<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_2352241</id>
	<title>Alternative 2009 Copyright Expirations</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261382460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jrincayc writes <i>"It's nearly the end of 2009. If the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Act\_of\_1790">1790 copyright</a> maximum term of 28 years was still in effect, everything that had been published by 1981 would be now be in the public domain &mdash; like the original <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima\_I"> <em>Ultima</em></a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God\_Emperor\_of\_Dune"> <em>God Emperor of Dune</em></a> &mdash; and would be available for remixing and mashing up. If the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Act\_of\_1909">1909 copyright</a> maximum term of 56 years (if renewed) were still in force, everything published by 1953 would now be in the public domain, freeing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_City\_and\_the\_Stars"> <em>The City and the Stars</em></a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden\_Planet"> <em>Forbidden Planet</em></a>. If the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Copyright\_Act\_of\_1976">1976 copyright act</a> term of 75* years (* it's complicated) still applied, everything published by 1934 would now be in the public domain, including <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder\_on\_the\_Orient\_Express"> <em>Murder on the Orient Express</em></a>. But thanks to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny\_Bono\_Copyright\_Term\_Extension\_Act">Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act</a>, nothing in the US will go free until 2018, when 1923 works expire."</i> Assuming Congress doesn't step in with a Copyright Extension Act of 2017. What are the odds?</htmltext>
<tokenext>jrincayc writes " It 's nearly the end of 2009 .
If the 1790 copyright maximum term of 28 years was still in effect , everything that had been published by 1981 would be now be in the public domain    like the original Ultima and God Emperor of Dune    and would be available for remixing and mashing up .
If the 1909 copyright maximum term of 56 years ( if renewed ) were still in force , everything published by 1953 would now be in the public domain , freeing The City and the Stars and Forbidden Planet .
If the 1976 copyright act term of 75 * years ( * it 's complicated ) still applied , everything published by 1934 would now be in the public domain , including Murder on the Orient Express .
But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act , nothing in the US will go free until 2018 , when 1923 works expire .
" Assuming Congress does n't step in with a Copyright Extension Act of 2017 .
What are the odds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jrincayc writes "It's nearly the end of 2009.
If the 1790 copyright maximum term of 28 years was still in effect, everything that had been published by 1981 would be now be in the public domain — like the original  Ultima and  God Emperor of Dune — and would be available for remixing and mashing up.
If the 1909 copyright maximum term of 56 years (if renewed) were still in force, everything published by 1953 would now be in the public domain, freeing  The City and the Stars and  Forbidden Planet.
If the 1976 copyright act term of 75* years (* it's complicated) still applied, everything published by 1934 would now be in the public domain, including  Murder on the Orient Express.
But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, nothing in the US will go free until 2018, when 1923 works expire.
" Assuming Congress doesn't step in with a Copyright Extension Act of 2017.
What are the odds?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</id>
	<title>Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The next copyright extension will be by 2023. Why? Because that's when the Walt Disney Corp will lose it's copyright on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey\_Mouse#Legal\_issues" title="wikipedia.org">Mickey Mouse</a> [wikipedia.org]. And there is no way they would ever willingly lose their symbol. Walt Disney is the largest lobbying force in the Copyright Term Extensions, primarily because of all their older, but well recognized artistic works. <br> <br> Politicians, from both parties, are easily purchased to vote for Copyright laws. Copyright laws appeal to both Democrats and Republican lawmakers. Democrats, because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the (copy) "rights" of the people, making their constituents happy. Republicans, because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the rights of business, making their constituents happy. And when both parties agree... everyone loses. <br> <br> The biggest problem with copyrights though isn't that it is becoming such a big political issue, at least with some groups of people, or that it is easy to "presuade" lawmakers to side with the copyright holders; it's that Copyright laws are merely a symptom of the disease. Simply rolling copyright laws back to 1790 levels would only be a temporary solution. That fix would be repealed within the decade. The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?), or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills. But if we only see more of the same, I expect to eventually see copyrights last an "indetermined" amount of time. Your great-grand-children may live to see the Mickey Mouse copyright expire...maybe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next copyright extension will be by 2023 .
Why ? Because that 's when the Walt Disney Corp will lose it 's copyright on Mickey Mouse [ wikipedia.org ] .
And there is no way they would ever willingly lose their symbol .
Walt Disney is the largest lobbying force in the Copyright Term Extensions , primarily because of all their older , but well recognized artistic works .
Politicians , from both parties , are easily purchased to vote for Copyright laws .
