying that 'Ofcom received a large number of responses to this consultation, in particular from consumers and consumer groups, who raised a number of potentially significant consumer "fair use" and competition issues that were not addressed in our original consultation.
'  This does not end the chance of the BBC being allowed to introduce DRM in the future, but it at least delays their opportunity to do so.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047850</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1257877260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points. I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.</p></div><p>When someone offers an inherently ludicrous opinion like "DRM combats piracy" or "2 + cat = rutabaga", it is perfectly acceptable to say "no, that's dumb" without presenting an alternative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something ( even here on Slashdot ) and fail to anticipate the opposing view 's points .
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.When someone offers an inherently ludicrous opinion like " DRM combats piracy " or " 2 + cat = rutabaga " , it is perfectly acceptable to say " no , that 's dumb " without presenting an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points.
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.When someone offers an inherently ludicrous opinion like "DRM combats piracy" or "2 + cat = rutabaga", it is perfectly acceptable to say "no, that's dumb" without presenting an alternative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047878</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257877320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Rentals - The rental market is based on the basis that you borrow the content for a limited period of time at a significantly reduced rate on the understanding that it will expire.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know about you, but I have no desire to make a copy of something I rent anyway. If it's one of those few things worth watching again, I can rent it again. They'd have to pay be to go through the trouble of keeping a copy of every movie I watched.

</p><p>And anyway, even the rental market is suspect. A real rental market is such because an item can only be used by one person at a time. If I'm renting the pickup truck, you can't also be renting it at the same time. Rental solves this issue without the real cost of producing two trucks so each of us can own one. But with rental of digital material, it's kind of silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rentals - The rental market is based on the basis that you borrow the content for a limited period of time at a significantly reduced rate on the understanding that it will expire.I do n't know about you , but I have no desire to make a copy of something I rent anyway .
If it 's one of those few things worth watching again , I can rent it again .
They 'd have to pay be to go through the trouble of keeping a copy of every movie I watched .
And anyway , even the rental market is suspect .
A real rental market is such because an item can only be used by one person at a time .
If I 'm renting the pickup truck , you ca n't also be renting it at the same time .
Rental solves this issue without the real cost of producing two trucks so each of us can own one .
But with rental of digital material , it 's kind of silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rentals - The rental market is based on the basis that you borrow the content for a limited period of time at a significantly reduced rate on the understanding that it will expire.I don't know about you, but I have no desire to make a copy of something I rent anyway.
If it's one of those few things worth watching again, I can rent it again.
They'd have to pay be to go through the trouble of keeping a copy of every movie I watched.
And anyway, even the rental market is suspect.
A real rental market is such because an item can only be used by one person at a time.
If I'm renting the pickup truck, you can't also be renting it at the same time.
Rental solves this issue without the real cost of producing two trucks so each of us can own one.
But with rental of digital material, it's kind of silly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045704</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257869160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page</p></div><p>Er, if you pay $5 once, you can see the stories early when they're plums.  Had a while to think this through, hope that doesn't rub you the wrong way.  (Note the asterisk to the right of my UID)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it</p></div><p>I don't think that's what I said.  I think the article, government and BBC are very clear on why they think they need this.  I expressed my disapproval in (what I considered) a civil manner of the responses.  I don't think they will hold the DRM at bay.  Was hoping to have a discussion and not demand either side nor anyone "shut their dirty whore mouths."  But way to put words into my mouth, well done.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>has a PDF citation ready to go from some official<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of</p></div><p>That was found in the article on the right side under "on the web."  It's the official site for the responses and discussion.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.</p><p>
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.</p></div><p>Really?  It's come down to the numbers to the right of our names?  I'm flamebait and you're insightful?!  I give up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front pageEr , if you pay $ 5 once , you can see the stories early when they 're plums .
Had a while to think this through , hope that does n't rub you the wrong way .
( Note the asterisk to the right of my UID ) presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC , says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at itI do n't think that 's what I said .
I think the article , government and BBC are very clear on why they think they need this .
I expressed my disapproval in ( what I considered ) a civil manner of the responses .
I do n't think they will hold the DRM at bay .
Was hoping to have a discussion and not demand either side nor anyone " shut their dirty whore mouths .
" But way to put words into my mouth , well done.has a PDF citation ready to go from some official .gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard ofThat was found in the article on the right side under " on the web .
" It 's the official site for the responses and discussion.and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups .
My hat 's off to you sir , you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.Really ?
It 's come down to the numbers to the right of our names ?
I 'm flamebait and you 're insightful ? !
I give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front pageEr, if you pay $5 once, you can see the stories early when they're plums.
Had a while to think this through, hope that doesn't rub you the wrong way.
(Note the asterisk to the right of my UID)presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at itI don't think that's what I said.
I think the article, government and BBC are very clear on why they think they need this.
I expressed my disapproval in (what I considered) a civil manner of the responses.
I don't think they will hold the DRM at bay.
Was hoping to have a discussion and not demand either side nor anyone "shut their dirty whore mouths.
"  But way to put words into my mouth, well done.has a PDF citation ready to go from some official .gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard ofThat was found in the article on the right side under "on the web.
"  It's the official site for the responses and discussion.and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.Really?
It's come down to the numbers to the right of our names?
I'm flamebait and you're insightful?!
I give up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047082</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257874740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM</p></div></blockquote><p>Alternatives other than DRM?  Why not say alternatives other than prayer?</p><blockquote><div><p>Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean "why your specific qualms are worse than nothing."  DRM doesn't reduce piracy. Visit some torrent search sites to see how well DRM has worked.  Look at how many people are downloading a particular file, and then imagine how that number might change, if the original content had 1) more DRM 2) less DRM.  How do you think the numbers might change?</p><blockquote><div><p>his exact situation is just what they intend to block</p></div></blockquote><p>two problems with that:</p><ol><li>DRM <em>can't</em> block that.  DRM only makes it so that this person can't conveniently do what he wants, by getting the content directly from BBC.  Someone else who isn't as worried about convenience, though, <em>is</em> going to bother with defeating the DRM.  And this guy is going to get the content, in a form which <em>does</em> work with his personal computer, from those other parties.  Looks like BBC is telling this guy, "we don't want your money."</li><li>Why should they block that? What might they gain? I understand that some <em>particular</em> BBC partners might want to prevent this person from being a paying customer, but if we're going to talk about the merits of allowing BBC to use DRM in general, then we need to ask: what's <em>in</em> this for <em>who?</em>  How might BBC content partners <em>generally</em> benefit from reduced revenue and increased piracy?  Common sense says that they are better off with increasing revenue and reducing piracy, so I think the burden is on DRM proponents to explain why reducing content provider revenue is a good idea.</li></ol><blockquote><div><p>the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.</p></div></blockquote><p>If those premium content providers ever start looking at things in terms of <em>revenue</em>, the BBC will lose them faster <em>with</em> DRM than without it.</p><blockquote><div><p>It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?</p></div></blockquote><p>They should collect as much revenue as they can, by having as many paying customers as possible, by <em>not</em> telling people "sorry, you need to get the un-DRMed version for your particular PVR.  No, sorry, we don't sell that.  Try some pirate sites."  Their only hope of doing this, is to make their version of the content be just as good as the pirates' version.  The pirates version will always exist.  I'm not saying don't fight the pirates, but they should never sacrifice paying customers to fight pirates, and worse, they should never sacrifice paying customers to <em>ineffectively</em> fight pirates.   Encouraging people to use the pirates' version of the files, isn't a serious way to fight the pirates.</p><blockquote><div><p>That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.</p></div></blockquote><p>The alternative I proffer, is to not deploy DRM.  Look at things in terms of reducing piracy and maximizing revenue, and while my proposal isn't perfect, it does combat piracy and maximize revenue more than using DRM.  So, DRM proponents: what is your alternative to <em>not</em> using DRM?  <em>At least</em> offer a "solution" that is better than not using DRM.  It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be better.  If your solution causes loss of profit and isn't balance by anything to make up for that, then your solution is <em>inferior</em> to not using DRM.</p><p>In the end, I think the problems are: 1) lack of <em>financial</em> (rather than control-freak egomaniac) greed on the part of content providers 2) ignorance on the part of content providers (some of them may think DRM actually works).  We (both consumer advocates, and people who want a thriving entertainment industry) need to educate the content providers on these things.  Get them thinking in terms of profits, like they used to, and sell, sell, sell, sell, and sell, which is how they <em>became</em> the multi-billion dollar industries that they are.  When you've got people who are willing to pay, don't tell them no and refer them to pirates.  Those pirates never did a damned thing for you, or if they did (by getting the word out), it was coincidental and they can't be counted on as legitimate partners.  I promise you, BBC, the pirates are not really on your side.  But the anti-DRM crowd is.  So make your content work with as many consumer devices as possible.  It's probably even worth it to spend whatever money you need to, to <em>increase</em> (rather than reduce) interoperability.  If someone uses a Linux PVR, find a way to do business with that person.  TAKE THE FUCKING MONEY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRMAlternatives other than DRM ?
Why not say alternatives other than prayer ? Well , if you ca n't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracyYou mean " why your specific qualms are worse than nothing .
" DRM does n't reduce piracy .
Visit some torrent search sites to see how well DRM has worked .
Look at how many people are downloading a particular file , and then imagine how that number might change , if the original content had 1 ) more DRM 2 ) less DRM .
How do you think the numbers might change ? his exact situation is just what they intend to blocktwo problems with that : DRM ca n't block that .
DRM only makes it so that this person ca n't conveniently do what he wants , by getting the content directly from BBC .
Someone else who is n't as worried about convenience , though , is going to bother with defeating the DRM .
And this guy is going to get the content , in a form which does work with his personal computer , from those other parties .
Looks like BBC is telling this guy , " we do n't want your money .
" Why should they block that ?
What might they gain ?
I understand that some particular BBC partners might want to prevent this person from being a paying customer , but if we 're going to talk about the merits of allowing BBC to use DRM in general , then we need to ask : what 's in this for who ?
How might BBC content partners generally benefit from reduced revenue and increased piracy ?
Common sense says that they are better off with increasing revenue and reducing piracy , so I think the burden is on DRM proponents to explain why reducing content provider revenue is a good idea.the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this does n't go into effect.If those premium content providers ever start looking at things in terms of revenue , the BBC will lose them faster with DRM than without it.It 's bad alright but what 's your suggested solution to this ( perceived ) problem ? They should collect as much revenue as they can , by having as many paying customers as possible , by not telling people " sorry , you need to get the un-DRMed version for your particular PVR .
No , sorry , we do n't sell that .
Try some pirate sites .
" Their only hope of doing this , is to make their version of the content be just as good as the pirates ' version .
The pirates version will always exist .
I 'm not saying do n't fight the pirates , but they should never sacrifice paying customers to fight pirates , and worse , they should never sacrifice paying customers to ineffectively fight pirates .
Encouraging people to use the pirates ' version of the files , is n't a serious way to fight the pirates.That 's why it will be eventually put into place if you do n't proffer an alternative.The alternative I proffer , is to not deploy DRM .
Look at things in terms of reducing piracy and maximizing revenue , and while my proposal is n't perfect , it does combat piracy and maximize revenue more than using DRM .
So , DRM proponents : what is your alternative to not using DRM ?
At least offer a " solution " that is better than not using DRM .
It does n't have to be perfect , but it should be better .
If your solution causes loss of profit and is n't balance by anything to make up for that , then your solution is inferior to not using DRM.In the end , I think the problems are : 1 ) lack of financial ( rather than control-freak egomaniac ) greed on the part of content providers 2 ) ignorance on the part of content providers ( some of them may think DRM actually works ) .
We ( both consumer advocates , and people who want a thriving entertainment industry ) need to educate the content providers on these things .
Get them thinking in terms of profits , like they used to , and sell , sell , sell , sell , and sell , which is how they became the multi-billion dollar industries that they are .
When you 've got people who are willing to pay , do n't tell them no and refer them to pirates .
Those pirates never did a damned thing for you , or if they did ( by getting the word out ) , it was coincidental and they ca n't be counted on as legitimate partners .
I promise you , BBC , the pirates are not really on your side .
But the anti-DRM crowd is .
So make your content work with as many consumer devices as possible .
It 's probably even worth it to spend whatever money you need to , to increase ( rather than reduce ) interoperability .
If someone uses a Linux PVR , find a way to do business with that person .
TAKE THE FUCKING MONEY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRMAlternatives other than DRM?
Why not say alternatives other than prayer?Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracyYou mean "why your specific qualms are worse than nothing.
"  DRM doesn't reduce piracy.
Visit some torrent search sites to see how well DRM has worked.
Look at how many people are downloading a particular file, and then imagine how that number might change, if the original content had 1) more DRM 2) less DRM.
How do you think the numbers might change?his exact situation is just what they intend to blocktwo problems with that:DRM can't block that.
DRM only makes it so that this person can't conveniently do what he wants, by getting the content directly from BBC.
Someone else who isn't as worried about convenience, though, is going to bother with defeating the DRM.
And this guy is going to get the content, in a form which does work with his personal computer, from those other parties.
Looks like BBC is telling this guy, "we don't want your money.
"Why should they block that?
What might they gain?
I understand that some particular BBC partners might want to prevent this person from being a paying customer, but if we're going to talk about the merits of allowing BBC to use DRM in general, then we need to ask: what's in this for who?
How might BBC content partners generally benefit from reduced revenue and increased piracy?
Common sense says that they are better off with increasing revenue and reducing piracy, so I think the burden is on DRM proponents to explain why reducing content provider revenue is a good idea.the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.If those premium content providers ever start looking at things in terms of revenue, the BBC will lose them faster with DRM than without it.It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?They should collect as much revenue as they can, by having as many paying customers as possible, by not telling people "sorry, you need to get the un-DRMed version for your particular PVR.
No, sorry, we don't sell that.
Try some pirate sites.
"  Their only hope of doing this, is to make their version of the content be just as good as the pirates' version.
The pirates version will always exist.
I'm not saying don't fight the pirates, but they should never sacrifice paying customers to fight pirates, and worse, they should never sacrifice paying customers to ineffectively fight pirates.
Encouraging people to use the pirates' version of the files, isn't a serious way to fight the pirates.That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.The alternative I proffer, is to not deploy DRM.
Look at things in terms of reducing piracy and maximizing revenue, and while my proposal isn't perfect, it does combat piracy and maximize revenue more than using DRM.
So, DRM proponents: what is your alternative to not using DRM?
At least offer a "solution" that is better than not using DRM.
It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be better.
If your solution causes loss of profit and isn't balance by anything to make up for that, then your solution is inferior to not using DRM.In the end, I think the problems are: 1) lack of financial (rather than control-freak egomaniac) greed on the part of content providers 2) ignorance on the part of content providers (some of them may think DRM actually works).
We (both consumer advocates, and people who want a thriving entertainment industry) need to educate the content providers on these things.
Get them thinking in terms of profits, like they used to, and sell, sell, sell, sell, and sell, which is how they became the multi-billion dollar industries that they are.
When you've got people who are willing to pay, don't tell them no and refer them to pirates.
Those pirates never did a damned thing for you, or if they did (by getting the word out), it was coincidental and they can't be counted on as legitimate partners.
I promise you, BBC, the pirates are not really on your side.
But the anti-DRM crowd is.
So make your content work with as many consumer devices as possible.
It's probably even worth it to spend whatever money you need to, to increase (rather than reduce) interoperability.
If someone uses a Linux PVR, find a way to do business with that person.
TAKE THE FUCKING MONEY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045628</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong."</i></p><p>The BBC should not be buying in premium content. The reason why all UK TV owners have to buy a license is to provide financing for the BBC, to enable them to provide quality programming other channels consider money losers. The UK already has 100s of channels showing crap from all over the world, including so-called premium TV shows.</p><p>DRM has nothing to do with piracy, that's just BS. The sole reason for DRM is to take the industry and consumer over to pay per view/listen models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you 'll need a different strategy than just saying , " wrong wrong wrong .
" The BBC should not be buying in premium content .
The reason why all UK TV owners have to buy a license is to provide financing for the BBC , to enable them to provide quality programming other channels consider money losers .
The UK already has 100s of channels showing crap from all over the world , including so-called premium TV shows.DRM has nothing to do with piracy , that 's just BS .
The sole reason for DRM is to take the industry and consumer over to pay per view/listen models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong.
"The BBC should not be buying in premium content.
The reason why all UK TV owners have to buy a license is to provide financing for the BBC, to enable them to provide quality programming other channels consider money losers.
The UK already has 100s of channels showing crap from all over the world, including so-called premium TV shows.DRM has nothing to do with piracy, that's just BS.
The sole reason for DRM is to take the industry and consumer over to pay per view/listen models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045694</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1257869160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a trend I've noticed a fair bit though, on their web site they're generally quite pro-file sharing, well, as best they can be, yet when you see their TV shows it's a completely different story- Jonathan Ross for example has been allowed to advocate over the top 3 strikes policy on the BBC and such.</p><p>I think what we're really seeing here is merely departmental difference. I believe the BBC's web team are quite technologically literate, quite forward thinking, quite intelligent and generally quite liberal. The rest of the organisation however does not seem to be the same.</p><p>It could well be an age thing- it's possible that much of the BBC is made up of the old boys club with celebrities being strongly linked to the media cartels and so forth still. In contrast the web team is most likely made up of people who explicitly went for technical jobs at the BBC or volunteered to go into that team when created. As we know from the sentiment here on Slashdot, technologically minded people rarely support the media cartels stance and so I'm certain this is probably why on the BBC's website we see the good BBC, but on TV we often see the bad BBC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a trend I 've noticed a fair bit though , on their web site they 're generally quite pro-file sharing , well , as best they can be , yet when you see their TV shows it 's a completely different story- Jonathan Ross for example has been allowed to advocate over the top 3 strikes policy on the BBC and such.I think what we 're really seeing here is merely departmental difference .
I believe the BBC 's web team are quite technologically literate , quite forward thinking , quite intelligent and generally quite liberal .
The rest of the organisation however does not seem to be the same.It could well be an age thing- it 's possible that much of the BBC is made up of the old boys club with celebrities being strongly linked to the media cartels and so forth still .
In contrast the web team is most likely made up of people who explicitly went for technical jobs at the BBC or volunteered to go into that team when created .
As we know from the sentiment here on Slashdot , technologically minded people rarely support the media cartels stance and so I 'm certain this is probably why on the BBC 's website we see the good BBC , but on TV we often see the bad BBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a trend I've noticed a fair bit though, on their web site they're generally quite pro-file sharing, well, as best they can be, yet when you see their TV shows it's a completely different story- Jonathan Ross for example has been allowed to advocate over the top 3 strikes policy on the BBC and such.I think what we're really seeing here is merely departmental difference.
I believe the BBC's web team are quite technologically literate, quite forward thinking, quite intelligent and generally quite liberal.
The rest of the organisation however does not seem to be the same.It could well be an age thing- it's possible that much of the BBC is made up of the old boys club with celebrities being strongly linked to the media cartels and so forth still.
In contrast the web team is most likely made up of people who explicitly went for technical jobs at the BBC or volunteered to go into that team when created.
