<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_12_1915231</id>
	<title>Copyright Industries Oppose Treaty For the Blind</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260606540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>langelgjm sends in a piece from <em>Wired</em>, which details the background of a <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/blind\_block/">proposed treaty to allow cross-border sharing of books for the blind</a> &mdash; a treaty which is opposed by an almost unified front of business interests in the US, with the exception of Google. <i>"A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind. With the exception of Google, almost every major industry player has expressed disapproval of the treaty, which would allow cross-border sharing of digitized books accessible to the blind and visually impaired. Google's chief copyright counsel believes the industry-wide opposition is mainly due to 'opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions... We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete, long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>langelgjm sends in a piece from Wired , which details the background of a proposed treaty to allow cross-border sharing of books for the blind    a treaty which is opposed by an almost unified front of business interests in the US , with the exception of Google .
" A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind .
With the exception of Google , almost every major industry player has expressed disapproval of the treaty , which would allow cross-border sharing of digitized books accessible to the blind and visually impaired .
Google 's chief copyright counsel believes the industry-wide opposition is mainly due to 'opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions... We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete , long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>langelgjm sends in a piece from Wired, which details the background of a proposed treaty to allow cross-border sharing of books for the blind — a treaty which is opposed by an almost unified front of business interests in the US, with the exception of Google.
"A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind.
With the exception of Google, almost every major industry player has expressed disapproval of the treaty, which would allow cross-border sharing of digitized books accessible to the blind and visually impaired.
Google's chief copyright counsel believes the industry-wide opposition is mainly due to 'opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions... We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete, long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30422196</id>
	<title>Damn blind pirates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260715380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, can't they just find their own way to read normal books, why should the poor multinational copyright cartels be forced to actually allow blind people to get access to their works without having the work duplicated nationally by some evil non-profit like the library of congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , ca n't they just find their own way to read normal books , why should the poor multinational copyright cartels be forced to actually allow blind people to get access to their works without having the work duplicated nationally by some evil non-profit like the library of congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, can't they just find their own way to read normal books, why should the poor multinational copyright cartels be forced to actually allow blind people to get access to their works without having the work duplicated nationally by some evil non-profit like the library of congress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417464</id>
	<title>disingenuous</title>
	<author>aevans</author>
	<datestamp>1260614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>`Google is being disingenuous.  They are not a copyright holder, and they are actually seeking an exception for themselves ("on behalf of" the blind, of course.)

What makes blind people so special that they shouldn't have to pay for books and movies.  Are we legally calling them invalid?  Should we take away their right to vote?

Seriously, blind people aren't calling for this legislation (except the ones who would vote for a tax on their neighbor to pay themselves.)  They can buy or borrow their own books and movies, and they don't need Google to permit them to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>` Google is being disingenuous .
They are not a copyright holder , and they are actually seeking an exception for themselves ( " on behalf of " the blind , of course .
) What makes blind people so special that they should n't have to pay for books and movies .
Are we legally calling them invalid ?
Should we take away their right to vote ?
Seriously , blind people are n't calling for this legislation ( except the ones who would vote for a tax on their neighbor to pay themselves .
) They can buy or borrow their own books and movies , and they do n't need Google to permit them to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>`Google is being disingenuous.
They are not a copyright holder, and they are actually seeking an exception for themselves ("on behalf of" the blind, of course.
)

What makes blind people so special that they shouldn't have to pay for books and movies.
Are we legally calling them invalid?
Should we take away their right to vote?
Seriously, blind people aren't calling for this legislation (except the ones who would vote for a tax on their neighbor to pay themselves.
)  They can buy or borrow their own books and movies, and they don't need Google to permit them to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417218</id>
	<title>Horrible</title>
	<author>Transfinite</author>
	<datestamp>1260612240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well this will just come back to haunt them. Google has wisely realised that you don't pick on disabilities, it makes you look, bad, like a bully.

At the end of the day if I understand correctly, this is just move to make books more accessible to the blind, it's not about the blind stealing their precious content.

These guys better wise up the world is changing around them.

Perhaps as individuals it's time we boycotted and voted with our choices.

Horrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well this will just come back to haunt them .
Google has wisely realised that you do n't pick on disabilities , it makes you look , bad , like a bully .
At the end of the day if I understand correctly , this is just move to make books more accessible to the blind , it 's not about the blind stealing their precious content .
These guys better wise up the world is changing around them .
Perhaps as individuals it 's time we boycotted and voted with our choices .
Horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well this will just come back to haunt them.
Google has wisely realised that you don't pick on disabilities, it makes you look, bad, like a bully.
At the end of the day if I understand correctly, this is just move to make books more accessible to the blind, it's not about the blind stealing their precious content.
These guys better wise up the world is changing around them.
Perhaps as individuals it's time we boycotted and voted with our choices.
Horrible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418938</id>
	<title>Re:the bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260629100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see, the right to life is a basic right for some constitutions and all of the international (citizen-political) rights treaties. Therefore, a country with a significant HIV and AIDS problem have the right to circumvent the copyrights and patents of the medical industry. Some constitutions include the rights for education, culture, identity and ultimately, freedom of expression as basic rights and as reading is a significant and necessary component for realizing these rights, the governments should be able to circumvent the copyrights of the media industry in these cases.<br>We have a legal goooooooaaaaaallll!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see , the right to life is a basic right for some constitutions and all of the international ( citizen-political ) rights treaties .
Therefore , a country with a significant HIV and AIDS problem have the right to circumvent the copyrights and patents of the medical industry .
Some constitutions include the rights for education , culture , identity and ultimately , freedom of expression as basic rights and as reading is a significant and necessary component for realizing these rights , the governments should be able to circumvent the copyrights of the media industry in these cases.We have a legal goooooooaaaaaallll !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see, the right to life is a basic right for some constitutions and all of the international (citizen-political) rights treaties.
Therefore, a country with a significant HIV and AIDS problem have the right to circumvent the copyrights and patents of the medical industry.
Some constitutions include the rights for education, culture, identity and ultimately, freedom of expression as basic rights and as reading is a significant and necessary component for realizing these rights, the governments should be able to circumvent the copyrights of the media industry in these cases.We have a legal goooooooaaaaaallll!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417208</id>
	<title>what words</title>
	<author>GarretSidzaka</author>
	<datestamp>1260612120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>blind or shortsighted is the words i would have used to describe this corporate activity, but that would be inappropriate with the context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blind or shortsighted is the words i would have used to describe this corporate activity , but that would be inappropriate with the context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blind or shortsighted is the words i would have used to describe this corporate activity, but that would be inappropriate with the context.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421640</id>
	<title>Re:Screw the blind on principle</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1260704580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the Brisish organization can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland. They have to destroy them. The proposal would allow the British organization to give the books to blind foreigners.</p></div><p>Since TFA is talking about about digitized books, saying things like "can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland" and "They have to destroy them" makes me wonder whether or not you actually understand what's being discussed here.</p><p>This is about allowing National organizations to share <i>e-books</i> for the blind <i>internationally</i>.<br>There is nothing surplus and nothing to be destroyed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Brisish organization ca n't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland .
They have to destroy them .
The proposal would allow the British organization to give the books to blind foreigners.Since TFA is talking about about digitized books , saying things like " ca n't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland " and " They have to destroy them " makes me wonder whether or not you actually understand what 's being discussed here.This is about allowing National organizations to share e-books for the blind internationally.There is nothing surplus and nothing to be destroyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Brisish organization can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland.
They have to destroy them.
The proposal would allow the British organization to give the books to blind foreigners.Since TFA is talking about about digitized books, saying things like "can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland" and "They have to destroy them" makes me wonder whether or not you actually understand what's being discussed here.This is about allowing National organizations to share e-books for the blind internationally.There is nothing surplus and nothing to be destroyed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421004</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260736620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't give them ideas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't give them ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't give them ideas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418194</id>
	<title>Re:the bottom line</title>
	<author>Insanity Defense</author>
	<datestamp>1260619920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>
slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions. they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
There is also the other half of the slippery slope.  Tighten down copyright law too far and no one can actually use your copyright protected product and so they stop buying it.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions .
they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way... . There is also the other half of the slippery slope .
Tighten down copyright law too far and no one can actually use your copyright protected product and so they stop buying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions.
they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....