Copyright laws appeal to both Democrats and Republican lawmakers .
Democrats , because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the ( copy ) " rights " of the people , making their constituents happy .
Republicans , because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the rights of business , making their constituents happy .
And when both parties agree... everyone loses .
The biggest problem with copyrights though is n't that it is becoming such a big political issue , at least with some groups of people , or that it is easy to " presuade " lawmakers to side with the copyright holders ; it 's that Copyright laws are merely a symptom of the disease .
Simply rolling copyright laws back to 1790 levels would only be a temporary solution .
That fix would be repealed within the decade .
The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America , perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely ( 5 political parties , anyone ?
) , or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills .
But if we only see more of the same , I expect to eventually see copyrights last an " indetermined " amount of time .
Your great-grand-children may live to see the Mickey Mouse copyright expire...maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next copyright extension will be by 2023.
Why? Because that's when the Walt Disney Corp will lose it's copyright on Mickey Mouse [wikipedia.org].
And there is no way they would ever willingly lose their symbol.
Walt Disney is the largest lobbying force in the Copyright Term Extensions, primarily because of all their older, but well recognized artistic works.
Politicians, from both parties, are easily purchased to vote for Copyright laws.
Copyright laws appeal to both Democrats and Republican lawmakers.
Democrats, because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the (copy) "rights" of the people, making their constituents happy.
Republicans, because by keeping copyright laws in effect makes them seem like they are protecting the rights of business, making their constituents happy.
And when both parties agree... everyone loses.
The biggest problem with copyrights though isn't that it is becoming such a big political issue, at least with some groups of people, or that it is easy to "presuade" lawmakers to side with the copyright holders; it's that Copyright laws are merely a symptom of the disease.
Simply rolling copyright laws back to 1790 levels would only be a temporary solution.
That fix would be repealed within the decade.
The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?
), or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills.
But if we only see more of the same, I expect to eventually see copyrights last an "indetermined" amount of time.
Your great-grand-children may live to see the Mickey Mouse copyright expire...maybe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523980</id>
	<title>Copyright is bound for removal</title>
	<author>spyfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1261499220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The copyright as we see it now is probably going to get removed soon. The copyright advocates will of course win many fight before but their own greed will ultimately make it impossible to uphold.</p><p>The thing is that copyright was quite easy to upheld when there was only a selected few who needed to think of and work with copyright, like newspapers, publishers and so on.<br>However, now days almost everyone needs to take copyright into consideration. If you post a video on Youtube you first need to think about copyright. You need to make sure that your radio isn't playing in the background or you will violate copyright.</p><p>Copyright worked when only a selected elite was forced to work with it. Today, it simply don't work. Ordinary people can't keep up with all this. They also don't think that it matters - they simply don't give a damn about if the radio is playing in the Youtube video.</p><p>So if the general population really don't care and continues to break copyright laws, how will the copyright maffia act? The current trend to make the laws harder will fail. It will not work to punish everyone who breaks the laws so they can only take some and make them into scapegoates. The problem with that is that people will start to wounder why some get away and some don't. A legal system where chance plays a big role isn't working in the long run. And if they try to catch everyone, then no one will care about the conviction. A country where everyone is guilty of copyright intrusion isn't a country where copyright intrusion is a crime that people are afraid off committing.</p><p>So this strict copyright regime will simply fail in the future. You can't uphold a law against common will for to long, no matter how many congressmen you bribe. Copyright will need to be simplified and reduced or it will simply vanish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The copyright as we see it now is probably going to get removed soon .
The copyright advocates will of course win many fight before but their own greed will ultimately make it impossible to uphold.The thing is that copyright was quite easy to upheld when there was only a selected few who needed to think of and work with copyright , like newspapers , publishers and so on.However , now days almost everyone needs to take copyright into consideration .
If you post a video on Youtube you first need to think about copyright .
You need to make sure that your radio is n't playing in the background or you will violate copyright.Copyright worked when only a selected elite was forced to work with it .
Today , it simply do n't work .
Ordinary people ca n't keep up with all this .
They also do n't think that it matters - they simply do n't give a damn about if the radio is playing in the Youtube video.So if the general population really do n't care and continues to break copyright laws , how will the copyright maffia act ?
The current trend to make the laws harder will fail .
It will not work to punish everyone who breaks the laws so they can only take some and make them into scapegoates .
The problem with that is that people will start to wounder why some get away and some do n't .