As we know from the sentiment here on Slashdot, technologically minded people rarely support the media cartels stance and so I'm certain this is probably why on the BBC's website we see the good BBC, but on TV we often see the bad BBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046066</id>
	<title>Anonymous because I haven't regged yet..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue with DRM is not whether its good or bad, its how its how it is applied.</p><p>A proper digital rights management would allow users to purchase only the content they want to see.<br>Lets say I want to purchase a season of  and view it via HD streaming online or anywhere else I can get access to the content. Then a DRM could allow persons to view the content. However the customer's "rightful use" must be guaranteed, allowing multiple and unequivocal access to the media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with DRM is not whether its good or bad , its how its how it is applied.A proper digital rights management would allow users to purchase only the content they want to see.Lets say I want to purchase a season of and view it via HD streaming online or anywhere else I can get access to the content .
Then a DRM could allow persons to view the content .
However the customer 's " rightful use " must be guaranteed , allowing multiple and unequivocal access to the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with DRM is not whether its good or bad, its how its how it is applied.A proper digital rights management would allow users to purchase only the content they want to see.Lets say I want to purchase a season of  and view it via HD streaming online or anywhere else I can get access to the content.
Then a DRM could allow persons to view the content.
However the customer's "rightful use" must be guaranteed, allowing multiple and unequivocal access to the media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045698</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257869160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A media organization reporting on a conflict involving itself?  The BBC has gone gonzo now?  <p>I suppose it wouldn't be a good idea to point out the blatant contradiction between "good example of the BBC covering a BBC-related story in a <i>balanced manner</i>" (my italics) and "It contains more quotes from people opposed to the plans than in favour of it."  Two legs good, four legs better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A media organization reporting on a conflict involving itself ?
The BBC has gone gonzo now ?
I suppose it would n't be a good idea to point out the blatant contradiction between " good example of the BBC covering a BBC-related story in a balanced manner " ( my italics ) and " It contains more quotes from people opposed to the plans than in favour of it .
" Two legs good , four legs better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A media organization reporting on a conflict involving itself?
The BBC has gone gonzo now?
I suppose it wouldn't be a good idea to point out the blatant contradiction between "good example of the BBC covering a BBC-related story in a balanced manner" (my italics) and "It contains more quotes from people opposed to the plans than in favour of it.
"  Two legs good, four legs better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30057614</id>
	<title>Re:BBC covering their own backs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the BBC are very ratings focused. They are going head to head with ITV (the biggest independent TV station in the UK) over the Saturday night prime slot with their own reality TV/talent show for example</p></div><p>which has ruffled a few feathers - itv is sinking in the face of an over-funded bbc. it is time this institution had it's wings clipped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the BBC are very ratings focused .
They are going head to head with ITV ( the biggest independent TV station in the UK ) over the Saturday night prime slot with their own reality TV/talent show for examplewhich has ruffled a few feathers - itv is sinking in the face of an over-funded bbc .
it is time this institution had it 's wings clipped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the BBC are very ratings focused.
They are going head to head with ITV (the biggest independent TV station in the UK) over the Saturday night prime slot with their own reality TV/talent show for examplewhich has ruffled a few feathers - itv is sinking in the face of an over-funded bbc.
it is time this institution had it's wings clipped.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047176</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1257875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com] - bullshit ranting, including a post saying that saying "occupied east philistine" is biased.<br><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]  - Daily mail, nuf said<br>the times article is not as bad but:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Singled out is the coverage of Bob Geldof&rsquo;s Live 8 concert and the Make Poverty History campaign. The report says there was no rounded debate of the issues.</p></div><p>Debate on what?<br>I think the best line in an article attack the BBC was:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial</p></div><p>The wikipedia article is just a catalogue of criticisms from the daily mail and it's ilk.</p><p>It's much more effective to check facts than just be exposed to both sets of lies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] - bullshit ranting , including a post saying that saying " occupied east philistine " is biased.http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html [ dailymail.co.uk ] - Daily mail , nuf saidthe times article is not as bad but : Singled out is the coverage of Bob Geldof    s Live 8 concert and the Make Poverty History campaign .
The report says there was no rounded debate of the issues.Debate on what ? I think the best line in an article attack the BBC was : its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartialThe wikipedia article is just a catalogue of criticisms from the daily mail and it 's ilk.It 's much more effective to check facts than just be exposed to both sets of lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] - bullshit ranting, including a post saying that saying "occupied east philistine" is biased.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html [dailymail.co.uk]  - Daily mail, nuf saidthe times article is not as bad but:Singled out is the coverage of Bob Geldof’s Live 8 concert and the Make Poverty History campaign.
The report says there was no rounded debate of the issues.Debate on what?I think the best line in an article attack the BBC was:its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartialThe wikipedia article is just a catalogue of criticisms from the daily mail and it's ilk.It's much more effective to check facts than just be exposed to both sets of lies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046348</id>
	<title>What is the real problem?</title>
	<author>Sterculius</author>
	<datestamp>1257871980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me, the real problem is greed.  If the content providers were content to simply make a profit and live like normal human beings, then prices would be reasonable and pirating would be even more uncommon than it is already.  But no, everybody has to try and become a millionaire (ah, so old-fashioned, I mean billionaire of course!).

The current thinking is that it is a corporation's job to maximize profit.  That makes corporations necessarily hostile to society and civilization as a whole.  This type of thinking dictates that they must gouge, hype, stifle competition, and use monopolistic practices to victimize the consumer for maximum gain.

In the United States, we can't even pass health care reform because corporations don't want it.  These corporations bribe, intimidate, and use the media they control to turn public opinion against the public good.  For as long as we continue to believe that greed is good, and that the goal of business is to maximize profits, our societies will continue to decline, and our jobs will go elsewhere, and our governments will work against us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , the real problem is greed .
If the content providers were content to simply make a profit and live like normal human beings , then prices would be reasonable and pirating would be even more uncommon than it is already .
But no , everybody has to try and become a millionaire ( ah , so old-fashioned , I mean billionaire of course ! ) .
The current thinking is that it is a corporation 's job to maximize profit .
That makes corporations necessarily hostile to society and civilization as a whole .
This type of thinking dictates that they must gouge , hype , stifle competition , and use monopolistic practices to victimize the consumer for maximum gain .
In the United States , we ca n't even pass health care reform because corporations do n't want it .
These corporations bribe , intimidate , and use the media they control to turn public opinion against the public good .
For as long as we continue to believe that greed is good , and that the goal of business is to maximize profits , our societies will continue to decline , and our jobs will go elsewhere , and our governments will work against us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, the real problem is greed.
If the content providers were content to simply make a profit and live like normal human beings, then prices would be reasonable and pirating would be even more uncommon than it is already.
But no, everybody has to try and become a millionaire (ah, so old-fashioned, I mean billionaire of course!).
The current thinking is that it is a corporation's job to maximize profit.
That makes corporations necessarily hostile to society and civilization as a whole.
This type of thinking dictates that they must gouge, hype, stifle competition, and use monopolistic practices to victimize the consumer for maximum gain.
In the United States, we can't even pass health care reform because corporations don't want it.
These corporations bribe, intimidate, and use the media they control to turn public opinion against the public good.
For as long as we continue to believe that greed is good, and that the goal of business is to maximize profits, our societies will continue to decline, and our jobs will go elsewhere, and our governments will work against us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046384</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>mikeplokta</author>
	<datestamp>1257872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a response that the film and TV industries have never yet tried; how about letting people pay them money for legal downloads without DRM on the day of release? It's impossible to stop people downloading content, so you'd think they could at least experiment with letting people pay them for it rather than giving consumers who want unencumbered and timely content no choice but to pirate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a response that the film and TV industries have never yet tried ; how about letting people pay them money for legal downloads without DRM on the day of release ?
It 's impossible to stop people downloading content , so you 'd think they could at least experiment with letting people pay them for it rather than giving consumers who want unencumbered and timely content no choice but to pirate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a response that the film and TV industries have never yet tried; how about letting people pay them money for legal downloads without DRM on the day of release?
It's impossible to stop people downloading content, so you'd think they could at least experiment with letting people pay them for it rather than giving consumers who want unencumbered and timely content no choice but to pirate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046360</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Spykk</author>
	<datestamp>1257872040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.</p></div><p>
This calls for a car analogy. Using DRM to stop piracy is like dumping sawdust in with your oil to fix a knock. Sure, the knock might go away for a little while, but at the end of the day you have done far more damage to your car than you would have if you had left it alone.<br>
People may not have an alternative to DRM for stopping piracy, but DRM only stops the most casual of pirates and causes undue harm to legitimate customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM .
This calls for a car analogy .
Using DRM to stop piracy is like dumping sawdust in with your oil to fix a knock .
Sure , the knock might go away for a little while , but at the end of the day you have done far more damage to your car than you would have if you had left it alone .
People may not have an alternative to DRM for stopping piracy , but DRM only stops the most casual of pirates and causes undue harm to legitimate customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.
This calls for a car analogy.
Using DRM to stop piracy is like dumping sawdust in with your oil to fix a knock.
Sure, the knock might go away for a little while, but at the end of the day you have done far more damage to your car than you would have if you had left it alone.
People may not have an alternative to DRM for stopping piracy, but DRM only stops the most casual of pirates and causes undue harm to legitimate customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046104</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>FireFury03</author>
	<datestamp>1257870960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/responses/Hall.pdf" title="ofcom.org.uk">particular fellow </a> [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of <b>losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card</b>; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.</p></div></div><p>Why would they want to block this?  Note that he said <b>watch</b> TV on a computer - if he had said that he wanted to keep the ability to illegally copy it then you might have a point, but that's not what he said at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.</p></div><p>Why should I (the licence fee payer) be legally required to financially support something controversial like DRM, that I fundamentally disagree with?  If the content producers don't want the BBC to have their content then that's fine by me, but it will reduce their profits (by immediately excluding the BBC from the bidding process, they are automatically reducing the value of their content since less bidders means a lower winning bid (on average)).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?</p></div><p>Perceived problems don't need solutions.  Real problems need solutions.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.</p></div><p>The alternative is to continue doing as they have been doing for decades - allowing licence payers to use the content to the full extent allowed by the law (and yes, this includes building your own receiver).  Its worked up till now, why do they need to change?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.</p></div><p>DRM doesn't actually do anything to reduce copyright infringement.  If anything, it increases copyright infringement by reducing the number of people who can get at the content by legitimate means.  The choice is going to come down to:<br>* Replace my whole A/V system with a new system that has extremely limited functionality compared to what I already have.<br>* Illegally download the content off the internet.<br>Guess which choice I'm more likely to pick?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One particular fellow [ ofcom.org.uk ] does n't even seem to put two and two together ( or spell correctly ) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block : Personally third party content is of little importance to me , certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card ; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC 's proprietary compression tables.Why would they want to block this ?
Note that he said watch TV on a computer - if he had said that he wanted to keep the ability to illegally copy it then you might have a point , but that 's not what he said at all.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this does n't go into effect.Why should I ( the licence fee payer ) be legally required to financially support something controversial like DRM , that I fundamentally disagree with ?
If the content producers do n't want the BBC to have their content then that 's fine by me , but it will reduce their profits ( by immediately excluding the BBC from the bidding process , they are automatically reducing the value of their content since less bidders means a lower winning bid ( on average ) ) .It 's bad alright but what 's your suggested solution to this ( perceived ) problem ? Perceived problems do n't need solutions .
Real problems need solutions.That 's why it will be eventually put into place if you do n't proffer an alternative.The alternative is to continue doing as they have been doing for decades - allowing licence payers to use the content to the full extent allowed by the law ( and yes , this includes building your own receiver ) .
Its worked up till now , why do they need to change ? Fundamentally , DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.DRM does n't actually do anything to reduce copyright infringement .
If anything , it increases copyright infringement by reducing the number of people who can get at the content by legitimate means .
The choice is going to come down to : * Replace my whole A/V system with a new system that has extremely limited functionality compared to what I already have .
* Illegally download the content off the internet.Guess which choice I 'm more likely to pick ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One particular fellow  [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.Why would they want to block this?
Note that he said watch TV on a computer - if he had said that he wanted to keep the ability to illegally copy it then you might have a point, but that's not what he said at all.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.Why should I (the licence fee payer) be legally required to financially support something controversial like DRM, that I fundamentally disagree with?
If the content producers don't want the BBC to have their content then that's fine by me, but it will reduce their profits (by immediately excluding the BBC from the bidding process, they are automatically reducing the value of their content since less bidders means a lower winning bid (on average)).It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?Perceived problems don't need solutions.
Real problems need solutions.That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.The alternative is to continue doing as they have been doing for decades - allowing licence payers to use the content to the full extent allowed by the law (and yes, this includes building your own receiver).
Its worked up till now, why do they need to change?Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.DRM doesn't actually do anything to reduce copyright infringement.
If anything, it increases copyright infringement by reducing the number of people who can get at the content by legitimate means.
The choice is going to come down to:* Replace my whole A/V system with a new system that has extremely limited functionality compared to what I already have.
* Illegally download the content off the internet.Guess which choice I'm more likely to pick?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046496</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257872640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a UK citizen paying the license fee, I am one of the many people who know what DRM is and is against it.  DRM hampers the service provided to the paying customer more than it hampers it's 'service' to non-paying customers.  Having purchased DRM music in my early, naive, days, and having reinstalled Windows (and now Linux) several times, I curse the damn files that I payed for and can't play.  Wouldn't it be ironic that I now have to resort to 'piracy' in order to regain the music I payed for?</p><p>As far as I am concerned, the BBC gets their license fee whether DRM is used or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a UK citizen paying the license fee , I am one of the many people who know what DRM is and is against it .
DRM hampers the service provided to the paying customer more than it hampers it 's 'service ' to non-paying customers .
Having purchased DRM music in my early , naive , days , and having reinstalled Windows ( and now Linux ) several times , I curse the damn files that I payed for and ca n't play .
Would n't it be ironic that I now have to resort to 'piracy ' in order to regain the music I payed for ? As far as I am concerned , the BBC gets their license fee whether DRM is used or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a UK citizen paying the license fee, I am one of the many people who know what DRM is and is against it.
DRM hampers the service provided to the paying customer more than it hampers it's 'service' to non-paying customers.
Having purchased DRM music in my early, naive, days, and having reinstalled Windows (and now Linux) several times, I curse the damn files that I payed for and can't play.
Wouldn't it be ironic that I now have to resort to 'piracy' in order to regain the music I payed for?As far as I am concerned, the BBC gets their license fee whether DRM is used or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1257869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>DRM was never about the consumer. The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.</p></div></blockquote><p>At the risk of being burned at the stake, I can think of two scenarios where DRM would benefit the customer:</p><ol>
<li> <b>Try before you buy</b> - This allows customers to get content for free for a limited period of time to determine whether or not they want to purchase it. Note that I'm talking about the DRM on the sample piece of content, not the final product. For example, try a ringtone on your phone for 2 days. If you like it, then you can buy the full (DRM free) version.</li><li> <b>Rentals</b> - The rental market is based on the basis that you borrow the content for a limited period of time at a significantly reduced rate on the understanding that it will expire.</li></ol><p>In both cases, however, note that both parties get something out of the transaction and the terms and conditions are understood and agreed in advance. They get my money, I don't pay full price and they don't get me keeping the content.</p><p>Personally I wouldn't want to see rentals disappear. I'm happy with the fact that it's only mine for a couple of days on the basis that I pay only a quarter of the purchase price.</p><p>I won't shed a tear for the other forms of DRM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM was never about the consumer .
The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.At the risk of being burned at the stake , I can think of two scenarios where DRM would benefit the customer : Try before you buy - This allows customers to get content for free for a limited period of time to determine whether or not they want to purchase it .
Note that I 'm talking about the DRM on the sample piece of content , not the final product .
For example , try a ringtone on your phone for 2 days .
If you like it , then you can buy the full ( DRM free ) version .
Rentals - The rental market is based on the basis that you borrow the content for a limited period of time at a significantly reduced rate on the understanding that it will expire.In both cases , however , note that both parties get something out of the transaction and the terms and conditions are understood and agreed in advance .
They get my money , I do n't pay full price and they do n't get me keeping the content.Personally I would n't want to see rentals disappear .
I 'm happy with the fact that it 's only mine for a couple of days on the basis that I pay only a quarter of the purchase price.I wo n't shed a tear for the other forms of DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM was never about the consumer.
The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.At the risk of being burned at the stake, I can think of two scenarios where DRM would benefit the customer:
 Try before you buy - This allows customers to get content for free for a limited period of time to determine whether or not they want to purchase it.
Note that I'm talking about the DRM on the sample piece of content, not the final product.
For example, try a ringtone on your phone for 2 days.
If you like it, then you can buy the full (DRM free) version.
Rentals - The rental market is based on the basis that you borrow the content for a limited period of time at a significantly reduced rate on the understanding that it will expire.In both cases, however, note that both parties get something out of the transaction and the terms and conditions are understood and agreed in advance.
They get my money, I don't pay full price and they don't get me keeping the content.Personally I wouldn't want to see rentals disappear.
I'm happy with the fact that it's only mine for a couple of days on the basis that I pay only a quarter of the purchase price.I won't shed a tear for the other forms of DRM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050038</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257884940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple solution: lose that premium content.</p><p>You answered your own question with the word "perceived."  There is no real problem here, only an artificial one created by the content providers.  So no solution is really necessary at all.  Those providers are placing artificial rules in place (the DRM) that require technology that is technically impossible, doesn't work anyway, doesn't provide them any profit, and hurts the customer.  Those businesses should just fail (or at least, lose the sale in this case). Eventually, other more reasonable providers will fill the gap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple solution : lose that premium content.You answered your own question with the word " perceived .
" There is no real problem here , only an artificial one created by the content providers .
So no solution is really necessary at all .
Those providers are placing artificial rules in place ( the DRM ) that require technology that is technically impossible , does n't work anyway , does n't provide them any profit , and hurts the customer .
Those businesses should just fail ( or at least , lose the sale in this case ) .
Eventually , other more reasonable providers will fill the gap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple solution: lose that premium content.You answered your own question with the word "perceived.
"  There is no real problem here, only an artificial one created by the content providers.
So no solution is really necessary at all.
Those providers are placing artificial rules in place (the DRM) that require technology that is technically impossible, doesn't work anyway, doesn't provide them any profit, and hurts the customer.
Those businesses should just fail (or at least, lose the sale in this case).
Eventually, other more reasonable providers will fill the gap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046028</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1257870720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.</p></div><p>Time for a bad analogy.  You are a Doctor, and your patient has a terminal and incurable disease.  You can do nothing and your patient will die or you can pump him full of dangerous, nauseating chemotherapy, and your patient will die in agony. (or you can shoot him full of painkillers and he'll die peacefully)
<br> <br>
Sometimes there is no solution, and the best thing to do is let the patient die quietly with dignity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.Time for a bad analogy .
You are a Doctor , and your patient has a terminal and incurable disease .
You can do nothing and your patient will die or you can pump him full of dangerous , nauseating chemotherapy , and your patient will die in agony .
( or you can shoot him full of painkillers and he 'll die peacefully ) Sometimes there is no solution , and the best thing to do is let the patient die quietly with dignity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.Time for a bad analogy.
You are a Doctor, and your patient has a terminal and incurable disease.
You can do nothing and your patient will die or you can pump him full of dangerous, nauseating chemotherapy, and your patient will die in agony.