There is also the other half of the slippery slope.
Tighten down copyright law too far and no one can actually use your copyright protected product and so they stop buying it.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417074</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260611340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thugs they have hired are the ones that make your draconian laws, they also have hired another thugs (the ones with badges) to enforce those laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thugs they have hired are the ones that make your draconian laws , they also have hired another thugs ( the ones with badges ) to enforce those laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thugs they have hired are the ones that make your draconian laws, they also have hired another thugs (the ones with badges) to enforce those laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418478</id>
	<title>Re:As a blind person myself</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1260623100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I refuse to let them take away my right to read.</i>
<br> <br>
I can understand the argument that the copyright industries should be looser with copyright in this particular case, but I'm pretty sure that their unwillingness to let you read their books for free does not amount to "letting them take away my right to read".  Do you show up at concerts, and, when the ticket window is unwilling to let you inside <i>for free</i>, do you describe that experience as "those guys are trying to take away my right to listen to music"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to let them take away my right to read .
I can understand the argument that the copyright industries should be looser with copyright in this particular case , but I 'm pretty sure that their unwillingness to let you read their books for free does not amount to " letting them take away my right to read " .
Do you show up at concerts , and , when the ticket window is unwilling to let you inside for free , do you describe that experience as " those guys are trying to take away my right to listen to music " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to let them take away my right to read.
I can understand the argument that the copyright industries should be looser with copyright in this particular case, but I'm pretty sure that their unwillingness to let you read their books for free does not amount to "letting them take away my right to read".
Do you show up at concerts, and, when the ticket window is unwilling to let you inside for free, do you describe that experience as "those guys are trying to take away my right to listen to music"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421250</id>
	<title>Re:"right to read"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260697080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A relative told me years ago: "The world does not owe you a fucking thing." Guess what? The world doesn't owe YOU anything, either.</i> </p><p>My taxes are used to protect copyrights I don't believe in.  Big media believes they are owed something of mine, specifically, my money.  It is taken forcibly from my paycheck to pay for a police state I do not support but they do.  I cannot stop the taxman, I can stop paying for media.  Why do you think I owe Sony "a fucking thing"?  Was your relative mentally challenged?  Or did you fail to apply his lesson to all parties at the table?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A relative told me years ago : " The world does not owe you a fucking thing .
" Guess what ?
The world does n't owe YOU anything , either .
My taxes are used to protect copyrights I do n't believe in .
Big media believes they are owed something of mine , specifically , my money .
It is taken forcibly from my paycheck to pay for a police state I do not support but they do .
I can not stop the taxman , I can stop paying for media .
Why do you think I owe Sony " a fucking thing " ?
Was your relative mentally challenged ?
Or did you fail to apply his lesson to all parties at the table ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A relative told me years ago: "The world does not owe you a fucking thing.
" Guess what?
The world doesn't owe YOU anything, either.
My taxes are used to protect copyrights I don't believe in.
Big media believes they are owed something of mine, specifically, my money.
It is taken forcibly from my paycheck to pay for a police state I do not support but they do.
I cannot stop the taxman, I can stop paying for media.
Why do you think I owe Sony "a fucking thing"?
Was your relative mentally challenged?
Or did you fail to apply his lesson to all parties at the table?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417068</id>
	<title>There's a German saying...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260611280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ist der Ruf erst mal ruiniert, lebt sich's v&#246;llig ungeniert</p><p>(Once your reputation is ruined, you can act without shame)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ist der Ruf erst mal ruiniert , lebt sich 's v   llig ungeniert ( Once your reputation is ruined , you can act without shame )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ist der Ruf erst mal ruiniert, lebt sich's völlig ungeniert(Once your reputation is ruined, you can act without shame)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417266</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1260612600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there was an attempt a while back to get libraries to pay 'rent' for books, because OMG they're infringing upon our right to profit!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there was an attempt a while back to get libraries to pay 'rent ' for books , because OMG they 're infringing upon our right to profit !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there was an attempt a while back to get libraries to pay 'rent' for books, because OMG they're infringing upon our right to profit!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418068</id>
	<title>we already have this in the United States</title>
	<author>osssmkatz</author>
	<datestamp>1260618780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bookshare.org legally operates out of an exemption from copyright law that allows the visually impaired to subscribe to a library of ebooks in an accessible format. (DAISY)</p><p>I imagine the treaty just extends this internationally.</p><p>--Sam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bookshare.org legally operates out of an exemption from copyright law that allows the visually impaired to subscribe to a library of ebooks in an accessible format .
( DAISY ) I imagine the treaty just extends this internationally.--Sam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bookshare.org legally operates out of an exemption from copyright law that allows the visually impaired to subscribe to a library of ebooks in an accessible format.
(DAISY)I imagine the treaty just extends this internationally.--Sam</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417406</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1260613740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.</p></div><p>Who do you think sponsored Hitler's public book burnings?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised the fuckers have n't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.Who do you think sponsored Hitler 's public book burnings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.Who do you think sponsored Hitler's public book burnings?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419102</id>
	<title>Re:the bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260631740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont see the issue.</p><p>There is no reason that crippled orphans should get anything for free.</p><p>Of course, thats not what the article is about, and you could have at least read the summary. (yes, i must be new here, but come on, thats a retarded strawman)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont see the issue.There is no reason that crippled orphans should get anything for free.Of course , thats not what the article is about , and you could have at least read the summary .
( yes , i must be new here , but come on , thats a retarded strawman )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont see the issue.There is no reason that crippled orphans should get anything for free.Of course, thats not what the article is about, and you could have at least read the summary.
(yes, i must be new here, but come on, thats a retarded strawman)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416980</id>
	<title>\%y8wh[5 rq84.</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1260610740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 500.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go8he 0390o3 yqf3 48ty5w 500.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417270</id>
	<title>Typical</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260612660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US content Industry does it again, after Banksters, these Executives are the most greedy, egregious and un-feeling.<br><br>The only solution, to modify COPYRIGHT time limits back to sensible values eg 25 years or 10 years after author's death, whichever is shorter.<br><br>The only innovation in consumer creative enterprise is now happening in spite of, rather than because of these monopolistic idiots, eg Harry Potter, written by an unmarried mum in a cafe in Edinburough.<br><br>As usual, the major obstacle, is to get the US legislature under control, or for the Supreme Court to become strict Constitutional activists.<br><br>Unfortunately the media, which should alert the public is now also fully corrupted, vide Climategate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "No problem, it is all a storm in a teacup, keep watching the Polar Bears while we destroy the modern economy".<br><br>The only way to survive, without interstellar space travel, is the boxes (soap,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), and Fusion power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US content Industry does it again , after Banksters , these Executives are the most greedy , egregious and un-feeling.The only solution , to modify COPYRIGHT time limits back to sensible values eg 25 years or 10 years after author 's death , whichever is shorter.The only innovation in consumer creative enterprise is now happening in spite of , rather than because of these monopolistic idiots , eg Harry Potter , written by an unmarried mum in a cafe in Edinburough.As usual , the major obstacle , is to get the US legislature under control , or for the Supreme Court to become strict Constitutional activists.Unfortunately the media , which should alert the public is now also fully corrupted , vide Climategate ... " No problem , it is all a storm in a teacup , keep watching the Polar Bears while we destroy the modern economy " .The only way to survive , without interstellar space travel , is the boxes ( soap , ... ) , and Fusion power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US content Industry does it again, after Banksters, these Executives are the most greedy, egregious and un-feeling.The only solution, to modify COPYRIGHT time limits back to sensible values eg 25 years or 10 years after author's death, whichever is shorter.The only innovation in consumer creative enterprise is now happening in spite of, rather than because of these monopolistic idiots, eg Harry Potter, written by an unmarried mum in a cafe in Edinburough.As usual, the major obstacle, is to get the US legislature under control, or for the Supreme Court to become strict Constitutional activists.Unfortunately the media, which should alert the public is now also fully corrupted, vide Climategate ... "No problem, it is all a storm in a teacup, keep watching the Polar Bears while we destroy the modern economy".The only way to survive, without interstellar space travel, is the boxes (soap, ...), and Fusion power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418182</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260619800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.</p></div><p>Sshh! Don't give them ideas!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised the fuckers have n't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.Sshh !