A legal system where chance plays a big role is n't working in the long run .
And if they try to catch everyone , then no one will care about the conviction .
A country where everyone is guilty of copyright intrusion is n't a country where copyright intrusion is a crime that people are afraid off committing.So this strict copyright regime will simply fail in the future .
You ca n't uphold a law against common will for to long , no matter how many congressmen you bribe .
Copyright will need to be simplified and reduced or it will simply vanish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The copyright as we see it now is probably going to get removed soon.
The copyright advocates will of course win many fight before but their own greed will ultimately make it impossible to uphold.The thing is that copyright was quite easy to upheld when there was only a selected few who needed to think of and work with copyright, like newspapers, publishers and so on.However, now days almost everyone needs to take copyright into consideration.
If you post a video on Youtube you first need to think about copyright.
You need to make sure that your radio isn't playing in the background or you will violate copyright.Copyright worked when only a selected elite was forced to work with it.
Today, it simply don't work.
Ordinary people can't keep up with all this.
They also don't think that it matters - they simply don't give a damn about if the radio is playing in the Youtube video.So if the general population really don't care and continues to break copyright laws, how will the copyright maffia act?
The current trend to make the laws harder will fail.
It will not work to punish everyone who breaks the laws so they can only take some and make them into scapegoates.
The problem with that is that people will start to wounder why some get away and some don't.
A legal system where chance plays a big role isn't working in the long run.
And if they try to catch everyone, then no one will care about the conviction.
A country where everyone is guilty of copyright intrusion isn't a country where copyright intrusion is a crime that people are afraid off committing.So this strict copyright regime will simply fail in the future.
You can't uphold a law against common will for to long, no matter how many congressmen you bribe.
Copyright will need to be simplified and reduced or it will simply vanish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522244</id>
	<title>It is not 28 years</title>
	<author>lordmetroid</author>
	<datestamp>1261484160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually it is only 14 years according to the original law. Works created before the law was created had the opportunity to get double the time protection.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_copyright\_law#History" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_copyright\_law#History</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it is only 14 years according to the original law .
Works created before the law was created had the opportunity to get double the time protection .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _copyright \ _law # History [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it is only 14 years according to the original law.
Works created before the law was created had the opportunity to get double the time protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_copyright\_law#History [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30529222</id>
	<title>Sucks to be in the US</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1261477200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the brits (and some other commonwealth countries) get Cliff Richard's "Living Doll" in the public domain next year (despite Cliff's best efforts), just as they got "Move It" in 2009.</p><p>I've yet to decide whether this is a good or bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the brits ( and some other commonwealth countries ) get Cliff Richard 's " Living Doll " in the public domain next year ( despite Cliff 's best efforts ) , just as they got " Move It " in 2009.I 've yet to decide whether this is a good or bad : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the brits (and some other commonwealth countries) get Cliff Richard's "Living Doll" in the public domain next year (despite Cliff's best efforts), just as they got "Move It" in 2009.I've yet to decide whether this is a good or bad :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430</id>
	<title>What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261472760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I give you a prediction:</p><p>New law - Copyright doesn't expire.<br>Consequences - Not enough people care and life goes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I give you a prediction : New law - Copyright does n't expire.Consequences - Not enough people care and life goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I give you a prediction:New law - Copyright doesn't expire.Consequences - Not enough people care and life goes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522832</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1261491840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't even matter anymore, does it?</p><p>DRM will take care of copyright not playing a role anymore quite soon. And more movies will be added to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost\_Movies" title="wikipedia.org">lost movies</a> [wikipedia.org] list. Not because we can't find a copy anywhere. Simply because duplicating it to new media is made impossible and any medium deteriorates over time. It's in the hand of the rights holder whether a movie, a computer game, a song gets "lost". At least until accidents happen and the single existing DRM-free master gets destroyed.</p><p>If you look at the "lost films" list, you will notice that many movies are "almost" lost, because only a fractioned copy of the movie exists, with missing scenes, torn and worn by years of showing. In other cases, films are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_rediscovered\_films" title="wikipedia.org">rediscovered</a> [wikipedia.org] in a cache somewhere, even if the master has been lost in something like the fire in the Paramount storage.</p><p>Take a look at the rediscovered list. It includes such historic material as the first Frankenstein film, W.C. Fields first movie, the first Titanic movie (made 1912), and also important documents of early FX mastery as Metropolis (which was only existing in fragments until an almost complete copy was discovered last year). Now imagine these movies gone.</p><p>This means losing history. Art history. And we will see a lot of it happen in the future. And while I tend to agree that with many movies made today it would probably not be a loss to art, for many more it would certainly be. What I personally find especially scary is that it will become trivial for rights holders and even governments to make movies disappear should they become politically or otherwise "unfavorable".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even matter anymore , does it ? DRM will take care of copyright not playing a role anymore quite soon .