(or you can shoot him full of painkillers and he'll die peacefully)
 
Sometimes there is no solution, and the best thing to do is let the patient die quietly with dignity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047160</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1257875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last BBC News (TV) that I watched gave me the impression that the BBC was anti-EU. It was the day the Lisbon treaty was signed, and instead of focusing on important things, like what it was, why there'd been delays signing it, why the UK (and Poland) had negotiated <i>opt outs from the citizens' rights section</i> (!) etc they just interviewed a load of people saying it was bad for democracy, i.e. anti-EU people.</p><p>What does annoy me is that the BBC is becoming more sensationalist. Although nothing compared to the most recent Daily Mail headline I saw: "Sickening video shows drunk woman's brush with death after falling onto underground tracks -- right in the path of an oncoming train!" (I watched the video, and was wondering if the faint red boxes that appear are the results of a potential-suicidee detection system, which it seems they are.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last BBC News ( TV ) that I watched gave me the impression that the BBC was anti-EU .
It was the day the Lisbon treaty was signed , and instead of focusing on important things , like what it was , why there 'd been delays signing it , why the UK ( and Poland ) had negotiated opt outs from the citizens ' rights section ( !
) etc they just interviewed a load of people saying it was bad for democracy , i.e .
anti-EU people.What does annoy me is that the BBC is becoming more sensationalist .
Although nothing compared to the most recent Daily Mail headline I saw : " Sickening video shows drunk woman 's brush with death after falling onto underground tracks -- right in the path of an oncoming train !
" ( I watched the video , and was wondering if the faint red boxes that appear are the results of a potential-suicidee detection system , which it seems they are .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last BBC News (TV) that I watched gave me the impression that the BBC was anti-EU.
It was the day the Lisbon treaty was signed, and instead of focusing on important things, like what it was, why there'd been delays signing it, why the UK (and Poland) had negotiated opt outs from the citizens' rights section (!
) etc they just interviewed a load of people saying it was bad for democracy, i.e.
anti-EU people.What does annoy me is that the BBC is becoming more sensationalist.
Although nothing compared to the most recent Daily Mail headline I saw: "Sickening video shows drunk woman's brush with death after falling onto underground tracks -- right in the path of an oncoming train!
" (I watched the video, and was wondering if the faint red boxes that appear are the results of a potential-suicidee detection system, which it seems they are.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045660</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1257868980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if the BBC would only (re-)learn that you can have multiple sentences per paragraph, it would actually be readable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if the BBC would only ( re- ) learn that you can have multiple sentences per paragraph , it would actually be readable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if the BBC would only (re-)learn that you can have multiple sentences per paragraph, it would actually be readable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050500</id>
	<title>Old thinking..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're still thinking of business in terms that only really fit the physical distribution of a limited commodity. Rentals? Why rent? The media is beyond cheap and the distribution nearly instantaneous with the ability to cheaply create unlimited copies. It's more akin to selling air, which is convenient to purchase at the pump to fill your tires; most of the value comes from that convenience because air is ubiquitous. I'm not saying the media comes without cost but that cost has been grossly exaggerated in part by the lack of a pre-existing delivery system.</p><p>But before I completely bore you with my tangent: renting is now totally unnecessary. Tivo proved this. Emusic proved this. Cable proved this. By struggling to recreate this limited availability these companies are essentially creating the Pirate Bays and Rapidshares out there and that's their new profit stream. You needn't care how long a 'rental' is yours because you're not denying anyone else access to it.</p><p>As for try before you buy, streaming lower quality bitrates works great for this. Some people might be happy to rip these, but not much if higher quality media is trivially cheap.</p><p>DRM achieves nothing but emulating the distribution of boxed plastic disks and sooner or later no one will really remember such out dated content delivery systems, well, but us old timers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're still thinking of business in terms that only really fit the physical distribution of a limited commodity .
Rentals ? Why rent ?
The media is beyond cheap and the distribution nearly instantaneous with the ability to cheaply create unlimited copies .
It 's more akin to selling air , which is convenient to purchase at the pump to fill your tires ; most of the value comes from that convenience because air is ubiquitous .
I 'm not saying the media comes without cost but that cost has been grossly exaggerated in part by the lack of a pre-existing delivery system.But before I completely bore you with my tangent : renting is now totally unnecessary .
Tivo proved this .
Emusic proved this .
Cable proved this .
By struggling to recreate this limited availability these companies are essentially creating the Pirate Bays and Rapidshares out there and that 's their new profit stream .
You need n't care how long a 'rental ' is yours because you 're not denying anyone else access to it.As for try before you buy , streaming lower quality bitrates works great for this .
Some people might be happy to rip these , but not much if higher quality media is trivially cheap.DRM achieves nothing but emulating the distribution of boxed plastic disks and sooner or later no one will really remember such out dated content delivery systems , well , but us old timers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're still thinking of business in terms that only really fit the physical distribution of a limited commodity.
Rentals? Why rent?
The media is beyond cheap and the distribution nearly instantaneous with the ability to cheaply create unlimited copies.
It's more akin to selling air, which is convenient to purchase at the pump to fill your tires; most of the value comes from that convenience because air is ubiquitous.
I'm not saying the media comes without cost but that cost has been grossly exaggerated in part by the lack of a pre-existing delivery system.But before I completely bore you with my tangent: renting is now totally unnecessary.
Tivo proved this.
Emusic proved this.
Cable proved this.
By struggling to recreate this limited availability these companies are essentially creating the Pirate Bays and Rapidshares out there and that's their new profit stream.
You needn't care how long a 'rental' is yours because you're not denying anyone else access to it.As for try before you buy, streaming lower quality bitrates works great for this.
Some people might be happy to rip these, but not much if higher quality media is trivially cheap.DRM achieves nothing but emulating the distribution of boxed plastic disks and sooner or later no one will really remember such out dated content delivery systems, well, but us old timers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047694</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>WolfWithoutAClause</author>
	<datestamp>1257876720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't like to bet that the BBC really want to do this though.</p><p>It looks to me that they know it's a daft idea, and that they're being politically forced into doing something fundamentally useless in order that the content producers will continue to sell them stuff.</p><p>If they make the right sounds, they can let the idea gradually collapse under its own useless weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't like to bet that the BBC really want to do this though.It looks to me that they know it 's a daft idea , and that they 're being politically forced into doing something fundamentally useless in order that the content producers will continue to sell them stuff.If they make the right sounds , they can let the idea gradually collapse under its own useless weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't like to bet that the BBC really want to do this though.It looks to me that they know it's a daft idea, and that they're being politically forced into doing something fundamentally useless in order that the content producers will continue to sell them stuff.If they make the right sounds, they can let the idea gradually collapse under its own useless weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045640</id>
	<title>the regulator?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, that's obviously the problem... regulation of any kind is BAD, free markets RULE. God, what have the LIEberals done to you guys?\</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , that 's obviously the problem... regulation of any kind is BAD , free markets RULE .
God , what have the LIEberals done to you guys ? \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, that's obviously the problem... regulation of any kind is BAD, free markets RULE.
God, what have the LIEberals done to you guys?\</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046536</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Otto</author>
	<datestamp>1257872760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the specific case of "rental", I'm always entertained by the comparison of the physical vs. the virtual world here. Specifically, the difference in distribution costs. Basically, rental makes no sense for the digital world in terms of distribution.</p><p>Think about it, the cost to download the content is the same whether you purchase it or rent it. The file would be the same one either way, basically. However, with rental, the price comes down because there's some sort of agreement or enforcement to make your copy expire in some fashion.</p><p>And if you consider it that way, it actually costs the retailer MORE for rental properties, as they now have to spend money on some kind of DRM scheme to enforce the time-based part of the contract. So the only reason for them to actually do this is volume; they'd have to get a significantly higher volume to make up for the price difference. If it's $3 to rent and $9 to buy, then they'd have to rent *over* three times as much as they'd sell, since there's also three times the bandwidth to be paid for now, as well as the costs of the DRM.</p><p>Streaming suffers from this even more, now you pay the bandwidth to transfer the content *every single time* it's viewed.</p><p>So why bother with rental at all?</p><p>What if, instead, they sold the content at the rental price (or just a hair above it)? Just sell a one-time download (possibly with a confirmation scheme to ensure the download finishes). No repeats, you don't gain ownership in the sense that you can redownload it indefinitely (you delete it, tough luck to you). $3 and you can download a copy and we're done, end of transaction.</p><p>Ideally, they'd sell as many as they'd rent in this case (probably more considering it's a "buy" and buyers will take advantage of the reduced costs). The bandwidth usage is basically the same as the rental model, there's no DRM scheme to deal with and no added costs to cope with there. Essentially, they'd be able to make more money this way. Possibly a lot more.</p><p>Separation of the market into rental and purchase *doesn't make any sense* in the digital realm. When you have actual physical product to transfer around, sure, that works. But when the cost of each is basically the same, then there's little point in separation based on a price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the specific case of " rental " , I 'm always entertained by the comparison of the physical vs. the virtual world here .
Specifically , the difference in distribution costs .
Basically , rental makes no sense for the digital world in terms of distribution.Think about it , the cost to download the content is the same whether you purchase it or rent it .
The file would be the same one either way , basically .
However , with rental , the price comes down because there 's some sort of agreement or enforcement to make your copy expire in some fashion.And if you consider it that way , it actually costs the retailer MORE for rental properties , as they now have to spend money on some kind of DRM scheme to enforce the time-based part of the contract .
So the only reason for them to actually do this is volume ; they 'd have to get a significantly higher volume to make up for the price difference .
If it 's $ 3 to rent and $ 9 to buy , then they 'd have to rent * over * three times as much as they 'd sell , since there 's also three times the bandwidth to be paid for now , as well as the costs of the DRM.Streaming suffers from this even more , now you pay the bandwidth to transfer the content * every single time * it 's viewed.So why bother with rental at all ? What if , instead , they sold the content at the rental price ( or just a hair above it ) ?
Just sell a one-time download ( possibly with a confirmation scheme to ensure the download finishes ) .
No repeats , you do n't gain ownership in the sense that you can redownload it indefinitely ( you delete it , tough luck to you ) .
$ 3 and you can download a copy and we 're done , end of transaction.Ideally , they 'd sell as many as they 'd rent in this case ( probably more considering it 's a " buy " and buyers will take advantage of the reduced costs ) .
The bandwidth usage is basically the same as the rental model , there 's no DRM scheme to deal with and no added costs to cope with there .
Essentially , they 'd be able to make more money this way .
Possibly a lot more.Separation of the market into rental and purchase * does n't make any sense * in the digital realm .
When you have actual physical product to transfer around , sure , that works .
But when the cost of each is basically the same , then there 's little point in separation based on a price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the specific case of "rental", I'm always entertained by the comparison of the physical vs. the virtual world here.
Specifically, the difference in distribution costs.
Basically, rental makes no sense for the digital world in terms of distribution.Think about it, the cost to download the content is the same whether you purchase it or rent it.
The file would be the same one either way, basically.
However, with rental, the price comes down because there's some sort of agreement or enforcement to make your copy expire in some fashion.And if you consider it that way, it actually costs the retailer MORE for rental properties, as they now have to spend money on some kind of DRM scheme to enforce the time-based part of the contract.
So the only reason for them to actually do this is volume; they'd have to get a significantly higher volume to make up for the price difference.
If it's $3 to rent and $9 to buy, then they'd have to rent *over* three times as much as they'd sell, since there's also three times the bandwidth to be paid for now, as well as the costs of the DRM.Streaming suffers from this even more, now you pay the bandwidth to transfer the content *every single time* it's viewed.So why bother with rental at all?What if, instead, they sold the content at the rental price (or just a hair above it)?
Just sell a one-time download (possibly with a confirmation scheme to ensure the download finishes).
No repeats, you don't gain ownership in the sense that you can redownload it indefinitely (you delete it, tough luck to you).
$3 and you can download a copy and we're done, end of transaction.Ideally, they'd sell as many as they'd rent in this case (probably more considering it's a "buy" and buyers will take advantage of the reduced costs).
The bandwidth usage is basically the same as the rental model, there's no DRM scheme to deal with and no added costs to cope with there.
Essentially, they'd be able to make more money this way.
Possibly a lot more.Separation of the market into rental and purchase *doesn't make any sense* in the digital realm.
When you have actual physical product to transfer around, sure, that works.
But when the cost of each is basically the same, then there's little point in separation based on a price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</id>
	<title>Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points.  I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.  Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong.  Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy.  Of course, you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently.  The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong."  <br> <br>

One <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/responses/Hall.pdf" title="ofcom.org.uk">particular fellow </a> [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:<p><div class="quote"><p>While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this. I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.<br> <br>
Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of <b>losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card</b>; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.</p></div><p>It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.  It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?  That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.  Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.  Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something ( even here on Slashdot ) and fail to anticipate the opposing view 's points .
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM .
Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong .
Well , if you ca n't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy .
Of course , you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently .
The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you 'll need a different strategy than just saying , " wrong wrong wrong .
" One particular fellow [ ofcom.org.uk ] does n't even seem to put two and two together ( or spell correctly ) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block : While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this .
I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC 's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers .
Personally third party content is of little importance to me , certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card ; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC 's proprietary compression tables.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this does n't go into effect .
It 's bad alright but what 's your suggested solution to this ( perceived ) problem ?
That 's why it will be eventually put into place if you do n't proffer an alternative .
Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really is n't a big deal , that 's your only choice .
Fundamentally , DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points.
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.
Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong.
Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy.
Of course, you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently.
The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong.
"   

One particular fellow  [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this.
I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.
Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.
It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?
That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.
Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.
Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048402</id>
	<title>Work for 3 hours, earn for the rest of your life.</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1257878940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's essentially what it boils down to. If I paint a wall in a neighbours house, I charge for the time it takes to paint it. I don't expect to "earn" money every time the poor sods look at the bloody wall, now do I?<br> <br>
It's about time we sat down &amp; looked at this copyright/DRM lark seriously. In no other profession can you expect to earn money, 70 sodding years after you are dead, for 3 hours work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's essentially what it boils down to .
If I paint a wall in a neighbours house , I charge for the time it takes to paint it .
I do n't expect to " earn " money every time the poor sods look at the bloody wall , now do I ?
It 's about time we sat down &amp; looked at this copyright/DRM lark seriously .
In no other profession can you expect to earn money , 70 sodding years after you are dead , for 3 hours work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's essentially what it boils down to.
If I paint a wall in a neighbours house, I charge for the time it takes to paint it.
I don't expect to "earn" money every time the poor sods look at the bloody wall, now do I?
It's about time we sat down &amp; looked at this copyright/DRM lark seriously.
In no other profession can you expect to earn money, 70 sodding years after you are dead, for 3 hours work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050048</id>
	<title>Re:Work for 3 hours, earn for the rest of your lif</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257885000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's about time we sat down &amp; looked at this copyright/DRM lark seriously. In no other profession can you expect to earn money, 70 sodding years after you are dead, for 3 hours work.</i> <br> <br>Or indeed any amount of work your ancestors may have done for decades after they died.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time we sat down &amp; looked at this copyright/DRM lark seriously .
In no other profession can you expect to earn money , 70 sodding years after you are dead , for 3 hours work .
Or indeed any amount of work your ancestors may have done for decades after they died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time we sat down &amp; looked at this copyright/DRM lark seriously.
In no other profession can you expect to earn money, 70 sodding years after you are dead, for 3 hours work.
Or indeed any amount of work your ancestors may have done for decades after they died.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30054174</id>
	<title>Don't worry too much</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1257860820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At the risk of being burned at the stake, [...]</p></div><p>Don't sweat it.  Your post doesn't contain enough evidence for the mods to conclusively prove that you weigh the same as a duck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the risk of being burned at the stake , [ ... ] Do n't sweat it .
Your post does n't contain enough evidence for the mods to conclusively prove that you weigh the same as a duck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the risk of being burned at the stake, [...]Don't sweat it.
Your post doesn't contain enough evidence for the mods to conclusively prove that you weigh the same as a duck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046648</id>
	<title>BBC covering their own backs</title>
	<author>mr\_stark</author>
	<datestamp>1257873180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC board are not stupid, they know applying to have tax payer funded content restricted isnt going to fly. They are maneuvering to cover their backs. Despite what they say the BBC are very ratings focused. They are going head to head with ITV (the biggest independent TV station in the UK) over the Saturday night prime slot with their own reality TV/talent show for example.</p><p>They want to broadcast popular shows but dont want content restriction to be used as leverage by the content providers. Rather than saying "we wont do that b/c its not in the public interest" the BBC are aiming to say "We cant use DRM b/c its against the law."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC board are not stupid , they know applying to have tax payer funded content restricted isnt going to fly .
They are maneuvering to cover their backs .
Despite what they say the BBC are very ratings focused .
They are going head to head with ITV ( the biggest independent TV station in the UK ) over the Saturday night prime slot with their own reality TV/talent show for example.They want to broadcast popular shows but dont want content restriction to be used as leverage by the content providers .
Rather than saying " we wont do that b/c its not in the public interest " the BBC are aiming to say " We cant use DRM b/c its against the law .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC board are not stupid, they know applying to have tax payer funded content restricted isnt going to fly.
They are maneuvering to cover their backs.
Despite what they say the BBC are very ratings focused.
They are going head to head with ITV (the biggest independent TV station in the UK) over the Saturday night prime slot with their own reality TV/talent show for example.They want to broadcast popular shows but dont want content restriction to be used as leverage by the content providers.
Rather than saying "we wont do that b/c its not in the public interest" the BBC are aiming to say "We cant use DRM b/c its against the law.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046238</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1257871500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The easiest way to stop piracy is to lower the price of content. Didn't Apple et al work this out years ago?<br><br>Looking at it from the opposition's point of view, they would have to lower costs too. Labour costs being the first and easiest to reduce.<br><br>I have highlighted the only problem and that problem is not ours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The easiest way to stop piracy is to lower the price of content .
Did n't Apple et al work this out years ago ? Looking at it from the opposition 's point of view , they would have to lower costs too .
Labour costs being the first and easiest to reduce.I have highlighted the only problem and that problem is not ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The easiest way to stop piracy is to lower the price of content.
Didn't Apple et al work this out years ago?Looking at it from the opposition's point of view, they would have to lower costs too.
Labour costs being the first and easiest to reduce.I have highlighted the only problem and that problem is not ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045538</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>alecto</author>
	<datestamp>1257868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then let the "content providers" take their ball and go home. If they think they're not leaving money on the table, their call. But keep your digital restrictions out of my living room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then let the " content providers " take their ball and go home .
If they think they 're not leaving money on the table , their call .
But keep your digital restrictions out of my living room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then let the "content providers" take their ball and go home.
If they think they're not leaving money on the table, their call.
But keep your digital restrictions out of my living room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</id>
	<title>BBC Bias</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhat off topic, which is why I didn't mention this in the summary, but this is a good example of the BBC covering a BBC-related story in a balanced manner.  The subject of the story is the BBC's attempt to do something being blocked, and you will note several things:
<ol>
<li>The story exists at all.</li>
<li>It contains more quotes from people opposed to the plans than in favour of it.</li>
<li>The people opposing it do not have cherry-picked quotes making them look crazy.</li>
</ol><p>
All in all, a good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work.  The BBC should focus on this kind of thing and not on idiocies like DRM.  I wrote to Ofcom to oppose this and was very pleased that they have responded in this way.  I was slightly less pleased that the form that they sent me asking for permission to publish my letter was a MS Word document...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhat off topic , which is why I did n't mention this in the summary , but this is a good example of the BBC covering a BBC-related story in a balanced manner .