Do n't give them ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.Sshh!
Don't give them ideas!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417160</id>
	<title>just a misunderstanding</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1260611700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the industry thought "treaty for the blind" meant "treaty readable by the blind" <br>
- which would seriously compromise the concept of illegible small print.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the industry thought " treaty for the blind " meant " treaty readable by the blind " - which would seriously compromise the concept of illegible small print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the industry thought "treaty for the blind" meant "treaty readable by the blind" 
- which would seriously compromise the concept of illegible small print.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106</id>
	<title>As a blind person myself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books, just as I do now. If the corporations that run the US and my own country's government oppose this, I don't give a shit. I refuse to let them take away my right to read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books , just as I do now .
If the corporations that run the US and my own country 's government oppose this , I do n't give a shit .
I refuse to let them take away my right to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books, just as I do now.
If the corporations that run the US and my own country's government oppose this, I don't give a shit.
I refuse to let them take away my right to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419498</id>
	<title>lamers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my sister is blind from birth; its not polite to refer to it as a disability, for us with sight it would suck to loose our sight, but she never had it to begin with, so she tends to see it as an integral part of her very personhood.</p><p>i nearly got busted for cracking a screenreader program for her because she neither could afford it nor would anyone get it for her (not even all the organizations or govt); the program is about a $1000. she's been blind since birth, has hardly any contact with the outside world because of mobility issues, and i almost get busted for getting her something that greatly improved her quality of living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my sister is blind from birth ; its not polite to refer to it as a disability , for us with sight it would suck to loose our sight , but she never had it to begin with , so she tends to see it as an integral part of her very personhood.i nearly got busted for cracking a screenreader program for her because she neither could afford it nor would anyone get it for her ( not even all the organizations or govt ) ; the program is about a $ 1000 .
she 's been blind since birth , has hardly any contact with the outside world because of mobility issues , and i almost get busted for getting her something that greatly improved her quality of living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my sister is blind from birth; its not polite to refer to it as a disability, for us with sight it would suck to loose our sight, but she never had it to begin with, so she tends to see it as an integral part of her very personhood.i nearly got busted for cracking a screenreader program for her because she neither could afford it nor would anyone get it for her (not even all the organizations or govt); the program is about a $1000.
she's been blind since birth, has hardly any contact with the outside world because of mobility issues, and i almost get busted for getting her something that greatly improved her quality of living.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417326</id>
	<title>no they CRIA you</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1260613200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even if you are doing things right they will steal and thieve<br>CRIA<br>6 billion lawsuit by artists the CRIA stole money<br>450 million in then breached contractual fudicial duty of collecting cdr levy fees THEY DOUBLED TOO this year</p><p>so they are stealing from everyone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even if you are doing things right they will steal and thieveCRIA6 billion lawsuit by artists the CRIA stole money450 million in then breached contractual fudicial duty of collecting cdr levy fees THEY DOUBLED TOO this yearso they are stealing from everyone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even if you are doing things right they will steal and thieveCRIA6 billion lawsuit by artists the CRIA stole money450 million in then breached contractual fudicial duty of collecting cdr levy fees THEY DOUBLED TOO this yearso they are stealing from everyone</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418056</id>
	<title>Keep track of these companies</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1260618660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> When, inevitably, these douche bags find themselves lobbying some government for "fair treatment", this conduct would be a lovely thing to throw in their face.  Especially in an election year. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When , inevitably , these douche bags find themselves lobbying some government for " fair treatment " , this conduct would be a lovely thing to throw in their face .
Especially in an election year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When, inevitably, these douche bags find themselves lobbying some government for "fair treatment", this conduct would be a lovely thing to throw in their face.
Especially in an election year. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419436</id>
	<title>Re:the bottom line</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1260634860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>having read more than this article about it:
copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their <b>profit</b> in any form.  doesn't matter if it's for blind, crippled orphans.  they should pay too.  slippery slope and all that.  in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that.  slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions.  they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....</p><p>gods, i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...</p></div><p>T, FTFY. And as much as I hate it, I don't really blame them for it. They exist for a reason and the reason is profit, nothing else. Profit is *the* motivation of everything they do -- be it good or evil.</p><p>And I tend to forgive them these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>having read more than this article about it : copyright holders , for the most part , are against ANYTHING that decrease their profit in any form .
does n't matter if it 's for blind , crippled orphans .
they should pay too .
slippery slope and all that .
in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that .
slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions .
they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....gods , i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...T , FTFY .
And as much as I hate it , I do n't really blame them for it .
They exist for a reason and the reason is profit , nothing else .
Profit is * the * motivation of everything they do -- be it good or evil.And I tend to forgive them these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having read more than this article about it:
copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their profit in any form.
doesn't matter if it's for blind, crippled orphans.
they should pay too.
slippery slope and all that.
in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that.
slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions.
they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....gods, i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...T, FTFY.
And as much as I hate it, I don't really blame them for it.
They exist for a reason and the reason is profit, nothing else.
Profit is *the* motivation of everything they do -- be it good or evil.And I tend to forgive them these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420260</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>kenshin33</author>
	<datestamp>1260641820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, it is time for a new "Statue of Anne".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it is time for a new " Statue of Anne " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it is time for a new "Statue of Anne".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421154</id>
	<title>Hey copyright industries!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260695700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you going to do when they do this?</p><p>Move to another country? LOL ^^</p><p>&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</p><p>Who cares when they scream? They can scream all year long. Ain&rsquo;t going to change a thing!</p><p>(Yes I know about the spineless losers who will cave in anyway, and the even worse losers who will prophesy it until it fulfills itself. I don&rsquo;t care. I say it ain&rsquo;t gonna happen, until my prophesy fulfills itself. Because: Which one would you rather want to come true?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you going to do when they do this ? Move to another country ?
LOL ^ ^                                                             Who cares when they scream ?
They can scream all year long .
Ain    t going to change a thing !
( Yes I know about the spineless losers who will cave in anyway , and the even worse losers who will prophesy it until it fulfills itself .
I don    t care .
I say it ain    t gon na happen , until my prophesy fulfills itself .
Because : Which one would you rather want to come true ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you going to do when they do this?Move to another country?
LOL ^^————————————————————Who cares when they scream?
They can scream all year long.
Ain’t going to change a thing!
(Yes I know about the spineless losers who will cave in anyway, and the even worse losers who will prophesy it until it fulfills itself.
I don’t care.
I say it ain’t gonna happen, until my prophesy fulfills itself.
Because: Which one would you rather want to come true?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418250</id>
	<title>Leave it to Google too be evil</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1260620460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet again they have to be the vil black sheep that ruins it for everyone else. Do they not realise blind people are rolling in cash and should be paying a premium for anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet again they have to be the vil black sheep that ruins it for everyone else .
Do they not realise blind people are rolling in cash and should be paying a premium for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet again they have to be the vil black sheep that ruins it for everyone else.
Do they not realise blind people are rolling in cash and should be paying a premium for anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417006</id>
	<title>Copyright industries oppose something...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260610920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that will make peoples life easier.</p><p>From what I know it is their job to make it more inconveniently to more people to consume theirs products.</p><p>(I didnt read the article to see the argument)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that will make peoples life easier.From what I know it is their job to make it more inconveniently to more people to consume theirs products .
( I didnt read the article to see the argument )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that will make peoples life easier.From what I know it is their job to make it more inconveniently to more people to consume theirs products.
(I didnt read the article to see the argument)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540</id>
	<title>"right to read"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260623700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books, just as I do now. If the corporations that run the US and my own country's government oppose this, I don't give a shit. I refuse to let them take away my right to read.</i>

</p><p>What part of being blind excuses you from having to pay for something the rest of us have to pay for?  And, way to go supporting the companies that do publish material for you.  This isn't the anime industry where fansubs were needed to help 'seed' the market outside Asia.  You're stealing, plain and simple.  If you don't like the copyright model, fine, don't buy.  Read public-domain works like the classics, or free garbage like Cory Doctorow's stuff.  I have a right to freely associate and travel, but that doesn't mean I get to ride the bus for free (unlike you) or show up to a show all my friends are at and not pay the cover charge.

</p><p>Also, you don't have a "right to read", nor does anyone else.  Authors, newspapers, publishers, or bookstores publish what, where and when they want to, and the government is not allowed to control that; hence freedom of the PRESS.  It doesn't mean you are entitled to braille or electronic versions of whatever you want.  It doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to walk into a library and demand a book, or steal a book - off the shelf or electronically.

</p><p>Sorry, but I get a little steamed when people start slinging around the words "I have a right to" or "my right to", or develop a sense of entitlement because of their disability.  I also have friends who work for independent booksellers.  They're not exactly rolling in the dough- they do it in part because they love literature.  I also have friends who are authors, and they're not rolling in the dough either.  It's years of writing, followed by a year+ of trying to find a publisher and get the thing edited, then months of promoting the book via tours.  What do they get for their trouble?  Pennies on the dollar per book.  You think it's hard finding a book you want in braille?  Try PUBLISHING a book.

</p><p>A relative told me years ago: "The world does not owe you a fucking thing."  Guess what?  The world doesn't owe YOU anything, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books , just as I do now .
If the corporations that run the US and my own country 's government oppose this , I do n't give a shit .
I refuse to let them take away my right to read .
What part of being blind excuses you from having to pay for something the rest of us have to pay for ?
And , way to go supporting the companies that do publish material for you .
This is n't the anime industry where fansubs were needed to help 'seed ' the market outside Asia .
You 're stealing , plain and simple .
If you do n't like the copyright model , fine , do n't buy .
Read public-domain works like the classics , or free garbage like Cory Doctorow 's stuff .
I have a right to freely associate and travel , but that does n't mean I get to ride the bus for free ( unlike you ) or show up to a show all my friends are at and not pay the cover charge .
Also , you do n't have a " right to read " , nor does anyone else .
Authors , newspapers , publishers , or bookstores publish what , where and when they want to , and the government is not allowed to control that ; hence freedom of the PRESS .
It does n't mean you are entitled to braille or electronic versions of whatever you want .
It does n't mean you or anyone else has the right to walk into a library and demand a book , or steal a book - off the shelf or electronically .
Sorry , but I get a little steamed when people start slinging around the words " I have a right to " or " my right to " , or develop a sense of entitlement because of their disability .
I also have friends who work for independent booksellers .
They 're not exactly rolling in the dough- they do it in part because they love literature .
I also have friends who are authors , and they 're not rolling in the dough either .
It 's years of writing , followed by a year + of trying to find a publisher and get the thing edited , then months of promoting the book via tours .
What do they get for their trouble ?
Pennies on the dollar per book .
You think it 's hard finding a book you want in braille ?
Try PUBLISHING a book .
A relative told me years ago : " The world does not owe you a fucking thing .
" Guess what ?
The world does n't owe YOU anything , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'll just resort to Bittorrent for my books, just as I do now.
If the corporations that run the US and my own country's government oppose this, I don't give a shit.
I refuse to let them take away my right to read.
What part of being blind excuses you from having to pay for something the rest of us have to pay for?
And, way to go supporting the companies that do publish material for you.
This isn't the anime industry where fansubs were needed to help 'seed' the market outside Asia.
You're stealing, plain and simple.
If you don't like the copyright model, fine, don't buy.
Read public-domain works like the classics, or free garbage like Cory Doctorow's stuff.
I have a right to freely associate and travel, but that doesn't mean I get to ride the bus for free (unlike you) or show up to a show all my friends are at and not pay the cover charge.
Also, you don't have a "right to read", nor does anyone else.
Authors, newspapers, publishers, or bookstores publish what, where and when they want to, and the government is not allowed to control that; hence freedom of the PRESS.
It doesn't mean you are entitled to braille or electronic versions of whatever you want.
It doesn't mean you or anyone else has the right to walk into a library and demand a book, or steal a book - off the shelf or electronically.
Sorry, but I get a little steamed when people start slinging around the words "I have a right to" or "my right to", or develop a sense of entitlement because of their disability.
I also have friends who work for independent booksellers.
They're not exactly rolling in the dough- they do it in part because they love literature.
I also have friends who are authors, and they're not rolling in the dough either.
It's years of writing, followed by a year+ of trying to find a publisher and get the thing edited, then months of promoting the book via tours.
What do they get for their trouble?
Pennies on the dollar per book.
You think it's hard finding a book you want in braille?
Try PUBLISHING a book.
A relative told me years ago: "The world does not owe you a fucking thing.
"  Guess what?
The world doesn't owe YOU anything, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30427672</id>
	<title>Re:"right to read"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260722100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem like a twat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem like a twat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem like a twat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417402</id>
	<title>Screw the blind on principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260613740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me a lot of people are replying to this without reading the article.  Nothing new there, but if said people did read it, they might stop making some pretty dumb comments.

Allow me to quote a relevant passage:

--------
Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission. They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille.

The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe. The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations.