The subject of the story is the BBC 's attempt to do something being blocked , and you will note several things : The story exists at all .
It contains more quotes from people opposed to the plans than in favour of it .
The people opposing it do not have cherry-picked quotes making them look crazy .
All in all , a good example of how an independent , publicly funded news organisation can work .
The BBC should focus on this kind of thing and not on idiocies like DRM .
I wrote to Ofcom to oppose this and was very pleased that they have responded in this way .
I was slightly less pleased that the form that they sent me asking for permission to publish my letter was a MS Word document.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhat off topic, which is why I didn't mention this in the summary, but this is a good example of the BBC covering a BBC-related story in a balanced manner.
The subject of the story is the BBC's attempt to do something being blocked, and you will note several things:

The story exists at all.
It contains more quotes from people opposed to the plans than in favour of it.
The people opposing it do not have cherry-picked quotes making them look crazy.
All in all, a good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work.
The BBC should focus on this kind of thing and not on idiocies like DRM.
I wrote to Ofcom to oppose this and was very pleased that they have responded in this way.
I was slightly less pleased that the form that they sent me asking for permission to publish my letter was a MS Word document...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050794</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1257844980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is funded by a mandatory licence, so why should piracy be an issue?</p><p>And where's your evidence that DRM prevents piracy in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is funded by a mandatory licence , so why should piracy be an issue ? And where 's your evidence that DRM prevents piracy in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is funded by a mandatory licence, so why should piracy be an issue?And where's your evidence that DRM prevents piracy in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047888</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Silentknyght</author>
	<datestamp>1257877320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.</p></div><p>One could argue that DRM is in place, by choice of the content producer, to reject the market's economics.</p><p> If a CD is heavily pirated at $15, then the market can implement DRM and try to continue selling the disc at $15, or it can realize that the piracy at $15 identifies demand segments for the product at multiple less-than-$15 price points.  If someone is willing to pirate it, then logically they want it, and therefore they can ascribe a non-zero monetary value to it, even if it is very, very low.</p><p>The solution is to develop an system that allows a single individual to purchase the product at a price tailored to that individual.  And then get both the buyer and the seller to be content with the money paid and received, even if it's more/less than a previous sale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamentally , DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.One could argue that DRM is in place , by choice of the content producer , to reject the market 's economics .
If a CD is heavily pirated at $ 15 , then the market can implement DRM and try to continue selling the disc at $ 15 , or it can realize that the piracy at $ 15 identifies demand segments for the product at multiple less-than- $ 15 price points .
If someone is willing to pirate it , then logically they want it , and therefore they can ascribe a non-zero monetary value to it , even if it is very , very low.The solution is to develop an system that allows a single individual to purchase the product at a price tailored to that individual .
And then get both the buyer and the seller to be content with the money paid and received , even if it 's more/less than a previous sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.One could argue that DRM is in place, by choice of the content producer, to reject the market's economics.
If a CD is heavily pirated at $15, then the market can implement DRM and try to continue selling the disc at $15, or it can realize that the piracy at $15 identifies demand segments for the product at multiple less-than-$15 price points.
If someone is willing to pirate it, then logically they want it, and therefore they can ascribe a non-zero monetary value to it, even if it is very, very low.The solution is to develop an system that allows a single individual to purchase the product at a price tailored to that individual.
And then get both the buyer and the seller to be content with the money paid and received, even if it's more/less than a previous sale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30059764</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Megzor</author>
	<datestamp>1257088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These kinds of comments always baffle me.  Why assume that the alternative to DRM is for all authors and artists to go broke?  You speak as though there are obviously no other solutions when there are.  It's incredibly short-sighted and uncreative to assume that DRM, or for that matter, all restrictions created by content providers, are naturally the best and only way for quality content to proliferate.   If that were the case, how would you explain the success of Cory Doctorow as a best-selling author? I recommend you watch Cory Doctorow's lecture - <a href="http://www.q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture\_id=7748" title="q2cfestival.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture\_id=7748</a> [q2cfestival.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>These kinds of comments always baffle me .
Why assume that the alternative to DRM is for all authors and artists to go broke ?
You speak as though there are obviously no other solutions when there are .
It 's incredibly short-sighted and uncreative to assume that DRM , or for that matter , all restrictions created by content providers , are naturally the best and only way for quality content to proliferate .
If that were the case , how would you explain the success of Cory Doctorow as a best-selling author ?
I recommend you watch Cory Doctorow 's lecture - http : //www.q2cfestival.com/play.php ? lecture \ _id = 7748 [ q2cfestival.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These kinds of comments always baffle me.
Why assume that the alternative to DRM is for all authors and artists to go broke?
You speak as though there are obviously no other solutions when there are.
It's incredibly short-sighted and uncreative to assume that DRM, or for that matter, all restrictions created by content providers, are naturally the best and only way for quality content to proliferate.
If that were the case, how would you explain the success of Cory Doctorow as a best-selling author?
I recommend you watch Cory Doctorow's lecture - http://www.q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture\_id=7748 [q2cfestival.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045748</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>ericrost</author>
	<datestamp>1257869400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright eldavo, here you go: DRM does nothing to combat piracy and only inconveniences legitimate consumers who have duly paid to use said content. Look at Blu-Ray, look at DVD's, look at SecuROM, look at DirecTV, look at TiVo, every single one of these schemes have been broken open by "pirates" who produce more convenient to use products than the locked down "legitimate" versions.</p><p>DRM is simply a waste of money, resources, time, and it insults legitimate consumers who are willing to pay and does absolutely nothing to deter copying and piracy, in fact, for some, it only encourages it as its seen as a challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright eldavo , here you go : DRM does nothing to combat piracy and only inconveniences legitimate consumers who have duly paid to use said content .
Look at Blu-Ray , look at DVD 's , look at SecuROM , look at DirecTV , look at TiVo , every single one of these schemes have been broken open by " pirates " who produce more convenient to use products than the locked down " legitimate " versions.DRM is simply a waste of money , resources , time , and it insults legitimate consumers who are willing to pay and does absolutely nothing to deter copying and piracy , in fact , for some , it only encourages it as its seen as a challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright eldavo, here you go: DRM does nothing to combat piracy and only inconveniences legitimate consumers who have duly paid to use said content.
Look at Blu-Ray, look at DVD's, look at SecuROM, look at DirecTV, look at TiVo, every single one of these schemes have been broken open by "pirates" who produce more convenient to use products than the locked down "legitimate" versions.DRM is simply a waste of money, resources, time, and it insults legitimate consumers who are willing to pay and does absolutely nothing to deter copying and piracy, in fact, for some, it only encourages it as its seen as a challenge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046052</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As one of those who responded, I'm glad I did.
<br> <br>
Your comment also highlights that you misunderstand exactly what the BBC were proposing. Their plan was to encrypt the EPG, not the actual programming. Anybody who wanted to pirate the material still could - they just needed to know what time the program was on, the transponder frequency and PID to record the whole MPEG stream. So, this wasn't actually an effective technical measure against piracy. All it would have achieved is making life difficult for people who wanted to use open source software to access the EPG in order to actually discover what programs are on and when, enabling them to enjoy the TV that was being shown rather than expecting them to just flick through all channels until they found something that looked interesting.
<br> <br>
It was a definite step backwards in terms of usability and offered nothing to protect broadcasts from pirates. What it did offer was a guaranteed revenue stream for the BBC by selling licenses to set-top box manufacturers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As one of those who responded , I 'm glad I did .
Your comment also highlights that you misunderstand exactly what the BBC were proposing .
Their plan was to encrypt the EPG , not the actual programming .
Anybody who wanted to pirate the material still could - they just needed to know what time the program was on , the transponder frequency and PID to record the whole MPEG stream .
So , this was n't actually an effective technical measure against piracy .
All it would have achieved is making life difficult for people who wanted to use open source software to access the EPG in order to actually discover what programs are on and when , enabling them to enjoy the TV that was being shown rather than expecting them to just flick through all channels until they found something that looked interesting .
It was a definite step backwards in terms of usability and offered nothing to protect broadcasts from pirates .
What it did offer was a guaranteed revenue stream for the BBC by selling licenses to set-top box manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one of those who responded, I'm glad I did.
Your comment also highlights that you misunderstand exactly what the BBC were proposing.
Their plan was to encrypt the EPG, not the actual programming.
Anybody who wanted to pirate the material still could - they just needed to know what time the program was on, the transponder frequency and PID to record the whole MPEG stream.
So, this wasn't actually an effective technical measure against piracy.
All it would have achieved is making life difficult for people who wanted to use open source software to access the EPG in order to actually discover what programs are on and when, enabling them to enjoy the TV that was being shown rather than expecting them to just flick through all channels until they found something that looked interesting.
It was a definite step backwards in terms of usability and offered nothing to protect broadcasts from pirates.
What it did offer was a guaranteed revenue stream for the BBC by selling licenses to set-top box manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050502</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it will hurt public broadcasting a lot more. If the BBC can't or won't take this HD content onto Freeview then the HD distributors will just sell it to Sky/Cable instead (FreeView isn't such a huge market that they won't do this). FreeView will become increasingly obsolete until the only way to get TV in the UK is via Murdoch or a cable company. Just encrypt the damn stuff already, or hand control of the UK TV system to Murdoch formally and be done with it. Captcha is "transfer"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it will hurt public broadcasting a lot more .
If the BBC ca n't or wo n't take this HD content onto Freeview then the HD distributors will just sell it to Sky/Cable instead ( FreeView is n't such a huge market that they wo n't do this ) .
FreeView will become increasingly obsolete until the only way to get TV in the UK is via Murdoch or a cable company .
Just encrypt the damn stuff already , or hand control of the UK TV system to Murdoch formally and be done with it .
Captcha is " transfer "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it will hurt public broadcasting a lot more.
If the BBC can't or won't take this HD content onto Freeview then the HD distributors will just sell it to Sky/Cable instead (FreeView isn't such a huge market that they won't do this).
FreeView will become increasingly obsolete until the only way to get TV in the UK is via Murdoch or a cable company.
Just encrypt the damn stuff already, or hand control of the UK TV system to Murdoch formally and be done with it.
Captcha is "transfer"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045484</id>
	<title>BBC DVDs</title>
	<author>CountBrass</author>
	<datestamp>1257868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be interesting to see if this then get's applied to DVDs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be interesting to see if this then get 's applied to DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be interesting to see if this then get's applied to DVDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045588</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1257868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.</p></div><p>The problem being that to a very real degree DRM costs developers/producers/consumers money, it doesn't prevent piracy and in the case of certain products have been shown to cause hardware/software damage, loss of data and generally made life inconvenient and hard for users of legally purchased copies of a product. Pirated versions on the other hand have a tendency to have whatever DRM they tried to use removed and thus avoid whatever problems were associated with it; and proving that the DRM was totally ineffective to begin with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamentally , DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.The problem being that to a very real degree DRM costs developers/producers/consumers money , it does n't prevent piracy and in the case of certain products have been shown to cause hardware/software damage , loss of data and generally made life inconvenient and hard for users of legally purchased copies of a product .
Pirated versions on the other hand have a tendency to have whatever DRM they tried to use removed and thus avoid whatever problems were associated with it ; and proving that the DRM was totally ineffective to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.The problem being that to a very real degree DRM costs developers/producers/consumers money, it doesn't prevent piracy and in the case of certain products have been shown to cause hardware/software damage, loss of data and generally made life inconvenient and hard for users of legally purchased copies of a product.
Pirated versions on the other hand have a tendency to have whatever DRM they tried to use removed and thus avoid whatever problems were associated with it; and proving that the DRM was totally ineffective to begin with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048400</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1257878940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, then, maybe all of the people who want content, and who are always complaining about the quality of content, should look for a way to get what they want without there being any content creators/providers who do what they do with any prospect of earning a living.<br>...<br>If having a say in how your creative work is reproduced strikes you as eeeevil, then you surely wouldn't want to enjoy entertainment or information produced by someone who embraces the idea anyway, right? Right? Because, you know, that would be intellectually dishonest.</p></div><p>What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even understand the argument against DRM?<br>DRM prevents me from making fair use of copyright material.<br>If <b>I</b> do not have the ability to fairly use <b>your</b> copyrighted material,<br>then <i>you</i> have reneged on the bargain that is copyright.</p><p>I mean fuck, humanity has created for thousands of years, but only in the last 60 years (hello VCR) has our creativity been existentially threatened by the lack of pervasive DRM.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Selling your work, on your own terms, after you invest the time to create it: that's, like, totally fascism.</p></div><p>Your copyright doesn't pre-empt my fair use rights.<br>The fact that you want to tell me what I can do, in my home, with something I've purchased,<br>seems a lot more authoritarian and corporatist (aka fascism) than my desire to prevent you from doing so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , then , maybe all of the people who want content , and who are always complaining about the quality of content , should look for a way to get what they want without there being any content creators/providers who do what they do with any prospect of earning a living....If having a say in how your creative work is reproduced strikes you as eeeevil , then you surely would n't want to enjoy entertainment or information produced by someone who embraces the idea anyway , right ?
Right ? Because , you know , that would be intellectually dishonest.What the fuck are you talking about ?
Do you even understand the argument against DRM ? DRM prevents me from making fair use of copyright material.If I do not have the ability to fairly use your copyrighted material,then you have reneged on the bargain that is copyright.I mean fuck , humanity has created for thousands of years , but only in the last 60 years ( hello VCR ) has our creativity been existentially threatened by the lack of pervasive DRM.Selling your work , on your own terms , after you invest the time to create it : that 's , like , totally fascism.Your copyright does n't pre-empt my fair use rights.The fact that you want to tell me what I can do , in my home , with something I 've purchased,seems a lot more authoritarian and corporatist ( aka fascism ) than my desire to prevent you from doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, then, maybe all of the people who want content, and who are always complaining about the quality of content, should look for a way to get what they want without there being any content creators/providers who do what they do with any prospect of earning a living....If having a say in how your creative work is reproduced strikes you as eeeevil, then you surely wouldn't want to enjoy entertainment or information produced by someone who embraces the idea anyway, right?
Right? Because, you know, that would be intellectually dishonest.What the fuck are you talking about?
Do you even understand the argument against DRM?DRM prevents me from making fair use of copyright material.If I do not have the ability to fairly use your copyrighted material,then you have reneged on the bargain that is copyright.I mean fuck, humanity has created for thousands of years, but only in the last 60 years (hello VCR) has our creativity been existentially threatened by the lack of pervasive DRM.Selling your work, on your own terms, after you invest the time to create it: that's, like, totally fascism.Your copyright doesn't pre-empt my fair use rights.The fact that you want to tell me what I can do, in my home, with something I've purchased,seems a lot more authoritarian and corporatist (aka fascism) than my desire to prevent you from doing so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046100</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1257870960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the biggest problem is that we no longer have 'art', we have 'content'. When our collective creative output becomes commercialized to this point, is it any wonder that DRM is as prevalent as it is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the biggest problem is that we no longer have 'art ' , we have 'content' .
When our collective creative output becomes commercialized to this point , is it any wonder that DRM is as prevalent as it is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the biggest problem is that we no longer have 'art', we have 'content'.
When our collective creative output becomes commercialized to this point, is it any wonder that DRM is as prevalent as it is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046446</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1257872460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be nice if you read at least most of the article in question rather than cherry picking parts and then smashing it with a hammer to fit your own limited viewpoint.<blockquote><div><p>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points. I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I live in the UK, pay my licence fee and have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts for years, whether designated as being 'premium' or not. I've been able to use various cheap DVRs to record and play back that content as I like and as has been forced down my throat with the digital switchover. What's changed?</p><blockquote><div><p>One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block: Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well for starters, in your eagerness to jump down this 'fellow's' throat you didn't actually <b>read</b> his comment, specifically "<b>Personally third party content is of little importance to me</b>" which means that he's not too interested in 'premium' content as long as he gets what he pays for as a licence fee payer.<br> <br>

If you actually <b>read</b> the article they're talking about locking down BBC HD content - that we're already paying for! They're even trying to get around this in a backhanded way by encrypting the TV listings because they're not allowed by law to encrypt the video or audio streams. How this can possibly fly with the regulator I don't know because what's the difference between the video and audio and the TV listings? Basically, it will stop people watching HD which few do anyway.<br> <br>

However, again, why should that be stopped anyway even for third-party content? We have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts in the UK for decades, and indeed, the BBC amongst others are trying to get us to move to digital and buy all these new fangled free DVRs and Freeview+ boxes that will use many of the same cheap components. It is <b>NOT</b> in any way shape or form the BBC's remit to say what can and can't happen to content at the other end in a licence fee payer's home, nor is it the BBC's remit to start telling people what hardware manufacturer's can make or what <b>more expensive</b> hardware licence fee payers need to buy - <b>AGAIN</b> I might add - to watch programmes that haven't needed any form of DRM in the past when transmitted free-to-air. I'm fed up to the back teeth of this constant retuning and buying of 'preferred' hardware to simply watch TV I'm paying for.</p><blockquote><div><p>It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Screw the premium content providers. We pay our licence fees and we decide what the BBC does or doesn't do. We haven't had this trouble before and we certainly shouldn't have it for content we are paying the BBC to produce.</p><blockquote><div><p>It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem? That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative. Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.</p></div></blockquote><p>
After all that we've experienced over the years I remain to be convinced that DRM stops piracy for the kind of ridiculous inconvenience it causes to the people who pay money. I pay my licence fee and couldn't give a toss. It's not as if I'm freeloading, which is why I resent the tone of this idiotic bit of flamebait. All I know is that I've been able to get free-to-air broadcasts and 'premium' content for many years without any trouble at all.<br> <br>

I've experienced the whole 'box office' CAM card hardware brain damage, and it's why most of the population simply doesn't use it because it's fucking complicated and divides and conquers TV coverage in a way that makes it too expensive. The BBC has a duty to provide a default level of TV coverage to the population, to the old, the vulnerable, the poor and the non-technical savvy, it's why it was founded and why the licence fee is paid. If you lose that then the BBC loses its whole purpose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if you read at least most of the article in question rather than cherry picking parts and then smashing it with a hammer to fit your own limited viewpoint.It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something ( even here on Slashdot ) and fail to anticipate the opposing view 's points .
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM .
I live in the UK , pay my licence fee and have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts for years , whether designated as being 'premium ' or not .
I 've been able to use various cheap DVRs to record and play back that content as I like and as has been forced down my throat with the digital switchover .
What 's changed ? One particular fellow does n't even seem to put two and two together ( or spell correctly ) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block : Personally third party content is of little importance to me , certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card Well for starters , in your eagerness to jump down this 'fellow 's ' throat you did n't actually read his comment , specifically " Personally third party content is of little importance to me " which means that he 's not too interested in 'premium ' content as long as he gets what he pays for as a licence fee payer .
If you actually read the article they 're talking about locking down BBC HD content - that we 're already paying for !
They 're even trying to get around this in a backhanded way by encrypting the TV listings because they 're not allowed by law to encrypt the video or audio streams .
How this can possibly fly with the regulator I do n't know because what 's the difference between the video and audio and the TV listings ?
Basically , it will stop people watching HD which few do anyway .
However , again , why should that be stopped anyway even for third-party content ?
We have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts in the UK for decades , and indeed , the BBC amongst others are trying to get us to move to digital and buy all these new fangled free DVRs and Freeview + boxes that will use many of the same cheap components .
It is NOT in any way shape or form the BBC 's remit to say what can and ca n't happen to content at the other end in a licence fee payer 's home , nor is it the BBC 's remit to start telling people what hardware manufacturer 's can make or what more expensive hardware licence fee payers need to buy - AGAIN I might add - to watch programmes that have n't needed any form of DRM in the past when transmitted free-to-air .
I 'm fed up to the back teeth of this constant retuning and buying of 'preferred ' hardware to simply watch TV I 'm paying for.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this does n't go into effect .
Screw the premium content providers .
We pay our licence fees and we decide what the BBC does or does n't do .
We have n't had this trouble before and we certainly should n't have it for content we are paying the BBC to produce.It 's bad alright but what 's your suggested solution to this ( perceived ) problem ?
That 's why it will be eventually put into place if you do n't proffer an alternative .
Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really is n't a big deal , that 's your only choice .
After all that we 've experienced over the years I remain to be convinced that DRM stops piracy for the kind of ridiculous inconvenience it causes to the people who pay money .
I pay my licence fee and could n't give a toss .
It 's not as if I 'm freeloading , which is why I resent the tone of this idiotic bit of flamebait .
All I know is that I 've been able to get free-to-air broadcasts and 'premium ' content for many years without any trouble at all .
I 've experienced the whole 'box office ' CAM card hardware brain damage , and it 's why most of the population simply does n't use it because it 's fucking complicated and divides and conquers TV coverage in a way that makes it too expensive .
The BBC has a duty to provide a default level of TV coverage to the population , to the old , the vulnerable , the poor and the non-technical savvy , it 's why it was founded and why the licence fee is paid .
If you lose that then the BBC loses its whole purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if you read at least most of the article in question rather than cherry picking parts and then smashing it with a hammer to fit your own limited viewpoint.It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points.
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.
I live in the UK, pay my licence fee and have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts for years, whether designated as being 'premium' or not.
I've been able to use various cheap DVRs to record and play back that content as I like and as has been forced down my throat with the digital switchover.
What's changed?One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block: Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card
Well for starters, in your eagerness to jump down this 'fellow's' throat you didn't actually read his comment, specifically "Personally third party content is of little importance to me" which means that he's not too interested in 'premium' content as long as he gets what he pays for as a licence fee payer.
If you actually read the article they're talking about locking down BBC HD content - that we're already paying for!
They're even trying to get around this in a backhanded way by encrypting the TV listings because they're not allowed by law to encrypt the video or audio streams.
How this can possibly fly with the regulator I don't know because what's the difference between the video and audio and the TV listings?
Basically, it will stop people watching HD which few do anyway.
However, again, why should that be stopped anyway even for third-party content?
We have had free and unfettered access to over-the-air broadcasts in the UK for decades, and indeed, the BBC amongst others are trying to get us to move to digital and buy all these new fangled free DVRs and Freeview+ boxes that will use many of the same cheap components.
It is NOT in any way shape or form the BBC's remit to say what can and can't happen to content at the other end in a licence fee payer's home, nor is it the BBC's remit to start telling people what hardware manufacturer's can make or what more expensive hardware licence fee payers need to buy - AGAIN I might add - to watch programmes that haven't needed any form of DRM in the past when transmitted free-to-air.
I'm fed up to the back teeth of this constant retuning and buying of 'preferred' hardware to simply watch TV I'm paying for.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.
Screw the premium content providers.
We pay our licence fees and we decide what the BBC does or doesn't do.
We haven't had this trouble before and we certainly shouldn't have it for content we are paying the BBC to produce.It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?
That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.
Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.
After all that we've experienced over the years I remain to be convinced that DRM stops piracy for the kind of ridiculous inconvenience it causes to the people who pay money.
I pay my licence fee and couldn't give a toss.
It's not as if I'm freeloading, which is why I resent the tone of this idiotic bit of flamebait.
All I know is that I've been able to get free-to-air broadcasts and 'premium' content for many years without any trouble at all.
I've experienced the whole 'box office' CAM card hardware brain damage, and it's why most of the population simply doesn't use it because it's fucking complicated and divides and conquers TV coverage in a way that makes it too expensive.
The BBC has a duty to provide a default level of TV coverage to the population, to the old, the vulnerable, the poor and the non-technical savvy, it's why it was founded and why the licence fee is paid.
If you lose that then the BBC loses its whole purpose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30068132</id>
	<title>The BBC is very accomodating to their providers.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1257084300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please tell me something. When you buy something do you buy from somebody that imposes asinine terms on you or from somebody that accommodates your needs?</p><p>In the case of the BBC one of the overwhelming needs should be that any content produced should be very accessible, with no restrictions at all, and that people should be free to do whatever they want with the content. In other words, it is time the BBC thinks more about their pay masters rather than its providers. What a novel concept!</p><p>They could do that, some Production companies would politely decline (because they want to continue living from the copyright gravy train) but some others would come forward and produce work in those terms, finding ways to make a profit.</p><p>Perhaps the productions would become more expensive (I doubt it, filming equipment is coming  down in price dramatically, so again, unless the precious "creative" people just want to enrich themselves, I fail to see why producing work that would be freely released later should affect them), but again, most of the BBC output is crap (Jonathan Ross, anything with Russell Brand, and the innumerable quiz shows), so maybe it would not be a bad idea to concentrate the minds of production companies by stopping them living of perpetual copyrights.</p><p>But I will tell you why this will not happen. The relationship between the bosses in the BBC (hundreds of them!) and the production companies is incestuous in nature. People that work in the BBC jump to work into Production companies and vice versa, and then the ones are the friends of the others.</p><p>What hope there is that the BBC will look after the interests of its paymasters when in reality the interests of all the parties involved are elsewhere?</p><p>It is only by means of strict regulation and legal enforcement, that the BBC will do what it ought to do, and if they don't do it soon, they will be forced to anyway when the generation of people that understand copyright by the sham it is, achieve positions of political power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please tell me something .
When you buy something do you buy from somebody that imposes asinine terms on you or from somebody that accommodates your needs ? In the case of the BBC one of the overwhelming needs should be that any content produced should be very accessible , with no restrictions at all , and that people should be free to do whatever they want with the content .
In other words , it is time the BBC thinks more about their pay masters rather than its providers .
What a novel concept ! They could do that , some Production companies would politely decline ( because they want to continue living from the copyright gravy train ) but some others would come forward and produce work in those terms , finding ways to make a profit.Perhaps the productions would become more expensive ( I doubt it , filming equipment is coming down in price dramatically , so again , unless the precious " creative " people just want to enrich themselves , I fail to see why producing work that would be freely released later should affect them ) , but again , most of the BBC output is crap ( Jonathan Ross , anything with Russell Brand , and the innumerable quiz shows ) , so maybe it would not be a bad idea to concentrate the minds of production companies by stopping them living of perpetual copyrights.But I will tell you why this will not happen .
The relationship between the bosses in the BBC ( hundreds of them !
) and the production companies is incestuous in nature .
People that work in the BBC jump to work into Production companies and vice versa , and then the ones are the friends of the others.What hope there is that the BBC will look after the interests of its paymasters when in reality the interests of all the parties involved are elsewhere ? It is only by means of strict regulation and legal enforcement , that the BBC will do what it ought to do , and if they do n't do it soon , they will be forced to anyway when the generation of people that understand copyright by the sham it is , achieve positions of political power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please tell me something.
When you buy something do you buy from somebody that imposes asinine terms on you or from somebody that accommodates your needs?In the case of the BBC one of the overwhelming needs should be that any content produced should be very accessible, with no restrictions at all, and that people should be free to do whatever they want with the content.
In other words, it is time the BBC thinks more about their pay masters rather than its providers.
What a novel concept!They could do that, some Production companies would politely decline (because they want to continue living from the copyright gravy train) but some others would come forward and produce work in those terms, finding ways to make a profit.Perhaps the productions would become more expensive (I doubt it, filming equipment is coming  down in price dramatically, so again, unless the precious "creative" people just want to enrich themselves, I fail to see why producing work that would be freely released later should affect them), but again, most of the BBC output is crap (Jonathan Ross, anything with Russell Brand, and the innumerable quiz shows), so maybe it would not be a bad idea to concentrate the minds of production companies by stopping them living of perpetual copyrights.But I will tell you why this will not happen.
The relationship between the bosses in the BBC (hundreds of them!
) and the production companies is incestuous in nature.
People that work in the BBC jump to work into Production companies and vice versa, and then the ones are the friends of the others.What hope there is that the BBC will look after the interests of its paymasters when in reality the interests of all the parties involved are elsewhere?It is only by means of strict regulation and legal enforcement, that the BBC will do what it ought to do, and if they don't do it soon, they will be forced to anyway when the generation of people that understand copyright by the sham it is, achieve positions of political power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048044</id>
	<title>BBC, learn from America's mistake</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1257877800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what happened in America.</p><p>The original deal (which seemed stable to me): The cable TV company (Comcast) provided content that I could watch.  I paid them money.</p><p>The cable TV company, in switching from analog cable to digital cable, required cablecard or other things that prevented it working with normal digital tuners, and even got the regulators' blessings.  So they now offer this deal: The cable TV company will provide content that I cannot watch, and I will pay them money.</p><p>If the new deal isn't as good as the old one (e.g. suppose it costs more), you better have a good reason and be ready to explain it.  I expect technological progress, though I also know sometimes things don't work out that way.  But however the changing offer degrades, there <em>has</em> to be at least <em>something</em> in it for me.</p><p>I rejected the offer.  They are no longer receiving monthly payments.</p><p>Is that your plan, BBC?  To copy what happened to my cable TV company in America?  (How inappropriate that I say it "happened to" them, since they are the ones who initiated the change.  With the tech switch to digital and highdef, from a business perspective, the easiest thing for them to have done, would be to continue the old deal, which worked to both parties' benefit.) Are you really <em>sure</em> you want to do that?  I know you're a quasi-government entity, so profits aren't your only motive, but I don't see how your plan might possibly benefit you in <em>any</em> ways, even in non-profit "socialist" terms.</p><p>The question of DRM never should have gotten as far as a regulator.  BBC should be protecting its own interests, and that obviously means no DRM. Regulators are things that industries should begrudgingly tolerate and be seen as generally hostile. When your regulator, <em>posing</em> as someone who protects the interests of <em>others</em> (your customers), ends up being <em>your own savior</em>, it probably means you've got a bad attitude <em>and</em> a fundamental misunderstanding of your own business.</p><p>Whoever at BBC took this matter up with the regulator, needs to be replaced.  Not because he lost, but because he won while <em>trying to lose.</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what happened in America.The original deal ( which seemed stable to me ) : The cable TV company ( Comcast ) provided content that I could watch .
I paid them money.The cable TV company , in switching from analog cable to digital cable , required cablecard or other things that prevented it working with normal digital tuners , and even got the regulators ' blessings .
So they now offer this deal : The cable TV company will provide content that I can not watch , and I will pay them money.If the new deal is n't as good as the old one ( e.g .
suppose it costs more ) , you better have a good reason and be ready to explain it .
I expect technological progress , though I also know sometimes things do n't work out that way .
But however the changing offer degrades , there has to be at least something in it for me.I rejected the offer .
They are no longer receiving monthly payments.Is that your plan , BBC ?
To copy what happened to my cable TV company in America ?
( How inappropriate that I say it " happened to " them , since they are the ones who initiated the change .
With the tech switch to digital and highdef , from a business perspective , the easiest thing for them to have done , would be to continue the old deal , which worked to both parties ' benefit .
) Are you really sure you want to do that ?
I know you 're a quasi-government entity , so profits are n't your only motive , but I do n't see how your plan might possibly benefit you in any ways , even in non-profit " socialist " terms.The question of DRM never should have gotten as far as a regulator .
BBC should be protecting its own interests , and that obviously means no DRM .
Regulators are things that industries should begrudgingly tolerate and be seen as generally hostile .
When your regulator , posing as someone who protects the interests of others ( your customers ) , ends up being your own savior , it probably means you 've got a bad attitude and a fundamental misunderstanding of your own business.Whoever at BBC took this matter up with the regulator , needs to be replaced .
Not because he lost , but because he won while trying to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what happened in America.The original deal (which seemed stable to me): The cable TV company (Comcast) provided content that I could watch.
I paid them money.The cable TV company, in switching from analog cable to digital cable, required cablecard or other things that prevented it working with normal digital tuners, and even got the regulators' blessings.
So they now offer this deal: The cable TV company will provide content that I cannot watch, and I will pay them money.If the new deal isn't as good as the old one (e.g.
suppose it costs more), you better have a good reason and be ready to explain it.
I expect technological progress, though I also know sometimes things don't work out that way.
But however the changing offer degrades, there has to be at least something in it for me.I rejected the offer.
They are no longer receiving monthly payments.Is that your plan, BBC?
To copy what happened to my cable TV company in America?
(How inappropriate that I say it "happened to" them, since they are the ones who initiated the change.
With the tech switch to digital and highdef, from a business perspective, the easiest thing for them to have done, would be to continue the old deal, which worked to both parties' benefit.
) Are you really sure you want to do that?
I know you're a quasi-government entity, so profits aren't your only motive, but I don't see how your plan might possibly benefit you in any ways, even in non-profit "socialist" terms.The question of DRM never should have gotten as far as a regulator.
BBC should be protecting its own interests, and that obviously means no DRM.
Regulators are things that industries should begrudgingly tolerate and be seen as generally hostile.
When your regulator, posing as someone who protects the interests of others (your customers), ends up being your own savior, it probably means you've got a bad attitude and a fundamental misunderstanding of your own business.Whoever at BBC took this matter up with the regulator, needs to be replaced.
Not because he lost, but because he won while trying to lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30049186</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1257881700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how much does the professional-but-not-superstar musician receive from that 99-cent iTunes purchase - ten cents? five?  That's the problem with the eeeevil known as the music industry: the real artists literally get chump change while the rest goes to MBA-toting middlemen whose only creativity is stealing money from musicians and threatening single-parent mothers via the RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how much does the professional-but-not-superstar musician receive from that 99-cent iTunes purchase - ten cents ?
five ? That 's the problem with the eeeevil known as the music industry : the real artists literally get chump change while the rest goes to MBA-toting middlemen whose only creativity is stealing money from musicians and threatening single-parent mothers via the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how much does the professional-but-not-superstar musician receive from that 99-cent iTunes purchase - ten cents?
five?  That's the problem with the eeeevil known as the music industry: the real artists literally get chump change while the rest goes to MBA-toting middlemen whose only creativity is stealing money from musicians and threatening single-parent mothers via the RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050758</id>
	<title>I can solve your problem..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257844800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Combat piracy by getting rid of the concept. The idea of pegged legged men with ships ceasing limited goods and wealth should be relegated to it's place in our history. As for the delivery of digital and streaming media the idea relies on too many false pretenses. The cost of controlling access to content is astronomical. The very act is hostile towards the consumer, and eventually futile in an endless game of cat and mouse. Ubiquitous, cheap content is the most likely answer. Combat piracy by making it available, convenient and cheap. This is the era of economics of scale. The golden age of paid content is ahead of us and it won't rely on tricking consumers with scarcity induced by DRM but by using digital delivery to provide convenience and ease of access at a lower cost. Trading files only really makes sense with restrictive or cost prohibitive access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Combat piracy by getting rid of the concept .
The idea of pegged legged men with ships ceasing limited goods and wealth should be relegated to it 's place in our history .
As for the delivery of digital and streaming media the idea relies on too many false pretenses .
The cost of controlling access to content is astronomical .
The very act is hostile towards the consumer , and eventually futile in an endless game of cat and mouse .
Ubiquitous , cheap content is the most likely answer .
Combat piracy by making it available , convenient and cheap .
This is the era of economics of scale .
The golden age of paid content is ahead of us and it wo n't rely on tricking consumers with scarcity induced by DRM but by using digital delivery to provide convenience and ease of access at a lower cost .
Trading files only really makes sense with restrictive or cost prohibitive access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Combat piracy by getting rid of the concept.
The idea of pegged legged men with ships ceasing limited goods and wealth should be relegated to it's place in our history.
As for the delivery of digital and streaming media the idea relies on too many false pretenses.
The cost of controlling access to content is astronomical.
The very act is hostile towards the consumer, and eventually futile in an endless game of cat and mouse.
Ubiquitous, cheap content is the most likely answer.
Combat piracy by making it available, convenient and cheap.
This is the era of economics of scale.
The golden age of paid content is ahead of us and it won't rely on tricking consumers with scarcity induced by DRM but by using digital delivery to provide convenience and ease of access at a lower cost.
Trading files only really makes sense with restrictive or cost prohibitive access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045590</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC is publicly funded.  Their mandate to work in the public interest should trump all other concerns.  If a studio wishes to make DRM a condition of licensing their content, then the BBC should walk away.  It will harm the studio a lot more than it will harm the BBC.  They should put the money that they save by not licensing the content into producing original content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is publicly funded .
Their mandate to work in the public interest should trump all other concerns .
If a studio wishes to make DRM a condition of licensing their content , then the BBC should walk away .
It will harm the studio a lot more than it will harm the BBC .
They should put the money that they save by not licensing the content into producing original content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is publicly funded.
Their mandate to work in the public interest should trump all other concerns.
If a studio wishes to make DRM a condition of licensing their content, then the BBC should walk away.
It will harm the studio a lot more than it will harm the BBC.
They should put the money that they save by not licensing the content into producing original content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30067980</id>
	<title>Where is the reciprocity?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1257082980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is all well and good that your heart is bleeding for these uncomprehended artists,  until you realise that a few weeks of work guarantees many of them decades of earnings without them ever moving a single finger any more.</p><p>The tragic thing is that actually artists are not the ones deriving much from the abusive copyright terms, but rather music labels, film mega corporations, mammoth editorial houses,  and the nascent influential big game makers.</p><p>Before copyright became a matter of mummification, you could expect that an artists would enjoy the labours of their work for a reasonable, short period of time, before the public at large could use those works, never created in a vacuum, in order to create new works that enriched us all.</p><p>It is monumentally ignorant to have a dig at patronage as a means to promote the arts that could bypass copyright altogether, for the simple reason that it is proven to work.</p><p>Most of the classical music prior to the invention of the phonograph was made under patronage of the rich and powerful. Prior to that, religious intent provided enough incentive to create some of the most impressive works of art ever envisaged.</p><p>In our time money talks, so there is nothing stopping people organizing syndicates to pay creative people that have probed themselves to be worth paying attention to by means of free content.</p><p>The natural state of affairs for human progress has always been cooperation, sharing of ideas and improvement of the ideas of others.</p><p>It is only recently in human history that we have been compelled to stop progress by slowing down, in purpose, how ideas are used. This is just sheer madness.</p><p>Sooner or later the abusive copyright (and patent) terms that big corporations are lobbied for will be repelled, in their place we will  have reaonslbe terms that provide incentive for creative people for a short term, releasing human knowledge to be used by all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is all well and good that your heart is bleeding for these uncomprehended artists , until you realise that a few weeks of work guarantees many of them decades of earnings without them ever moving a single finger any more.The tragic thing is that actually artists are not the ones deriving much from the abusive copyright terms , but rather music labels , film mega corporations , mammoth editorial houses , and the nascent influential big game makers.Before copyright became a matter of mummification , you could expect that an artists would enjoy the labours of their work for a reasonable , short period of time , before the public at large could use those works , never created in a vacuum , in order to create new works that enriched us all.It is monumentally ignorant to have a dig at patronage as a means to promote the arts that could bypass copyright altogether , for the simple reason that it is proven to work.Most of the classical music prior to the invention of the phonograph was made under patronage of the rich and powerful .