As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge. The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind.
------------

A simple example: A British non-profit organization makes books to give/sell cheaply to blind people in Britain *as is currently allowed by WIPO treaty*.  But the Brisish organization can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland.  They have to destroy them.  The proposal would allow the British organization to give the books to blind foreigners.  Just like "piracy" huh?  (idiots)

Apparently, the industry opposes this on "principle".  That's good.  It's okay to fuck over the blind so log as it's a principled fucking-over.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me a lot of people are replying to this without reading the article .
Nothing new there , but if said people did read it , they might stop making some pretty dumb comments .
Allow me to quote a relevant passage : -------- Many WIPO nations , most in the industrialized world including England , the United States and Canada , have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission .
They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format , which includes features like narration and digitized Braille .
The Daisy Corp. Consortium , a Swiss-based international agency , controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe .
The largest catalog rests in the United States , in which three non-profits , including the Library of Congress , host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations .
As it now stands , none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works , which are usually doled out for little or no charge .
The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind .
------------ A simple example : A British non-profit organization makes books to give/sell cheaply to blind people in Britain * as is currently allowed by WIPO treaty * .
But the Brisish organization ca n't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland .
They have to destroy them .
The proposal would allow the British organization to give the books to blind foreigners .
Just like " piracy " huh ?
( idiots ) Apparently , the industry opposes this on " principle " .
That 's good .
It 's okay to fuck over the blind so log as it 's a principled fucking-over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me a lot of people are replying to this without reading the article.
Nothing new there, but if said people did read it, they might stop making some pretty dumb comments.
Allow me to quote a relevant passage:

--------
Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission.
They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille.
The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe.
The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations.
As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge.
The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind.
------------

A simple example: A British non-profit organization makes books to give/sell cheaply to blind people in Britain *as is currently allowed by WIPO treaty*.
But the Brisish organization can't give surplus books to blind people in Ireland.
They have to destroy them.
The proposal would allow the British organization to give the books to blind foreigners.
Just like "piracy" huh?
(idiots)