Prior to that , religious intent provided enough incentive to create some of the most impressive works of art ever envisaged.In our time money talks , so there is nothing stopping people organizing syndicates to pay creative people that have probed themselves to be worth paying attention to by means of free content.The natural state of affairs for human progress has always been cooperation , sharing of ideas and improvement of the ideas of others.It is only recently in human history that we have been compelled to stop progress by slowing down , in purpose , how ideas are used .
This is just sheer madness.Sooner or later the abusive copyright ( and patent ) terms that big corporations are lobbied for will be repelled , in their place we will have reaonslbe terms that provide incentive for creative people for a short term , releasing human knowledge to be used by all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is all well and good that your heart is bleeding for these uncomprehended artists,  until you realise that a few weeks of work guarantees many of them decades of earnings without them ever moving a single finger any more.The tragic thing is that actually artists are not the ones deriving much from the abusive copyright terms, but rather music labels, film mega corporations, mammoth editorial houses,  and the nascent influential big game makers.Before copyright became a matter of mummification, you could expect that an artists would enjoy the labours of their work for a reasonable, short period of time, before the public at large could use those works, never created in a vacuum, in order to create new works that enriched us all.It is monumentally ignorant to have a dig at patronage as a means to promote the arts that could bypass copyright altogether, for the simple reason that it is proven to work.Most of the classical music prior to the invention of the phonograph was made under patronage of the rich and powerful.
Prior to that, religious intent provided enough incentive to create some of the most impressive works of art ever envisaged.In our time money talks, so there is nothing stopping people organizing syndicates to pay creative people that have probed themselves to be worth paying attention to by means of free content.The natural state of affairs for human progress has always been cooperation, sharing of ideas and improvement of the ideas of others.It is only recently in human history that we have been compelled to stop progress by slowing down, in purpose, how ideas are used.
This is just sheer madness.Sooner or later the abusive copyright (and patent) terms that big corporations are lobbied for will be repelled, in their place we will  have reaonslbe terms that provide incentive for creative people for a short term, releasing human knowledge to be used by all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368</id>
	<title>Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257867600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>DRM was never about the consumer. The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.

They use DRM as a way of unfairly controlling what you can do with the content you paid good money for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM was never about the consumer .
The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers .
They use DRM as a way of unfairly controlling what you can do with the content you paid good money for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM was never about the consumer.
The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.
They use DRM as a way of unfairly controlling what you can do with the content you paid good money for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045634</id>
	<title>BBC should answer to society, not companies</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1257868860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC argues that content providers expect that DRM be provided.  Ignore, for a moment, all other strong arguments against the use of DRM (and against it doing any good anyhow).</p><p>The BBC is funded by public money, so they get the opportunity to do stuff without being pushed about by commercial interests - for this reason they are already expected to include programming that is for the benefit of society and the public.  I'd say that this is another excellent reason that they should be pressured to take a stand against the erosion of fair use rights.  Similarly to certain types of programming, this is too important to leave up to commercial stations - in fact, commercial stations seem likely to push their own DRM agenda based on connections to vested interests.</p><p>Fundamentally, the BBC is funded by the public and it ought to limit the extent to which it makes itself and its viewers beholden to commercial interests.  If content providers won't play ball, the BBC has the clout (currently one of the only UK broadcasters who are actually doing well) to make them see sense, or do without them and take stuff in-house.  If the BBC are going to allow themselves to be directed by private content producers then we might as well just leave it to the commercial broadcasters and save ourselves the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC argues that content providers expect that DRM be provided .
Ignore , for a moment , all other strong arguments against the use of DRM ( and against it doing any good anyhow ) .The BBC is funded by public money , so they get the opportunity to do stuff without being pushed about by commercial interests - for this reason they are already expected to include programming that is for the benefit of society and the public .
I 'd say that this is another excellent reason that they should be pressured to take a stand against the erosion of fair use rights .
Similarly to certain types of programming , this is too important to leave up to commercial stations - in fact , commercial stations seem likely to push their own DRM agenda based on connections to vested interests.Fundamentally , the BBC is funded by the public and it ought to limit the extent to which it makes itself and its viewers beholden to commercial interests .
If content providers wo n't play ball , the BBC has the clout ( currently one of the only UK broadcasters who are actually doing well ) to make them see sense , or do without them and take stuff in-house .
If the BBC are going to allow themselves to be directed by private content producers then we might as well just leave it to the commercial broadcasters and save ourselves the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC argues that content providers expect that DRM be provided.
Ignore, for a moment, all other strong arguments against the use of DRM (and against it doing any good anyhow).The BBC is funded by public money, so they get the opportunity to do stuff without being pushed about by commercial interests - for this reason they are already expected to include programming that is for the benefit of society and the public.
I'd say that this is another excellent reason that they should be pressured to take a stand against the erosion of fair use rights.
Similarly to certain types of programming, this is too important to leave up to commercial stations - in fact, commercial stations seem likely to push their own DRM agenda based on connections to vested interests.Fundamentally, the BBC is funded by the public and it ought to limit the extent to which it makes itself and its viewers beholden to commercial interests.
If content providers won't play ball, the BBC has the clout (currently one of the only UK broadcasters who are actually doing well) to make them see sense, or do without them and take stuff in-house.
If the BBC are going to allow themselves to be directed by private content producers then we might as well just leave it to the commercial broadcasters and save ourselves the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046270</id>
	<title>Re:BBC should answer to society, not companies</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need to get them to see the numbers.<br> <br>Linux users with working DVB capture cards are few and far between, but users of HTML5 [video] elements utilising open video formats should be ubiquitous over the next year. That's a potential increase in License Fee collection, and any increase is good.<br> <br>Especially as everyone else is doing the development work for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to get them to see the numbers .
Linux users with working DVB capture cards are few and far between , but users of HTML5 [ video ] elements utilising open video formats should be ubiquitous over the next year .
That 's a potential increase in License Fee collection , and any increase is good .
Especially as everyone else is doing the development work for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to get them to see the numbers.
Linux users with working DVB capture cards are few and far between, but users of HTML5 [video] elements utilising open video formats should be ubiquitous over the next year.
That's a potential increase in License Fee collection, and any increase is good.
Especially as everyone else is doing the development work for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046464</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1257872520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're ignoring the alternative response you don't like.</p><p>The alternative response is what it has always been.  Ignore consumer copying, and only go after those who are criminally counterfeiting copies for money.  The situation would be the same as it is right now for the content industry, since the content is being pirated anyway.  You might even see a small reduction in that since the content owners would no longer be reviled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're ignoring the alternative response you do n't like.The alternative response is what it has always been .
Ignore consumer copying , and only go after those who are criminally counterfeiting copies for money .
The situation would be the same as it is right now for the content industry , since the content is being pirated anyway .
You might even see a small reduction in that since the content owners would no longer be reviled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're ignoring the alternative response you don't like.The alternative response is what it has always been.
Ignore consumer copying, and only go after those who are criminally counterfeiting copies for money.
The situation would be the same as it is right now for the content industry, since the content is being pirated anyway.
You might even see a small reduction in that since the content owners would no longer be reviled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045998</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>simcop2387</author>
	<datestamp>1257870660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the case of the BBC, if they add DRM, then citizens of the UK CAN'T NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM, if they own a tv they have to pay the license fee that the bbc makes money off of.  its sort of like forcefully paid for public broadcasting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the case of the BBC , if they add DRM , then citizens of the UK CA N'T NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM , if they own a tv they have to pay the license fee that the bbc makes money off of .
its sort of like forcefully paid for public broadcasting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the case of the BBC, if they add DRM, then citizens of the UK CAN'T NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM, if they own a tv they have to pay the license fee that the bbc makes money off of.
its sort of like forcefully paid for public broadcasting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045600</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257868680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.</p><p>Don't.  Trust that if you offer a fair product at a reasonable price, then the consumers will buy it rather than copy it.  It's the same model that worked with Non-copy protected cassettes back in the 80s and 90s.</p><p>Also: The article is about the BBC which is funded by the taxpayers.  In my humble opinion, the taxpayers entitled to take the product free-of-charge since they already paid for it.</p><p>(goes back to drinking German beer)</p><p>"A woman on the radio talks about revolution, but it's already passed her by.  I was alive and I waited for this. Right here, right now; there is no other place I want to be..... watching the world wake-up from history. ----- I saw the decade end, when it seemed the world could change at the blink of an eye. And if anything then there's your sign. I was alive and I waited, waited for this. I was alive and I waited for this. Watching the world wake up from history! Right here. Right now."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.Do n't .
Trust that if you offer a fair product at a reasonable price , then the consumers will buy it rather than copy it .
It 's the same model that worked with Non-copy protected cassettes back in the 80s and 90s.Also : The article is about the BBC which is funded by the taxpayers .
In my humble opinion , the taxpayers entitled to take the product free-of-charge since they already paid for it .
( goes back to drinking German beer ) " A woman on the radio talks about revolution , but it 's already passed her by .
I was alive and I waited for this .
Right here , right now ; there is no other place I want to be..... watching the world wake-up from history .
----- I saw the decade end , when it seemed the world could change at the blink of an eye .
And if anything then there 's your sign .
I was alive and I waited , waited for this .
I was alive and I waited for this .
Watching the world wake up from history !
Right here .
Right now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.Don't.
Trust that if you offer a fair product at a reasonable price, then the consumers will buy it rather than copy it.
It's the same model that worked with Non-copy protected cassettes back in the 80s and 90s.Also: The article is about the BBC which is funded by the taxpayers.
In my humble opinion, the taxpayers entitled to take the product free-of-charge since they already paid for it.
(goes back to drinking German beer)"A woman on the radio talks about revolution, but it's already passed her by.
I was alive and I waited for this.
Right here, right now; there is no other place I want to be..... watching the world wake-up from history.
----- I saw the decade end, when it seemed the world could change at the blink of an eye.
And if anything then there's your sign.
I was alive and I waited, waited for this.
I was alive and I waited for this.
Watching the world wake up from history!
Right here.
Right now.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047254</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257875280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's an idea: just don't do business with DRM-centric content creators or the distribution networks/agents with whom they've chosen to do business. Give your business to people who want to give away their work for free.</p></div><p>False dichotomy.</p><p>I buy a ton of etexts.  I pay money for them, and the authors get compensated.  But the etexts do not have DRM!  This doesn't mean the authors want to give the product away for free, it just means that they don't use DRM to enforce their wishes in this regard.  (Baen webscriptions is one example of a publishing house that puts out etexts that don't use DRM.  They do put out <em>some</em> stuff for free, but they sell much more, and none of it that I've seen involves any DRM.  If you use "Stanza" on the iPhone, you can configure it to talk to their store, and then you can download the books you've purchased directly to the device.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea : just do n't do business with DRM-centric content creators or the distribution networks/agents with whom they 've chosen to do business .
Give your business to people who want to give away their work for free.False dichotomy.I buy a ton of etexts .
I pay money for them , and the authors get compensated .
But the etexts do not have DRM !
This does n't mean the authors want to give the product away for free , it just means that they do n't use DRM to enforce their wishes in this regard .
( Baen webscriptions is one example of a publishing house that puts out etexts that do n't use DRM .
They do put out some stuff for free , but they sell much more , and none of it that I 've seen involves any DRM .
If you use " Stanza " on the iPhone , you can configure it to talk to their store , and then you can download the books you 've purchased directly to the device .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea: just don't do business with DRM-centric content creators or the distribution networks/agents with whom they've chosen to do business.
Give your business to people who want to give away their work for free.False dichotomy.I buy a ton of etexts.
I pay money for them, and the authors get compensated.
But the etexts do not have DRM!
This doesn't mean the authors want to give the product away for free, it just means that they don't use DRM to enforce their wishes in this regard.
(Baen webscriptions is one example of a publishing house that puts out etexts that don't use DRM.
They do put out some stuff for free, but they sell much more, and none of it that I've seen involves any DRM.
If you use "Stanza" on the iPhone, you can configure it to talk to their store, and then you can download the books you've purchased directly to the device.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045310</id>
	<title>It's not a victory</title>
	<author>Adolf Hitroll</author>
	<datestamp>1257867300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They conceived applying such a plan and they'll do it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They conceived applying such a plan and they 'll do it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They conceived applying such a plan and they'll do it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050142</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257885420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is many of us do put our money where our mouth is. And not just by abstaining but also by using both legitimate sources (MP3 are succeeding) and paid 'alternative' sources where we happily pay for the convenience of a simple download. The margins might be slimmer but someones still getting paid (and probably well) to give consumers what we want, too bad it isn't the content creators but their still stuck between old and new paradigms along with their distributors. Give it a generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is many of us do put our money where our mouth is .
And not just by abstaining but also by using both legitimate sources ( MP3 are succeeding ) and paid 'alternative ' sources where we happily pay for the convenience of a simple download .
The margins might be slimmer but someones still getting paid ( and probably well ) to give consumers what we want , too bad it is n't the content creators but their still stuck between old and new paradigms along with their distributors .
Give it a generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is many of us do put our money where our mouth is.
And not just by abstaining but also by using both legitimate sources (MP3 are succeeding) and paid 'alternative' sources where we happily pay for the convenience of a simple download.
The margins might be slimmer but someones still getting paid (and probably well) to give consumers what we want, too bad it isn't the content creators but their still stuck between old and new paradigms along with their distributors.
Give it a generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047358</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1257875640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If DRM leads to cheaper licensing of shows, and consequently more choices of shows to license, and/or a cheaper licensing fee, then DRM could indeed be in the public interest.</p><p>Of course, not everyone would be happy about it, but so long as that group is in a clear minority, then I don't see why BBC couldn't go ahead with the plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If DRM leads to cheaper licensing of shows , and consequently more choices of shows to license , and/or a cheaper licensing fee , then DRM could indeed be in the public interest.Of course , not everyone would be happy about it , but so long as that group is in a clear minority , then I do n't see why BBC could n't go ahead with the plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If DRM leads to cheaper licensing of shows, and consequently more choices of shows to license, and/or a cheaper licensing fee, then DRM could indeed be in the public interest.Of course, not everyone would be happy about it, but so long as that group is in a clear minority, then I don't see why BBC couldn't go ahead with the plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30054230</id>
	<title>Have you done the market research?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1257861240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it's $3 to rent and $9 to buy, then they'd have to rent *over* three times as much as they'd sell, since there's also three times the bandwidth to be paid for now, as well as the costs of the DRM.</p></div><p>Have you done the market research which shows that the demand for $3 rentals does indeed <b>not</b> exceed the demand for $9 purchases by a factor of three?</p><p>If there is this higher demand for rentals, it makes (in an objective sense) perfect sense to offer it.  If people making the offer think the higher demand exists, it makes subjective, i.e. from their POV, sense to offer it.</p><p>You claim this isn't the case.  Got data?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's $ 3 to rent and $ 9 to buy , then they 'd have to rent * over * three times as much as they 'd sell , since there 's also three times the bandwidth to be paid for now , as well as the costs of the DRM.Have you done the market research which shows that the demand for $ 3 rentals does indeed not exceed the demand for $ 9 purchases by a factor of three ? If there is this higher demand for rentals , it makes ( in an objective sense ) perfect sense to offer it .
If people making the offer think the higher demand exists , it makes subjective , i.e .
from their POV , sense to offer it.You claim this is n't the case .
Got data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's $3 to rent and $9 to buy, then they'd have to rent *over* three times as much as they'd sell, since there's also three times the bandwidth to be paid for now, as well as the costs of the DRM.Have you done the market research which shows that the demand for $3 rentals does indeed not exceed the demand for $9 purchases by a factor of three?If there is this higher demand for rentals, it makes (in an objective sense) perfect sense to offer it.
If people making the offer think the higher demand exists, it makes subjective, i.e.
from their POV, sense to offer it.You claim this isn't the case.
Got data?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046794</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1257873720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice. Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're assuming that piracy is the reason behind DRM.  It's not.  As the content producers have shown time and time again by validating the most absurd extrapolations of their positions, it's about control.  And always has been.  They wanted to ban the VCR, remember, and not because of piracy.  They tried to ban the MP3 player.  They've said that skipping commercials is stealing and came up just short of claiming using the bathroom during one is too, acting as if this was some magnanimous exception to the rule.</p><p>They want DRM on broadcasts for the sake of control, and for the \_illegitimate\_ reasons like preventing time-shifting and skipping commercials.  Piracy is merely an excuse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really is n't a big deal , that 's your only choice .
Fundamentally , DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.You 're assuming that piracy is the reason behind DRM .
It 's not .
As the content producers have shown time and time again by validating the most absurd extrapolations of their positions , it 's about control .
And always has been .
They wanted to ban the VCR , remember , and not because of piracy .
They tried to ban the MP3 player .
They 've said that skipping commercials is stealing and came up just short of claiming using the bathroom during one is too , acting as if this was some magnanimous exception to the rule.They want DRM on broadcasts for the sake of control , and for the \ _illegitimate \ _ reasons like preventing time-shifting and skipping commercials .
Piracy is merely an excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.
Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.You're assuming that piracy is the reason behind DRM.
It's not.
As the content producers have shown time and time again by validating the most absurd extrapolations of their positions, it's about control.
And always has been.
They wanted to ban the VCR, remember, and not because of piracy.
They tried to ban the MP3 player.
They've said that skipping commercials is stealing and came up just short of claiming using the bathroom during one is too, acting as if this was some magnanimous exception to the rule.They want DRM on broadcasts for the sake of control, and for the \_illegitimate\_ reasons like preventing time-shifting and skipping commercials.
Piracy is merely an excuse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045656</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1257868920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM is broken by design, the user has to have a way of decrypting the content in order to view it, so the keys have to be given out...<br>All DRM will do is stop "casual piracy", that is people making copies for their friends, or recording to view later etc... The serious piracy groups who produce copies and sell them will quickly work out ways to bypass any protection being used. Go on thepiratebay, there is a lot of content available there which has been ripped from DRM encumbered sources, and the pirate versions are better because they have consumer-hostile things removed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM is broken by design , the user has to have a way of decrypting the content in order to view it , so the keys have to be given out...All DRM will do is stop " casual piracy " , that is people making copies for their friends , or recording to view later etc... The serious piracy groups who produce copies and sell them will quickly work out ways to bypass any protection being used .
Go on thepiratebay , there is a lot of content available there which has been ripped from DRM encumbered sources , and the pirate versions are better because they have consumer-hostile things removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM is broken by design, the user has to have a way of decrypting the content in order to view it, so the keys have to be given out...All DRM will do is stop "casual piracy", that is people making copies for their friends, or recording to view later etc... The serious piracy groups who produce copies and sell them will quickly work out ways to bypass any protection being used.