Apparently, the industry opposes this on "principle".
That's good.
It's okay to fuck over the blind so log as it's a principled fucking-over.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417770</id>
	<title>Re:There is something wrong here</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260616380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They're opposed to their rights being weakened <b>in any way whatsoever</b>.
They <b>DON'T CARE</b> about anything else.
They <b>DON'T CARE</b> about consumers.
They <b>DON'T CARE</b> about the blind.
It's all about <b>ME ME ME</b>,  <b>MY RIGHTS</b>, and nobody else's.
</p><p>
These companies <b>VIGOROUSLY</b> pursue their own rights.  These companies vigorously pursue the <b>ELIMINATION</b> of <b>ANYBODY ELSE</b>'s rights.   They would rather the blind have <b>no reading material at all</b> than be allowed to impinge upon their rights, even in the most trivial of ways; and they will happily contrive even the most far-out absurd theories, in order to prove, they will lose lots of money due to a treaty like this.
</p><p>
Also, Braille is not necessarily the only output... narration ("Audio" book is also possible), see TFA:
</p><blockquote><div><p>Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission. They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille.<br> <br>
The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe. The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations.
<br> <br>
As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge. The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind.
<br> <br>
&ldquo;People who oppose copyright exemptions oppose exemptions on principle that there should be no exemptions of copyright law,&rdquo; says George Kerscher, Daisy&rsquo;s general secretary. &ldquo;They should have sole right and discretion to do what they want with their intellectual property. To a great extent, the opposition to the treaty is based on that principle.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're opposed to their rights being weakened in any way whatsoever .
They DO N'T CARE about anything else .
They DO N'T CARE about consumers .
They DO N'T CARE about the blind .
It 's all about ME ME ME , MY RIGHTS , and nobody else 's .
These companies VIGOROUSLY pursue their own rights .
These companies vigorously pursue the ELIMINATION of ANYBODY ELSE 's rights .
They would rather the blind have no reading material at all than be allowed to impinge upon their rights , even in the most trivial of ways ; and they will happily contrive even the most far-out absurd theories , in order to prove , they will lose lots of money due to a treaty like this .
Also , Braille is not necessarily the only output... narration ( " Audio " book is also possible ) , see TFA : Many WIPO nations , most in the industrialized world including England , the United States and Canada , have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission .
They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format , which includes features like narration and digitized Braille .
The Daisy Corp. Consortium , a Swiss-based international agency , controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe .
The largest catalog rests in the United States , in which three non-profits , including the Library of Congress , host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations .
As it now stands , none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works , which are usually doled out for little or no charge .
The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind .
   People who oppose copyright exemptions oppose exemptions on principle that there should be no exemptions of copyright law ,    says George Kerscher , Daisy    s general secretary .
   They should have sole right and discretion to do what they want with their intellectual property .
To a great extent , the opposition to the treaty is based on that principle.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They're opposed to their rights being weakened in any way whatsoever.
They DON'T CARE about anything else.
They DON'T CARE about consumers.
They DON'T CARE about the blind.
It's all about ME ME ME,  MY RIGHTS, and nobody else's.
These companies VIGOROUSLY pursue their own rights.
These companies vigorously pursue the ELIMINATION of ANYBODY ELSE's rights.
They would rather the blind have no reading material at all than be allowed to impinge upon their rights, even in the most trivial of ways; and they will happily contrive even the most far-out absurd theories, in order to prove, they will lose lots of money due to a treaty like this.
Also, Braille is not necessarily the only output... narration ("Audio" book is also possible), see TFA:
Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission.
They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille.
The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe.
The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations.
As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge.
The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind.
“People who oppose copyright exemptions oppose exemptions on principle that there should be no exemptions of copyright law,” says George Kerscher, Daisy’s general secretary.
“They should have sole right and discretion to do what they want with their intellectual property.
To a great extent, the opposition to the treaty is based on that principle.”
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419744</id>
	<title>Never underestimate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260637440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never underestimate the power of Corporate Greedy Bastardism(tm).  To Hell and bedamned all others.  The Corporation is first, last and always.  It is the new Alpha and Omega.  The Corporation is the only citizen with a vote.  The Corporation will impose feudal status (or not) to whomever submits and labors for it.  Many toil, few (very few) prosper.  Go ahead, you can go work somewhere else.  Here the blind are deemed a threat to the billions these companies have (millionths of a penny on the dollar), but it goes against the spirit of never letting anything go if you don't have to.  It goes against the greed ethos.  All for me, none for you.  As an entity in our society, it should have been destroyed a very long time ago.  It should have never been allowed to grow as powerful as it is now.  Corporations, if they are persons, are psychologically damaged.  They are schizophrenic, psychopathic and exhibit very anti-social behaviours and tendencies.  The blind deserve much better than what some board wants.  The board needs the board of education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never underestimate the power of Corporate Greedy Bastardism ( tm ) .
To Hell and bedamned all others .
The Corporation is first , last and always .
It is the new Alpha and Omega .
The Corporation is the only citizen with a vote .
The Corporation will impose feudal status ( or not ) to whomever submits and labors for it .
Many toil , few ( very few ) prosper .
Go ahead , you can go work somewhere else .
Here the blind are deemed a threat to the billions these companies have ( millionths of a penny on the dollar ) , but it goes against the spirit of never letting anything go if you do n't have to .
It goes against the greed ethos .
All for me , none for you .
As an entity in our society , it should have been destroyed a very long time ago .
It should have never been allowed to grow as powerful as it is now .
Corporations , if they are persons , are psychologically damaged .
They are schizophrenic , psychopathic and exhibit very anti-social behaviours and tendencies .
The blind deserve much better than what some board wants .
The board needs the board of education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never underestimate the power of Corporate Greedy Bastardism(tm).
To Hell and bedamned all others.
The Corporation is first, last and always.
It is the new Alpha and Omega.
The Corporation is the only citizen with a vote.
The Corporation will impose feudal status (or not) to whomever submits and labors for it.
Many toil, few (very few) prosper.
Go ahead, you can go work somewhere else.
Here the blind are deemed a threat to the billions these companies have (millionths of a penny on the dollar), but it goes against the spirit of never letting anything go if you don't have to.
It goes against the greed ethos.
All for me, none for you.
As an entity in our society, it should have been destroyed a very long time ago.
It should have never been allowed to grow as powerful as it is now.
Corporations, if they are persons, are psychologically damaged.
They are schizophrenic, psychopathic and exhibit very anti-social behaviours and tendencies.
The blind deserve much better than what some board wants.
The board needs the board of education.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954</id>
	<title>There is something wrong here</title>
	<author>RotateLeftByte</author>
	<datestamp>1260610620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Motion Picture makers are opposing a treaty that concerns people who a frigging Blind.</p><p>Excuse me Mr MPAA how exactly are Blind people expected to SEE (with working eyes naturally) your esteemed works?</p><p>Why would these business really oppose a treaty that would make life easier for one section of society. Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patches and learn braille?</p><p>Bah Humbug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Motion Picture makers are opposing a treaty that concerns people who a frigging Blind.Excuse me Mr MPAA how exactly are Blind people expected to SEE ( with working eyes naturally ) your esteemed works ? Why would these business really oppose a treaty that would make life easier for one section of society .
Are they afraid we would all rush out , buy some eye patches and learn braille ? Bah Humbug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Motion Picture makers are opposing a treaty that concerns people who a frigging Blind.Excuse me Mr MPAA how exactly are Blind people expected to SEE (with working eyes naturally) your esteemed works?Why would these business really oppose a treaty that would make life easier for one section of society.
Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patches and learn braille?Bah Humbug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417126</id>
	<title>summary is misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260611520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The treaty would not only "allow" cross-border sharing of books for the blind, it would *require* such sharing under enforceable provisions of an international treaty.  What the copyright owners are saying is that they are trying to accomplish the same voluntarily, but oppose the imposition of statute.  As for Google, it's easy to be generous with other people's stuff, especially when they stand to benefit from ancillary relationships with officials in developing countries, so I don't see why their opinion is even newsworthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The treaty would not only " allow " cross-border sharing of books for the blind , it would * require * such sharing under enforceable provisions of an international treaty .
What the copyright owners are saying is that they are trying to accomplish the same voluntarily , but oppose the imposition of statute .
As for Google , it 's easy to be generous with other people 's stuff , especially when they stand to benefit from ancillary relationships with officials in developing countries , so I do n't see why their opinion is even newsworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The treaty would not only "allow" cross-border sharing of books for the blind, it would *require* such sharing under enforceable provisions of an international treaty.
What the copyright owners are saying is that they are trying to accomplish the same voluntarily, but oppose the imposition of statute.
As for Google, it's easy to be generous with other people's stuff, especially when they stand to benefit from ancillary relationships with officials in developing countries, so I don't see why their opinion is even newsworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418306</id>
	<title>Re:Blind phople shpuld take there dogs to offices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260621000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>pop all over the place</p></div><p>Yeeeessss... I can already imagine it:<br>
*pop*<br>
*dog guts all over the place*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>pop all over the placeYeeeessss... I can already imagine it : * pop * * dog guts all over the place *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pop all over the placeYeeeessss... I can already imagine it:
*pop*
*dog guts all over the place*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416920</id>
	<title>Blind phople shpuld take there dogs to offices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260610380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blind people should take there dogs to offices of the business and let them pop all over the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blind people should take there dogs to offices of the business and let them pop all over the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blind people should take there dogs to offices of the business and let them pop all over the place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30422080</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1260713400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA, but I'm guessing it's a DRM issue. Any open format can be easily used by accessibility software (e.g. screen readers), but closed formats can't. If the treaty makes open formats available, that would be a massive loophole. Even if it's ineffective, DRM is like a comfort blanket to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA , but I 'm guessing it 's a DRM issue .