Go on thepiratebay, there is a lot of content available there which has been ripped from DRM encumbered sources, and the pirate versions are better because they have consumer-hostile things removed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045366</id>
	<title>last of the corepirate nazi hostage $ sucks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257867600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that would be cell phone 'service'. steadily creeping up to 120$ mo., for a family of 1?</p><p>a smart greedmonger (uncle sam?) would bust that scam up, give us all better 'service', for much cheaper, whilst still making a billionerrors ransom, which might help pay for the repairs of the deep doo we keep talking ourselves into?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that would be cell phone 'service' .
steadily creeping up to 120 $ mo. , for a family of 1 ? a smart greedmonger ( uncle sam ?
) would bust that scam up , give us all better 'service ' , for much cheaper , whilst still making a billionerrors ransom , which might help pay for the repairs of the deep doo we keep talking ourselves into ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that would be cell phone 'service'.
steadily creeping up to 120$ mo., for a family of 1?a smart greedmonger (uncle sam?
) would bust that scam up, give us all better 'service', for much cheaper, whilst still making a billionerrors ransom, which might help pay for the repairs of the deep doo we keep talking ourselves into?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30058084</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/responses/Hall.pdf" title="ofcom.org.uk" rel="nofollow">particular fellow </a> [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[snip]</p><p>Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of <b>losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card</b>; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.</p></div></div><p>MythTV will still work for all the current channels, you won't lose the ability to use that. The compression tables are only to be used for the new HD services, and you'll need a new DVB-T2 receiver card to get those anyway. Plus MythTV already deals with compressed EPG information in the UK for Freesat, do people really think that the compression tables for Freeview will be vastly different, if at all?</p><p>I'm confident that I will still be using MythTV to receive my TV on my computer for the foreseeable future and plan on getting and using a DVB-T2 card when they become available.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One particular fellow [ ofcom.org.uk ] does n't even seem to put two and two together ( or spell correctly ) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block : [ snip ] Personally third party content is of little importance to me , certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card ; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC 's proprietary compression tables.MythTV will still work for all the current channels , you wo n't lose the ability to use that .
The compression tables are only to be used for the new HD services , and you 'll need a new DVB-T2 receiver card to get those anyway .
Plus MythTV already deals with compressed EPG information in the UK for Freesat , do people really think that the compression tables for Freeview will be vastly different , if at all ? I 'm confident that I will still be using MythTV to receive my TV on my computer for the foreseeable future and plan on getting and using a DVB-T2 card when they become available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One particular fellow  [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:[snip]Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.MythTV will still work for all the current channels, you won't lose the ability to use that.
The compression tables are only to be used for the new HD services, and you'll need a new DVB-T2 receiver card to get those anyway.
Plus MythTV already deals with compressed EPG information in the UK for Freesat, do people really think that the compression tables for Freeview will be vastly different, if at all?I'm confident that I will still be using MythTV to receive my TV on my computer for the foreseeable future and plan on getting and using a DVB-T2 card when they become available.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048836</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1257880500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect. It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?'</p><p>Here's one. Call the content providers' bluff. Right now, the BBC and other UK broadcasters transmit vast quantities of third party programming, free to air, in unencrypted digital formats. Somehow, the providers still seem to be willing to make their material available to the large and lucrative UK market. There's no particular reason why the gradual transition to HD should alter this situation in any significant way, except that the providers have seen an opportunity to lobby for restrictions advantageous only to them, and someone at the BBC has decided to roll over by proposing a misguided 'solution' that's pretty obviously in direct opposition to the spirit of the existing license. I'd like to think this is some Machiavellian token attempt to pander to the providers, giving the Beeb plausible deniability when the proposal is rejected, but sadly it looks like they were actually serious. A longer and better advertised consulation process wouldn't have hurt, either. I heard about it only on the last day of the process, and it looks like my response didn't make the deadline:</p><p>"I read with some concern the document at<br><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom\_bbc.pdf" title="ofcom.org.uk">http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom\_bbc.pdf</a> [ofcom.org.uk]<br>which describes a proposed change to the licence of the PSB3 mutiplex. I<br>note that the requested 'solution...is understood to be  acceptable to<br>content owners', but that no attempt appears to have been made to<br>ensure that it is acceptable to 'content consumers' (or 'viewers', as<br>we used to call them).</p><p>As far as the viewer is concerned, there is no meaningful disctinction<br>between a 'free to air' scheme with an additional requirement to<br>enforce 'content management arrangements', and the type of fully<br>encrypted 'free to view' system prohibited by the current licence.<br>Both systems place similar constraints on the viewer's ability to<br>enjoy the 'content' without arbitrary restrictions, and would (for<br>example) make access to these broadcasts impossible from equipment<br>controlled by software available under popular Free and Open Source<br>licences (which are incompatible with the proposed terms of access to<br>the lookup tables).</p><p>The request for such an amendment is a transparent attempt to<br>circumvent the terms and intent of the existing licence, and I<br>strongly urge Ofcom to reject it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this does n't go into effect .
It 's bad alright but what 's your suggested solution to this ( perceived ) problem ?
'Here 's one .
Call the content providers ' bluff .
Right now , the BBC and other UK broadcasters transmit vast quantities of third party programming , free to air , in unencrypted digital formats .
Somehow , the providers still seem to be willing to make their material available to the large and lucrative UK market .
There 's no particular reason why the gradual transition to HD should alter this situation in any significant way , except that the providers have seen an opportunity to lobby for restrictions advantageous only to them , and someone at the BBC has decided to roll over by proposing a misguided 'solution ' that 's pretty obviously in direct opposition to the spirit of the existing license .
I 'd like to think this is some Machiavellian token attempt to pander to the providers , giving the Beeb plausible deniability when the proposal is rejected , but sadly it looks like they were actually serious .
A longer and better advertised consulation process would n't have hurt , either .
I heard about it only on the last day of the process , and it looks like my response did n't make the deadline : " I read with some concern the document athttp : //www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom \ _bbc.pdf [ ofcom.org.uk ] which describes a proposed change to the licence of the PSB3 mutiplex .
Inote that the requested 'solution...is understood to be acceptable tocontent owners ' , but that no attempt appears to have been made toensure that it is acceptable to 'content consumers ' ( or 'viewers ' , aswe used to call them ) .As far as the viewer is concerned , there is no meaningful disctinctionbetween a 'free to air ' scheme with an additional requirement toenforce 'content management arrangements ' , and the type of fullyencrypted 'free to view ' system prohibited by the current licence.Both systems place similar constraints on the viewer 's ability toenjoy the 'content ' without arbitrary restrictions , and would ( forexample ) make access to these broadcasts impossible from equipmentcontrolled by software available under popular Free and Open Sourcelicences ( which are incompatible with the proposed terms of access tothe lookup tables ) .The request for such an amendment is a transparent attempt tocircumvent the terms and intent of the existing licence , and Istrongly urge Ofcom to reject it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.
It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?
'Here's one.
Call the content providers' bluff.
Right now, the BBC and other UK broadcasters transmit vast quantities of third party programming, free to air, in unencrypted digital formats.
Somehow, the providers still seem to be willing to make their material available to the large and lucrative UK market.
There's no particular reason why the gradual transition to HD should alter this situation in any significant way, except that the providers have seen an opportunity to lobby for restrictions advantageous only to them, and someone at the BBC has decided to roll over by proposing a misguided 'solution' that's pretty obviously in direct opposition to the spirit of the existing license.
I'd like to think this is some Machiavellian token attempt to pander to the providers, giving the Beeb plausible deniability when the proposal is rejected, but sadly it looks like they were actually serious.
A longer and better advertised consulation process wouldn't have hurt, either.
I heard about it only on the last day of the process, and it looks like my response didn't make the deadline:"I read with some concern the document athttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom\_bbc.pdf [ofcom.org.uk]which describes a proposed change to the licence of the PSB3 mutiplex.
Inote that the requested 'solution...is understood to be  acceptable tocontent owners', but that no attempt appears to have been made toensure that it is acceptable to 'content consumers' (or 'viewers', aswe used to call them).As far as the viewer is concerned, there is no meaningful disctinctionbetween a 'free to air' scheme with an additional requirement toenforce 'content management arrangements', and the type of fullyencrypted 'free to view' system prohibited by the current licence.Both systems place similar constraints on the viewer's ability toenjoy the 'content' without arbitrary restrictions, and would (forexample) make access to these broadcasts impossible from equipmentcontrolled by software available under popular Free and Open Sourcelicences (which are incompatible with the proposed terms of access tothe lookup tables).The request for such an amendment is a transparent attempt tocircumvent the terms and intent of the existing licence, and Istrongly urge Ofcom to reject it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048860</id>
	<title>Not that I like DRM, but...</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1257880620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I like DRM, but how is the consumer better off with no imported shows than with DRM-laden imported shows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I like DRM , but how is the consumer better off with no imported shows than with DRM-laden imported shows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I like DRM, but how is the consumer better off with no imported shows than with DRM-laden imported shows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045858</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points.  I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.  Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong.  Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy.  Of course, you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently.  The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong."</p><p>One <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/responses/Hall.pdf" title="ofcom.org.uk" rel="nofollow">particular fellow </a> [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this. I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.</p><p>Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of <b>losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card</b>; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.</p></div><p>It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.  It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?  That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.  Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.  Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.</p></div><p>i didn't finish ur rant, i stopped at first paragraph...</p><p>but omg...i guess i have to use the modified chef example for u to understand?<br>here it is...do we need to teach the chef how to cook if he makes terrible food? we are on the receiving end, sure we can come up with ways if we feel like it, but ultimately it should be for the content provider to figure out how to cater to the consumers. i guess in your perfect world we also have to be witnesses for the RIAA and MPAA?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something ( even here on Slashdot ) and fail to anticipate the opposing view 's points .
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM .
Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong .
Well , if you ca n't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy .
Of course , you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently .
The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you 'll need a different strategy than just saying , " wrong wrong wrong .
" One particular fellow [ ofcom.org.uk ] does n't even seem to put two and two together ( or spell correctly ) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block : While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this .
I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC 's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.Personally third party content is of little importance to me , certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card ; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC 's proprietary compression tables.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this does n't go into effect .
It 's bad alright but what 's your suggested solution to this ( perceived ) problem ?
That 's why it will be eventually put into place if you do n't proffer an alternative .
Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really is n't a big deal , that 's your only choice .
Fundamentally , DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.i did n't finish ur rant , i stopped at first paragraph...but omg...i guess i have to use the modified chef example for u to understand ? here it is...do we need to teach the chef how to cook if he makes terrible food ?
we are on the receiving end , sure we can come up with ways if we feel like it , but ultimately it should be for the content provider to figure out how to cater to the consumers .
i guess in your perfect world we also have to be witnesses for the RIAA and MPAA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points.
I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.
Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong.
Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy.
Of course, you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently.
The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong.
"One particular fellow  [ofcom.org.uk] doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this.
I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.
It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?
That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.
Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice.
Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.i didn't finish ur rant, i stopped at first paragraph...but omg...i guess i have to use the modified chef example for u to understand?here it is...do we need to teach the chef how to cook if he makes terrible food?
we are on the receiving end, sure we can come up with ways if we feel like it, but ultimately it should be for the content provider to figure out how to cater to the consumers.
i guess in your perfect world we also have to be witnesses for the RIAA and MPAA?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045598</id>
	<title>It benefits the consumer by...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>allowing BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, etc. to obtain the rights to show series and films that the rights holders will not allow them to show without content protection in the receiver.</p><p>This would things like the HD versions of Hollywood films which the MPAA doesn't want people getting good digital copies of for free.</p><p>I find it strange that the BBC has been picked on for this, it is a condition imposed by the content rights holders and the BBC is only one of several companies involved in defining the broadcast platform specifications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>allowing BBC , ITV , Channel 4 , Five , etc .
to obtain the rights to show series and films that the rights holders will not allow them to show without content protection in the receiver.This would things like the HD versions of Hollywood films which the MPAA does n't want people getting good digital copies of for free.I find it strange that the BBC has been picked on for this , it is a condition imposed by the content rights holders and the BBC is only one of several companies involved in defining the broadcast platform specifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>allowing BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, etc.
to obtain the rights to show series and films that the rights holders will not allow them to show without content protection in the receiver.This would things like the HD versions of Hollywood films which the MPAA doesn't want people getting good digital copies of for free.I find it strange that the BBC has been picked on for this, it is a condition imposed by the content rights holders and the BBC is only one of several companies involved in defining the broadcast platform specifications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045560</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page, presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it, has a PDF citation ready to go from some official<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of, and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.<p>
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page , presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC , says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it , has a PDF citation ready to go from some official .gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of , and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups .
My hat 's off to you sir , you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posted 12 minutes after the story hit the front page, presents a cogent view in favor of the big media/BBC, says we should shut our dirty whore mouths unless we have a solution that will pass every test he can throw at it, has a PDF citation ready to go from some official .gov.uk comment site nobody has ever heard of, and adds in an obvious spell flame/spelling error combo in his post to throw off follow-ups.
My hat's off to you sir, you are quite well-organized for a high 6-digit slashdot poster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045606</id>
	<title>An alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.</p></div><p>One alternative: Creative Commons Share Alike - No Commercial - No Derivates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.One alternative : Creative Commons Share Alike - No Commercial - No Derivates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM.One alternative: Creative Commons Share Alike - No Commercial - No Derivates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045848</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257869940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work.</p><p>Yes.  But think of all the stories you DON'T see on the BBC because they conveniently don't discuss them.  There are many, many of them, and it's become rather well-known that the BBC is pro-European Union biased.  <a href="http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]   <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]    <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece</a> [timesonline.co.uk]   <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism\_of\_the\_BBC" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism\_of\_the\_BBC</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I'd rather watch both sides of an argument (FOX and MSNBC) rather than assume I can trust a single source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; good example of how an independent , publicly funded news organisation can work.Yes .
But think of all the stories you DO N'T see on the BBC because they conveniently do n't discuss them .
There are many , many of them , and it 's become rather well-known that the BBC is pro-European Union biased .
http : //biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html [ dailymail.co.uk ] http : //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece [ timesonline.co.uk ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism \ _of \ _the \ _BBC [ wikipedia.org ] I 'd rather watch both sides of an argument ( FOX and MSNBC ) rather than assume I can trust a single source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work.Yes.
But think of all the stories you DON'T see on the BBC because they conveniently don't discuss them.
There are many, many of them, and it's become rather well-known that the BBC is pro-European Union biased.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html [dailymail.co.uk]    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece [timesonline.co.uk]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism\_of\_the\_BBC [wikipedia.org]I'd rather watch both sides of an argument (FOX and MSNBC) rather than assume I can trust a single source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257869520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.
<br> <br>
Well, then, maybe all of the people who <i>want</i> content, and who are always complaining about the quality of content, should look for a way to get what they want without there being any content creators/providers who do what they do with any prospect of earning a living. If we can just dispense with this whole notion of creative professionals, and just settle for entertainment created by junior high school vampire romance fangurlz, Bon Jovi tribute bar bands, street mimes, and hippes who want everyone to have their vegan curry recipes (for <i>free!</i>) then everything would just settle down nicely. There's absolutely no need for people who work for years on recording or film projects. It's pointless to expect people to work off and on for a decade on a novel. Those people should never be able to sell their works, they should instead focus on t-shirt sales and readings in coffee houses, where they are compensated with a share of the barista's tip jar. After all, it's absurd for anyone to make a single penny the week <i>after</i> they've spent a year doing the actual work of creating something. All entertainment should be paid for in advance by fans. Selling your work, on your own terms, after you invest the time to create it: that's, like, totally fascism.
<br> <br>
Here's an idea: just don't do business with DRM-centric content creators or the distribution networks/agents with whom they've chosen to do business. Give your business to people who <i>want</i> to give away their work for free. If that really is the way to earn a living as a creative person, then truth of that notion will be plain for all to see. Put your money (or the lack of spending it) where your mouth is. If having a say in how your creative work is reproduced strikes you as eeeevil, then you surely wouldn't want to enjoy entertainment or information produced by someone who embraces the idea anyway, right? Right? Because, you know, that would be intellectually dishonest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers .
Well , then , maybe all of the people who want content , and who are always complaining about the quality of content , should look for a way to get what they want without there being any content creators/providers who do what they do with any prospect of earning a living .
If we can just dispense with this whole notion of creative professionals , and just settle for entertainment created by junior high school vampire romance fangurlz , Bon Jovi tribute bar bands , street mimes , and hippes who want everyone to have their vegan curry recipes ( for free !
) then everything would just settle down nicely .
There 's absolutely no need for people who work for years on recording or film projects .
It 's pointless to expect people to work off and on for a decade on a novel .
Those people should never be able to sell their works , they should instead focus on t-shirt sales and readings in coffee houses , where they are compensated with a share of the barista 's tip jar .
After all , it 's absurd for anyone to make a single penny the week after they 've spent a year doing the actual work of creating something .
All entertainment should be paid for in advance by fans .
Selling your work , on your own terms , after you invest the time to create it : that 's , like , totally fascism .
Here 's an idea : just do n't do business with DRM-centric content creators or the distribution networks/agents with whom they 've chosen to do business .
Give your business to people who want to give away their work for free .
If that really is the way to earn a living as a creative person , then truth of that notion will be plain for all to see .
Put your money ( or the lack of spending it ) where your mouth is .
If having a say in how your creative work is reproduced strikes you as eeeevil , then you surely would n't want to enjoy entertainment or information produced by someone who embraces the idea anyway , right ?
Right ? Because , you know , that would be intellectually dishonest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.
Well, then, maybe all of the people who want content, and who are always complaining about the quality of content, should look for a way to get what they want without there being any content creators/providers who do what they do with any prospect of earning a living.
If we can just dispense with this whole notion of creative professionals, and just settle for entertainment created by junior high school vampire romance fangurlz, Bon Jovi tribute bar bands, street mimes, and hippes who want everyone to have their vegan curry recipes (for free!
) then everything would just settle down nicely.
There's absolutely no need for people who work for years on recording or film projects.
It's pointless to expect people to work off and on for a decade on a novel.
Those people should never be able to sell their works, they should instead focus on t-shirt sales and readings in coffee houses, where they are compensated with a share of the barista's tip jar.
After all, it's absurd for anyone to make a single penny the week after they've spent a year doing the actual work of creating something.
All entertainment should be paid for in advance by fans.
Selling your work, on your own terms, after you invest the time to create it: that's, like, totally fascism.
Here's an idea: just don't do business with DRM-centric content creators or the distribution networks/agents with whom they've chosen to do business.
Give your business to people who want to give away their work for free.
If that really is the way to earn a living as a creative person, then truth of that notion will be plain for all to see.
Put your money (or the lack of spending it) where your mouth is.
If having a say in how your creative work is reproduced strikes you as eeeevil, then you surely wouldn't want to enjoy entertainment or information produced by someone who embraces the idea anyway, right?