Any open format can be easily used by accessibility software ( e.g .
screen readers ) , but closed formats ca n't .
If the treaty makes open formats available , that would be a massive loophole .
Even if it 's ineffective , DRM is like a comfort blanket to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA, but I'm guessing it's a DRM issue.
Any open format can be easily used by accessibility software (e.g.
screen readers), but closed formats can't.
If the treaty makes open formats available, that would be a massive loophole.
Even if it's ineffective, DRM is like a comfort blanket to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198</id>
	<title>the bottom line</title>
	<author>jt418-93</author>
	<datestamp>1260612060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>having read more than this article about it:<br>copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their rights in any form.  doesn't matter if it's for blind, crippled orphans.  they should pay too.  slippery slope and all that.  in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that.  slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions.  they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....</p><p>gods, i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>having read more than this article about it : copyright holders , for the most part , are against ANYTHING that decrease their rights in any form .
does n't matter if it 's for blind , crippled orphans .
they should pay too .
slippery slope and all that .
in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that .
slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions .
they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....gods , i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having read more than this article about it:copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their rights in any form.
doesn't matter if it's for blind, crippled orphans.
they should pay too.
slippery slope and all that.
in one of the articles the mafiaa lawyer actually said that.
slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions.
they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....gods, i hate the monkeys on this planet sometimes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417522</id>
	<title>Selfish Greedy Bastards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No additional comment needed. Oh, wait . . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>No additional comment needed .
Oh , wait .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No additional comment needed.
Oh, wait .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</id>
	<title>Rob you blind</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1260610380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Extree! Extree! Read all about it! Copyright holders rob you blind!</p><p>Seriously what the fuck do these jokers hope to gain? How much can you expect to profit in this niche market to begin with?</p><p>I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Extree !
Extree ! Read all about it !
Copyright holders rob you blind ! Seriously what the fuck do these jokers hope to gain ?
How much can you expect to profit in this niche market to begin with ? I 'm surprised the fuckers have n't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extree!
Extree! Read all about it!
Copyright holders rob you blind!Seriously what the fuck do these jokers hope to gain?
How much can you expect to profit in this niche market to begin with?I'm surprised the fuckers haven't hired thugs to go around and burn down public libraries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419316</id>
	<title>Copyright is theft</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1260633840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is anyone surprised?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is anyone surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is anyone surprised?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416928</id>
	<title>Damn blind people</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1260610440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Always <i>looking</i> for a way to screw America!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Always looking for a way to screw America !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Always looking for a way to screw America!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420384</id>
	<title>Re:the bottom line</title>
	<author>517714</author>
	<datestamp>1260643080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apes, not monkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apes , not monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apes, not monkeys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417452</id>
	<title>Not as clear cut as it sounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a big reason why they are unified against it. Remember most industries are required by law to provide content. Others do it under severe pressure. Notice that there is no additional cost in materials for the blind? The makers have to provide it at their own expense. Even though the article talks about books for the blind I doubt that's the real issue. Unless the capability is disabled most any book can be read out loud by an eReader not just books for the blind. Some OSs have the capability built in as well. I'm guessing they are drawing the line because of the next likely step, requiring all media content to be blind friendly in every country you sell to. That's why Hollywood is concerned because it would be a massive expense. Already it's extremely expensive to do voice overs in foreign languages which limits distribution. Add in blind content, verbal descriptions of action basically, in foreign languages and you limit distribution to only major markets cutting off a big chunk of revenue making films on the edge unprofitable. I seriously doubt anyone is trying to keep material for the blind from blind people in other countries but they have faced this kind of escalation before and if down the road they pass a treaty requiring blind content for people in every country that media is released in most will simply avoid distributing in most countries. Yes I know, why we'll just get the material off torrents! Trust me the more marginal films start to loose money the more sequels and remakes you'll see. I think if there were assurances that the treaty wouldn't be expanded the problem would go away. There are hundreds of potential languages to support and many of the countries only represent thousands to tens of thousands in sales anyway so instead of a small profit they'd be facing losses potentially in many existing markets. Remember also that markets are regional not country by country. Africa is a small market so if they have to support dozens of languages they just avoid the whole market. Even in Europe they only normally do foreign language versions for 5 or 6 languages when we're talking dozens of languages. Handicapped support is a third rail subject so they know if it gets out of hand they will loose. Limit it to allowing english language versions international and I'll bet money the issue goes away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a big reason why they are unified against it .
Remember most industries are required by law to provide content .
Others do it under severe pressure .
Notice that there is no additional cost in materials for the blind ?
The makers have to provide it at their own expense .
Even though the article talks about books for the blind I doubt that 's the real issue .
Unless the capability is disabled most any book can be read out loud by an eReader not just books for the blind .
Some OSs have the capability built in as well .
I 'm guessing they are drawing the line because of the next likely step , requiring all media content to be blind friendly in every country you sell to .
That 's why Hollywood is concerned because it would be a massive expense .
Already it 's extremely expensive to do voice overs in foreign languages which limits distribution .
Add in blind content , verbal descriptions of action basically , in foreign languages and you limit distribution to only major markets cutting off a big chunk of revenue making films on the edge unprofitable .
I seriously doubt anyone is trying to keep material for the blind from blind people in other countries but they have faced this kind of escalation before and if down the road they pass a treaty requiring blind content for people in every country that media is released in most will simply avoid distributing in most countries .
Yes I know , why we 'll just get the material off torrents !
Trust me the more marginal films start to loose money the more sequels and remakes you 'll see .
I think if there were assurances that the treaty would n't be expanded the problem would go away .
There are hundreds of potential languages to support and many of the countries only represent thousands to tens of thousands in sales anyway so instead of a small profit they 'd be facing losses potentially in many existing markets .
Remember also that markets are regional not country by country .
Africa is a small market so if they have to support dozens of languages they just avoid the whole market .
Even in Europe they only normally do foreign language versions for 5 or 6 languages when we 're talking dozens of languages .
Handicapped support is a third rail subject so they know if it gets out of hand they will loose .
Limit it to allowing english language versions international and I 'll bet money the issue goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a big reason why they are unified against it.
Remember most industries are required by law to provide content.
Others do it under severe pressure.
Notice that there is no additional cost in materials for the blind?
The makers have to provide it at their own expense.
Even though the article talks about books for the blind I doubt that's the real issue.
Unless the capability is disabled most any book can be read out loud by an eReader not just books for the blind.
Some OSs have the capability built in as well.
I'm guessing they are drawing the line because of the next likely step, requiring all media content to be blind friendly in every country you sell to.
That's why Hollywood is concerned because it would be a massive expense.
Already it's extremely expensive to do voice overs in foreign languages which limits distribution.
Add in blind content, verbal descriptions of action basically, in foreign languages and you limit distribution to only major markets cutting off a big chunk of revenue making films on the edge unprofitable.
I seriously doubt anyone is trying to keep material for the blind from blind people in other countries but they have faced this kind of escalation before and if down the road they pass a treaty requiring blind content for people in every country that media is released in most will simply avoid distributing in most countries.
Yes I know, why we'll just get the material off torrents!
Trust me the more marginal films start to loose money the more sequels and remakes you'll see.
I think if there were assurances that the treaty wouldn't be expanded the problem would go away.
There are hundreds of potential languages to support and many of the countries only represent thousands to tens of thousands in sales anyway so instead of a small profit they'd be facing losses potentially in many existing markets.
Remember also that markets are regional not country by country.
Africa is a small market so if they have to support dozens of languages they just avoid the whole market.
Even in Europe they only normally do foreign language versions for 5 or 6 languages when we're talking dozens of languages.
Handicapped support is a third rail subject so they know if it gets out of hand they will loose.
Limit it to allowing english language versions international and I'll bet money the issue goes away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30425270</id>
	<title>Re:the bottom line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260700260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their rights in any form.</p></div><p>As the poster of this comment, I object.   I don't care if my comment gets abused in any way, shape or form.  Feel free to copy it to your computer, modify it, and re-post it to slashdot with absolutely no attribution if you want to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Or did you mean copyright-holding-public-commercial-corporations-in-the-entertainment-industry?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>copyright holders , for the most part , are against ANYTHING that decrease their rights in any form.As the poster of this comment , I object .
I do n't care if my comment gets abused in any way , shape or form .
Feel free to copy it to your computer , modify it , and re-post it to slashdot with absolutely no attribution if you want to : ) Or did you mean copyright-holding-public-commercial-corporations-in-the-entertainment-industry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>copyright holders, for the most part, are against ANYTHING that decrease their rights in any form.As the poster of this comment, I object.
I don't care if my comment gets abused in any way, shape or form.
Feel free to copy it to your computer, modify it, and re-post it to slashdot with absolutely no attribution if you want to :)Or did you mean copyright-holding-public-commercial-corporations-in-the-entertainment-industry?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418692</id>
	<title>Re:There is something wrong here</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1260625920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patches</p></div></blockquote><p>Arrr, I've got me eye-patch already, savvy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they afraid we would all rush out , buy some eye patchesArrr , I 've got me eye-patch already , savvy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they afraid we would all rush out, buy some eye patchesArrr, I've got me eye-patch already, savvy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417124</id>
	<title>Re:There is something wrong here</title>
	<author>KibibyteBrain</author>
	<datestamp>1260611520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are not opposing this treater per se, but instead any treaty that would set exceptions to the status quo of copyrights. They view it as a threatening precedent to allow any exceptions to copyright law, because it might snowball into eventually allowing society to think about more radical change to copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not opposing this treater per se , but instead any treaty that would set exceptions to the status quo of copyrights .
They view it as a threatening precedent to allow any exceptions to copyright law , because it might snowball into eventually allowing society to think about more radical change to copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not opposing this treater per se, but instead any treaty that would set exceptions to the status quo of copyrights.
They view it as a threatening precedent to allow any exceptions to copyright law, because it might snowball into eventually allowing society to think about more radical change to copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419512</id>
	<title>Re:"right to read"?</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1260635520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What part of being blind excuses you from having to pay for something the rest of us have to pay for?</p></div></blockquote><p>Nothing excuses him for that, but if he purchased an ebook for instance. And then re-downloads a different version of that same book from p2p (one that's been OCR'd, re-indexed, and re-processed for accessibility by a volunteer), then please let's not make that an infraction (civil or criminal).</p><p>We used to have to throw pipes in the gutter and cover them with cement in the dead middle of the night, just so that people in wheelchairs could navigate the sidewalks of intersections. What was then illegal is now the law. I believe that this same issue with re-formatting and reprocessing for accessibility will get resolved legally that same way. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of being blind excuses you from having to pay for something the rest of us have to pay for ? Nothing excuses him for that , but if he purchased an ebook for instance .
And then re-downloads a different version of that same book from p2p ( one that 's been OCR 'd , re-indexed , and re-processed for accessibility by a volunteer ) , then please let 's not make that an infraction ( civil or criminal ) .We used to have to throw pipes in the gutter and cover them with cement in the dead middle of the night , just so that people in wheelchairs could navigate the sidewalks of intersections .
What was then illegal is now the law .
I believe that this same issue with re-formatting and reprocessing for accessibility will get resolved legally that same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of being blind excuses you from having to pay for something the rest of us have to pay for?Nothing excuses him for that, but if he purchased an ebook for instance.
And then re-downloads a different version of that same book from p2p (one that's been OCR'd, re-indexed, and re-processed for accessibility by a volunteer), then please let's not make that an infraction (civil or criminal).We used to have to throw pipes in the gutter and cover them with cement in the dead middle of the night, just so that people in wheelchairs could navigate the sidewalks of intersections.
What was then illegal is now the law.
I believe that this same issue with re-formatting and reprocessing for accessibility will get resolved legally that same way. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420912</id>
	<title>That's american corporatism for you.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1260735180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder if there are still any morons who are willing to give me shit about american system, 'free' market, and the 'invisible' hand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>what i see is there is no freedom, there is no system, and 'the hand' is bashing on our heads, leave aside being invisible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder if there are still any morons who are willing to give me shit about american system , 'free ' market , and the 'invisible ' hand ...what i see is there is no freedom , there is no system , and 'the hand ' is bashing on our heads , leave aside being invisible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder if there are still any morons who are willing to give me shit about american system, 'free' market, and the 'invisible' hand ...what i see is there is no freedom, there is no system, and 'the hand' is bashing on our heads, leave aside being invisible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418168</id>
	<title>Re:summary is misleading</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1260619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The treaty would not only "allow" cross-border sharing of books for the blind, it would *require* such sharing</p></div><p>
Books for those with sight can be freely shared across borders today (I lend books to friends in other countries all the time). All the blind are really asking for here is equal rights.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The treaty would not only " allow " cross-border sharing of books for the blind , it would * require * such sharing Books for those with sight can be freely shared across borders today ( I lend books to friends in other countries all the time ) .
All the blind are really asking for here is equal rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The treaty would not only "allow" cross-border sharing of books for the blind, it would *require* such sharing
Books for those with sight can be freely shared across borders today (I lend books to friends in other countries all the time).
All the blind are really asking for here is equal rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417138</id>
	<title>OUTLAWS</title>
	<author>d'fim</author>
	<datestamp>1260611640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if we outlaw books for the blind, then only the blind will have books! Oh, wait.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if we outlaw books for the blind , then only the blind will have books !
Oh , wait.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if we outlaw books for the blind, then only the blind will have books!
Oh, wait.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418504</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1260623340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Money is the goal.  What else should we expect?  Our culture embraces and promotes this kind of behaviour.</p><p>When we someday realize that each other are much more valuable than materials and control, maybe we can expect better things of our society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Money is the goal .
What else should we expect ?
Our culture embraces and promotes this kind of behaviour.When we someday realize that each other are much more valuable than materials and control , maybe we can expect better things of our society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money is the goal.
What else should we expect?
Our culture embraces and promotes this kind of behaviour.When we someday realize that each other are much more valuable than materials and control, maybe we can expect better things of our society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420252</id>
	<title>doesn't surprise me</title>
	<author>WeeBit</author>
	<datestamp>1260641760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few months ago I was helping a sight impaired individual set up their computer.  I ran into a snag, and went looking online for some help.  I came across a person and their exact words were to me...    "Why would a blind person need a computer?  Unfortunately, this person was not the first one I ran across online.  On rare occasions it just floors me on the remarks I get from some people.   Some of them act like they (sight given) have the only right to be online.  A few I wished I could of given them a knuckle sandwich, or a swift kick in the butt.    It doesn't surprise me that businesses online or even IRL have the same attitude.   Unless a sight impairment reaches up, and bites them in the ass, they just don't think anything is wrong in how they feel about it.   It's not their problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few months ago I was helping a sight impaired individual set up their computer .
I ran into a snag , and went looking online for some help .
I came across a person and their exact words were to me... " Why would a blind person need a computer ?
Unfortunately , this person was not the first one I ran across online .
On rare occasions it just floors me on the remarks I get from some people .
Some of them act like they ( sight given ) have the only right to be online .
A few I wished I could of given them a knuckle sandwich , or a swift kick in the butt .
It does n't surprise me that businesses online or even IRL have the same attitude .
Unless a sight impairment reaches up , and bites them in the ass , they just do n't think anything is wrong in how they feel about it .
It 's not their problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few months ago I was helping a sight impaired individual set up their computer.
I ran into a snag, and went looking online for some help.
I came across a person and their exact words were to me...    "Why would a blind person need a computer?
Unfortunately, this person was not the first one I ran across online.
On rare occasions it just floors me on the remarks I get from some people.
Some of them act like they (sight given) have the only right to be online.
A few I wished I could of given them a knuckle sandwich, or a swift kick in the butt.
It doesn't surprise me that businesses online or even IRL have the same attitude.
Unless a sight impairment reaches up, and bites them in the ass, they just don't think anything is wrong in how they feel about it.
It's not their problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417334</id>
	<title>Compromise?</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1260613200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about this.  It's completely acceptable to no-one, but would allow the blind access to digitized books:<br> <i>Any work can be played by a synthesized voice on readers owned by the blind, until such time as a licit spoken version is available from the publisher.</i> <br>This would give the publisher an incentive to release audible versions read by the author/professional reader, while allowing the blind access until that time (should it ever come, which in the case of most books, it won't).</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this .
It 's completely acceptable to no-one , but would allow the blind access to digitized books : Any work can be played by a synthesized voice on readers owned by the blind , until such time as a licit spoken version is available from the publisher .
This would give the publisher an incentive to release audible versions read by the author/professional reader , while allowing the blind access until that time ( should it ever come , which in the case of most books , it wo n't ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this.
It's completely acceptable to no-one, but would allow the blind access to digitized books: Any work can be played by a synthesized voice on readers owned by the blind, until such time as a licit spoken version is available from the publisher.
This would give the publisher an incentive to release audible versions read by the author/professional reader, while allowing the blind access until that time (should it ever come, which in the case of most books, it won't).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418434</id>
	<title>Re:Rob you blind</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1260622560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if you have digital Braille or whatever then surely you can regexp it to a normal digibook.</p><p>I'd say that's what they're worried about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you have digital Braille or whatever then surely you can regexp it to a normal digibook.I 'd say that 's what they 're worried about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you have digital Braille or whatever then surely you can regexp it to a normal digibook.I'd say that's what they're worried about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30422080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30425270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30427672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1915231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30425270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30419512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30427672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30421004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30420260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30417406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30422080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1915231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30416920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1915231.30418306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