Right? Because, you know, that would be intellectually dishonest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045910</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1257870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't perfect by a long shot but yes, this is one of the reasons that the BBC is my main provider of news content.  So they damn well should be, though.  Why *all* news companies aren't like this, I can't understand.  I thought the stereotypical reporter had a reputation for hitting the front page hard with controversial stories that they were "banned" from telling, not regurgitating celebrity crap.</p><p>I really don't care if Paris Hilton did X, Y or Z (or all three), I just want a quick summary of interesting things that have happened.  I want more details on the ones *I* choose to read.  I want them to get updated if the story changes.  I want the facts and a couple of in-context quotes from the people involved if they want to say something.  I want it online.  I want to be able to access and search its archives.  I don't need the news-provider to tell me their opinion ("Isn't it terrible?  They are ruining the country!") - I have a brain of my own, thanks.</p><p>The fact that their entire site (not just the news section) is mostly clean HTML+CSS without all the fancy shit (except possibly on the BBC Schools page where they have interactive games etc.), that iPlayer (although "officially" not supporting Linux or permanent download) actually plays very well with get\_iplayer.pl, that it's *always* up and loads super-fast even in the heaviest news scandals, and a million and one other tiny bonuses.</p><p>I don't watch the news... haven't for 10 years.  I don't buy a paper... haven't for ten years (though I sometimes nick a Metro on the way home - free paper, fair summary of events, available on every London train, and a daily sudoku).  I don't subscribe to *any* news outlet or use any other company/organisation to give me news.  I get my news from the BBC and random things that catch my eye.  The fact that the BBC is the only website that I *expect* to find some well-reported news on is testament to their expertise.</p><p>When there's the next big news story and I feel the need to pay attention, BBC News is where you'll find me.  If there's no coverage there, I'll be looking on Google (not their News thing) somewhere for it myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't perfect by a long shot but yes , this is one of the reasons that the BBC is my main provider of news content .
So they damn well should be , though .
Why * all * news companies are n't like this , I ca n't understand .
I thought the stereotypical reporter had a reputation for hitting the front page hard with controversial stories that they were " banned " from telling , not regurgitating celebrity crap.I really do n't care if Paris Hilton did X , Y or Z ( or all three ) , I just want a quick summary of interesting things that have happened .
I want more details on the ones * I * choose to read .
I want them to get updated if the story changes .
I want the facts and a couple of in-context quotes from the people involved if they want to say something .
I want it online .
I want to be able to access and search its archives .
I do n't need the news-provider to tell me their opinion ( " Is n't it terrible ?
They are ruining the country !
" ) - I have a brain of my own , thanks.The fact that their entire site ( not just the news section ) is mostly clean HTML + CSS without all the fancy shit ( except possibly on the BBC Schools page where they have interactive games etc .
) , that iPlayer ( although " officially " not supporting Linux or permanent download ) actually plays very well with get \ _iplayer.pl , that it 's * always * up and loads super-fast even in the heaviest news scandals , and a million and one other tiny bonuses.I do n't watch the news... have n't for 10 years .
I do n't buy a paper... have n't for ten years ( though I sometimes nick a Metro on the way home - free paper , fair summary of events , available on every London train , and a daily sudoku ) .
I do n't subscribe to * any * news outlet or use any other company/organisation to give me news .
I get my news from the BBC and random things that catch my eye .
The fact that the BBC is the only website that I * expect * to find some well-reported news on is testament to their expertise.When there 's the next big news story and I feel the need to pay attention , BBC News is where you 'll find me .
If there 's no coverage there , I 'll be looking on Google ( not their News thing ) somewhere for it myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't perfect by a long shot but yes, this is one of the reasons that the BBC is my main provider of news content.
So they damn well should be, though.
Why *all* news companies aren't like this, I can't understand.
I thought the stereotypical reporter had a reputation for hitting the front page hard with controversial stories that they were "banned" from telling, not regurgitating celebrity crap.I really don't care if Paris Hilton did X, Y or Z (or all three), I just want a quick summary of interesting things that have happened.
I want more details on the ones *I* choose to read.
I want them to get updated if the story changes.
I want the facts and a couple of in-context quotes from the people involved if they want to say something.
I want it online.
I want to be able to access and search its archives.
I don't need the news-provider to tell me their opinion ("Isn't it terrible?
They are ruining the country!
") - I have a brain of my own, thanks.The fact that their entire site (not just the news section) is mostly clean HTML+CSS without all the fancy shit (except possibly on the BBC Schools page where they have interactive games etc.
), that iPlayer (although "officially" not supporting Linux or permanent download) actually plays very well with get\_iplayer.pl, that it's *always* up and loads super-fast even in the heaviest news scandals, and a million and one other tiny bonuses.I don't watch the news... haven't for 10 years.
I don't buy a paper... haven't for ten years (though I sometimes nick a Metro on the way home - free paper, fair summary of events, available on every London train, and a daily sudoku).
I don't subscribe to *any* news outlet or use any other company/organisation to give me news.
I get my news from the BBC and random things that catch my eye.
The fact that the BBC is the only website that I *expect* to find some well-reported news on is testament to their expertise.When there's the next big news story and I feel the need to pay attention, BBC News is where you'll find me.
If there's no coverage there, I'll be looking on Google (not their News thing) somewhere for it myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30083838</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>strikethree</author>
	<datestamp>1258051560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi ScentCone,</p><p>I have been reading your comments for many years and you seem to genuinely believe what you are saying right now. There are a couple of problems with what you say though.</p><p>The first is that you are presupposing DRM is the only way for professional artists to recoup their losses during the generation of their art. I am not so certain that this supposition is true. It is easy to get anything digital for free right now and yet it is clear that many people are paying anyways.</p><p>The second is that DRM is not a fair deal. As it stands, the cards are stacked entirely in the artists favor with respect to DRM. The problem with that is there are two parties to the transaction. Both parties need consideration. If this does not happen, then one side is going to get screwed.</p><p>Relevant to point one, it appears to me that DRM is NOT about ensuring revenue streams. It seems to me that is is more about maximizing revenue. For example, a video game called Colin McRae Dirt 2 is $59 for the PS3, $49 for XBOX 360, and $39 for the PC. The price is clearly tiered with the difficulty or ease of piracy in mind. It would seem to me, an uneducated bystander who is only mildly interested, that artists can make their money back without DRM if the prices are reasonable. In other words, piracy keeps prices out of the monopoly rent tiers. Personally, I do not think my society should not be supporting monopoly rents for artists no matter how important and/or unique such artists think that they are.</p><p>Regards,<br>strike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi ScentCone,I have been reading your comments for many years and you seem to genuinely believe what you are saying right now .
There are a couple of problems with what you say though.The first is that you are presupposing DRM is the only way for professional artists to recoup their losses during the generation of their art .
I am not so certain that this supposition is true .
It is easy to get anything digital for free right now and yet it is clear that many people are paying anyways.The second is that DRM is not a fair deal .
As it stands , the cards are stacked entirely in the artists favor with respect to DRM .
The problem with that is there are two parties to the transaction .
Both parties need consideration .
If this does not happen , then one side is going to get screwed.Relevant to point one , it appears to me that DRM is NOT about ensuring revenue streams .
It seems to me that is is more about maximizing revenue .
For example , a video game called Colin McRae Dirt 2 is $ 59 for the PS3 , $ 49 for XBOX 360 , and $ 39 for the PC .
The price is clearly tiered with the difficulty or ease of piracy in mind .
It would seem to me , an uneducated bystander who is only mildly interested , that artists can make their money back without DRM if the prices are reasonable .
In other words , piracy keeps prices out of the monopoly rent tiers .
Personally , I do not think my society should not be supporting monopoly rents for artists no matter how important and/or unique such artists think that they are.Regards,strike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi ScentCone,I have been reading your comments for many years and you seem to genuinely believe what you are saying right now.
There are a couple of problems with what you say though.The first is that you are presupposing DRM is the only way for professional artists to recoup their losses during the generation of their art.
I am not so certain that this supposition is true.
It is easy to get anything digital for free right now and yet it is clear that many people are paying anyways.The second is that DRM is not a fair deal.
As it stands, the cards are stacked entirely in the artists favor with respect to DRM.
The problem with that is there are two parties to the transaction.
Both parties need consideration.
If this does not happen, then one side is going to get screwed.Relevant to point one, it appears to me that DRM is NOT about ensuring revenue streams.
It seems to me that is is more about maximizing revenue.
For example, a video game called Colin McRae Dirt 2 is $59 for the PS3, $49 for XBOX 360, and $39 for the PC.
The price is clearly tiered with the difficulty or ease of piracy in mind.
It would seem to me, an uneducated bystander who is only mildly interested, that artists can make their money back without DRM if the prices are reasonable.
In other words, piracy keeps prices out of the monopoly rent tiers.
Personally, I do not think my society should not be supporting monopoly rents for artists no matter how important and/or unique such artists think that they are.Regards,strike</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050422</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257886560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it could be a good thing. Not being able to receive television signals without paying your license fee would mean that people who don't want to pay their license fee won't be hassled by endless threatening letters from the licensing authority. They'd be free to own a television and it'd be easy to prove they weren't using it illegitimately, thus saving them a fine.</p><p>&lt;/devil's advocate&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it could be a good thing .
Not being able to receive television signals without paying your license fee would mean that people who do n't want to pay their license fee wo n't be hassled by endless threatening letters from the licensing authority .
They 'd be free to own a television and it 'd be easy to prove they were n't using it illegitimately , thus saving them a fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it could be a good thing.
Not being able to receive television signals without paying your license fee would mean that people who don't want to pay their license fee won't be hassled by endless threatening letters from the licensing authority.
They'd be free to own a television and it'd be easy to prove they weren't using it illegitimately, thus saving them a fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30051550</id>
	<title>Re:BBC should answer to society, not companies</title>
	<author>Grundlefleck</author>
	<datestamp>1257848160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BBC is funded by public money, so they get the opportunity to do stuff without being pushed about by commercial interests - for this reason they are already expected to include programming that is for the benefit of society and the public.</p></div><p>
Just so you know, public money isn't given solely to the BBC. Channel 4 and ITV will receive taxpayer's money for providing programming for the benefit of society as well. As far as I know, a lot of documentaries are given funding in this guise.
<br>
<br>
So it's not just the BBC that have a non-commercial responsibility to the public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is funded by public money , so they get the opportunity to do stuff without being pushed about by commercial interests - for this reason they are already expected to include programming that is for the benefit of society and the public .
Just so you know , public money is n't given solely to the BBC .
Channel 4 and ITV will receive taxpayer 's money for providing programming for the benefit of society as well .
As far as I know , a lot of documentaries are given funding in this guise .
So it 's not just the BBC that have a non-commercial responsibility to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is funded by public money, so they get the opportunity to do stuff without being pushed about by commercial interests - for this reason they are already expected to include programming that is for the benefit of society and the public.
Just so you know, public money isn't given solely to the BBC.
Channel 4 and ITV will receive taxpayer's money for providing programming for the benefit of society as well.
As far as I know, a lot of documentaries are given funding in this guise.
So it's not just the BBC that have a non-commercial responsibility to the public.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050570</id>
	<title>Re:Consumer? Pah.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257843900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In the specific case of "rental", I'm always entertained by the comparison of the physical vs. the virtual world here. Specifically, the difference in distribution costs. Basically, rental makes no sense for the digital world in terms of distribution.</i> <br> <br>Video "rental" is effectivly a lending library. With a physical object (be it a book, video tape, DVD, etc) things such as tracking who has what, fines for overdue items are due to the limitation that only one person can have a copy at once.<br>That dosn't stop people coming up with all sorts of creative ways to make a trivial to make copy behave like a physical item.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the specific case of " rental " , I 'm always entertained by the comparison of the physical vs. the virtual world here .
Specifically , the difference in distribution costs .
Basically , rental makes no sense for the digital world in terms of distribution .
Video " rental " is effectivly a lending library .
With a physical object ( be it a book , video tape , DVD , etc ) things such as tracking who has what , fines for overdue items are due to the limitation that only one person can have a copy at once.That dos n't stop people coming up with all sorts of creative ways to make a trivial to make copy behave like a physical item .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the specific case of "rental", I'm always entertained by the comparison of the physical vs. the virtual world here.
Specifically, the difference in distribution costs.
Basically, rental makes no sense for the digital world in terms of distribution.
Video "rental" is effectivly a lending library.
With a physical object (be it a book, video tape, DVD, etc) things such as tracking who has what, fines for overdue items are due to the limitation that only one person can have a copy at once.That dosn't stop people coming up with all sorts of creative ways to make a trivial to make copy behave like a physical item.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046174</id>
	<title>Provider?! Pah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257871260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.</p></div></blockquote><p>WTF?  The content providers suffer more from DRM than all other parties combined.  DRM makes it so that only people with patience and special tools (i.e. pirates) are able to play the content, and then everyone else has to get the DRM-stripped it-just-works content from the pirates.</p><p>The only people who benefit from DRM are the big manufacturers, DRM-licensing bodies, etc.  The idea is to try to keep the player market small.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.WTF ?
The content providers suffer more from DRM than all other parties combined .
DRM makes it so that only people with patience and special tools ( i.e .
pirates ) are able to play the content , and then everyone else has to get the DRM-stripped it-just-works content from the pirates.The only people who benefit from DRM are the big manufacturers , DRM-licensing bodies , etc .
The idea is to try to keep the player market small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people who benefit from DRM are content providers.WTF?
The content providers suffer more from DRM than all other parties combined.
DRM makes it so that only people with patience and special tools (i.e.
pirates) are able to play the content, and then everyone else has to get the DRM-stripped it-just-works content from the pirates.The only people who benefit from DRM are the big manufacturers, DRM-licensing bodies, etc.
The idea is to try to keep the player market small.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045994</id>
	<title>Re:BBC Bias</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's important to remember that the BBC is made up of individuals, just as is <em>any other entity</em>. Just as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTlFTKyp\_28" title="youtube.com">you are the government</a> [youtube.com], you are <em>everything else</em> as well, including [potentially] the BBC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to remember that the BBC is made up of individuals , just as is any other entity .
Just as you are the government [ youtube.com ] , you are everything else as well , including [ potentially ] the BBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to remember that the BBC is made up of individuals, just as is any other entity.
Just as you are the government [youtube.com], you are everything else as well, including [potentially] the BBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047032</id>
	<title>Re:Need Better Input Than This</title>
	<author>Bralkein</author>
	<datestamp>1257874560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're making a reasonable point, but I have to disagree. I'm not sure why I should have to come up with the answers for the content providers, since there are presumably a number of people who are employed by those companies to devise a suitably profitable business model which actually attracts some paying customers. Now I do agree that in saying this I'm probably being a bit intellectually lazy, but I say it's no more lazy than those content providers who are just trying to hang on to the same old way of doing business by offering a single, undesirable course for the future (DRM everywhere) which few informed customers seem to actually want.</p><p>However, I'm going to offer a solution anyway, because I think it's an interesting discussion. I'd say that it would be better to offer streaming, on-demand content. If the network capacity isn't up to it today, it should be in a few years' time. I watch Channel 4's on-demand service, which even includes ad breaks. I could probably find a way to rip the streams and fast-forward through the adverts, or I could download the shows on BitTorrent. But all that's too much hassle, the streaming web service is convenient, so I just use that instead and watch the ads, along with many other people I know. Instead of each network having its own site, they could re-sell content to central distributors, where you could go to one site and view content from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky and everyone else. Make it free, supported with ads (for BBC content people can get it ad-free by going to the BBC site direct, there would have to be a link next to every BBC show) or have a subscription service with fewer ads or none at all. For uninterrupted films, maybe have a surcharge of a couple of quid (not a flippin' fiver to watch bloody Die Hard one time only, thankyouverymuch) which just gets added to your monthly bill.</p><p>If access to content is easy and reasonably priced, then I don't think piracy should be too much of a worry. It will always happen to some extent, but as long as they can turn a decent profit, then that's just one of those facts of life. No need for all of this protected path DRM BS then. However, I still think that DRM is crappy enough that consumers are right to reject it out of hand, without equivocation or writing the content providers' business model for them. We're the ones paying, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're making a reasonable point , but I have to disagree .
I 'm not sure why I should have to come up with the answers for the content providers , since there are presumably a number of people who are employed by those companies to devise a suitably profitable business model which actually attracts some paying customers .
Now I do agree that in saying this I 'm probably being a bit intellectually lazy , but I say it 's no more lazy than those content providers who are just trying to hang on to the same old way of doing business by offering a single , undesirable course for the future ( DRM everywhere ) which few informed customers seem to actually want.However , I 'm going to offer a solution anyway , because I think it 's an interesting discussion .
I 'd say that it would be better to offer streaming , on-demand content .
If the network capacity is n't up to it today , it should be in a few years ' time .
I watch Channel 4 's on-demand service , which even includes ad breaks .
I could probably find a way to rip the streams and fast-forward through the adverts , or I could download the shows on BitTorrent .
But all that 's too much hassle , the streaming web service is convenient , so I just use that instead and watch the ads , along with many other people I know .
Instead of each network having its own site , they could re-sell content to central distributors , where you could go to one site and view content from the BBC , ITV , Channel 4 , Sky and everyone else .
Make it free , supported with ads ( for BBC content people can get it ad-free by going to the BBC site direct , there would have to be a link next to every BBC show ) or have a subscription service with fewer ads or none at all .
For uninterrupted films , maybe have a surcharge of a couple of quid ( not a flippin ' fiver to watch bloody Die Hard one time only , thankyouverymuch ) which just gets added to your monthly bill.If access to content is easy and reasonably priced , then I do n't think piracy should be too much of a worry .
It will always happen to some extent , but as long as they can turn a decent profit , then that 's just one of those facts of life .
No need for all of this protected path DRM BS then .
However , I still think that DRM is crappy enough that consumers are right to reject it out of hand , without equivocation or writing the content providers ' business model for them .
We 're the ones paying , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're making a reasonable point, but I have to disagree.
I'm not sure why I should have to come up with the answers for the content providers, since there are presumably a number of people who are employed by those companies to devise a suitably profitable business model which actually attracts some paying customers.
Now I do agree that in saying this I'm probably being a bit intellectually lazy, but I say it's no more lazy than those content providers who are just trying to hang on to the same old way of doing business by offering a single, undesirable course for the future (DRM everywhere) which few informed customers seem to actually want.However, I'm going to offer a solution anyway, because I think it's an interesting discussion.
I'd say that it would be better to offer streaming, on-demand content.
If the network capacity isn't up to it today, it should be in a few years' time.
I watch Channel 4's on-demand service, which even includes ad breaks.
I could probably find a way to rip the streams and fast-forward through the adverts, or I could download the shows on BitTorrent.
But all that's too much hassle, the streaming web service is convenient, so I just use that instead and watch the ads, along with many other people I know.
Instead of each network having its own site, they could re-sell content to central distributors, where you could go to one site and view content from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky and everyone else.
Make it free, supported with ads (for BBC content people can get it ad-free by going to the BBC site direct, there would have to be a link next to every BBC show) or have a subscription service with fewer ads or none at all.
For uninterrupted films, maybe have a surcharge of a couple of quid (not a flippin' fiver to watch bloody Die Hard one time only, thankyouverymuch) which just gets added to your monthly bill.If access to content is easy and reasonably priced, then I don't think piracy should be too much of a worry.
It will always happen to some extent, but as long as they can turn a decent profit, then that's just one of those facts of life.
No need for all of this protected path DRM BS then.
However, I still think that DRM is crappy enough that consumers are right to reject it out of hand, without equivocation or writing the content providers' business model for them.
We're the ones paying, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30068132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30058084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30059764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30051550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30083838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30057614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30054174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30049186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30067980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30054230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1413254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30057614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30054174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30054230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30049186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30083838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30059764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30067980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30051550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1413254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30048836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30068132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30050502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30047850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30045600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30058084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1413254.30046360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