And more movies will be added to the lost movies [ wikipedia.org ] list .
Not because we ca n't find a copy anywhere .
Simply because duplicating it to new media is made impossible and any medium deteriorates over time .
It 's in the hand of the rights holder whether a movie , a computer game , a song gets " lost " .
At least until accidents happen and the single existing DRM-free master gets destroyed.If you look at the " lost films " list , you will notice that many movies are " almost " lost , because only a fractioned copy of the movie exists , with missing scenes , torn and worn by years of showing .
In other cases , films are rediscovered [ wikipedia.org ] in a cache somewhere , even if the master has been lost in something like the fire in the Paramount storage.Take a look at the rediscovered list .
It includes such historic material as the first Frankenstein film , W.C. Fields first movie , the first Titanic movie ( made 1912 ) , and also important documents of early FX mastery as Metropolis ( which was only existing in fragments until an almost complete copy was discovered last year ) .
Now imagine these movies gone.This means losing history .
Art history .
And we will see a lot of it happen in the future .
And while I tend to agree that with many movies made today it would probably not be a loss to art , for many more it would certainly be .
What I personally find especially scary is that it will become trivial for rights holders and even governments to make movies disappear should they become politically or otherwise " unfavorable " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even matter anymore, does it?DRM will take care of copyright not playing a role anymore quite soon.
And more movies will be added to the lost movies [wikipedia.org] list.
Not because we can't find a copy anywhere.
Simply because duplicating it to new media is made impossible and any medium deteriorates over time.
It's in the hand of the rights holder whether a movie, a computer game, a song gets "lost".
At least until accidents happen and the single existing DRM-free master gets destroyed.If you look at the "lost films" list, you will notice that many movies are "almost" lost, because only a fractioned copy of the movie exists, with missing scenes, torn and worn by years of showing.
In other cases, films are rediscovered [wikipedia.org] in a cache somewhere, even if the master has been lost in something like the fire in the Paramount storage.Take a look at the rediscovered list.
It includes such historic material as the first Frankenstein film, W.C. Fields first movie, the first Titanic movie (made 1912), and also important documents of early FX mastery as Metropolis (which was only existing in fragments until an almost complete copy was discovered last year).
Now imagine these movies gone.This means losing history.
Art history.
And we will see a lot of it happen in the future.
And while I tend to agree that with many movies made today it would probably not be a loss to art, for many more it would certainly be.
What I personally find especially scary is that it will become trivial for rights holders and even governments to make movies disappear should they become politically or otherwise "unfavorable".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525762</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1261507620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two party system is nothing that is codified. Rather, it's something of a natural consequence to the basic system that we do have. To get rid of the two party monopoly, you'd have to roll over to coalition government, or a cascading vote system, or something else. That's a fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution. That's not likely to happen any time soon, at all. Constitutional Amendments aren't even seriously discussed any more. It would take a crisis of epic proportion to even have any hope.</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two party system is nothing that is codified .
Rather , it 's something of a natural consequence to the basic system that we do have .
To get rid of the two party monopoly , you 'd have to roll over to coalition government , or a cascading vote system , or something else .
That 's a fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution. That 's not likely to happen any time soon , at all .
Constitutional Amendments are n't even seriously discussed any more .
It would take a crisis of epic proportion to even have any hope.C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two party system is nothing that is codified.
Rather, it's something of a natural consequence to the basic system that we do have.
To get rid of the two party monopoly, you'd have to roll over to coalition government, or a cascading vote system, or something else.
That's a fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution. That's not likely to happen any time soon, at all.
Constitutional Amendments aren't even seriously discussed any more.
It would take a crisis of epic proportion to even have any hope.C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524540</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>b1t r0t</author>
	<datestamp>1261501740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could be made moot by providing a means for copyright renewals on a sliding scale. Then the companies that care enough about certain properties to bri...er, lobby Congress into extending the limit every time Steamboat Willie almost becomes public domain will be able to keep them copyrighted. It doesn't even have to be a lot of money for decades worth of renewals, it just has to be an effort by the copyright owner. Even every ten years after the first twenty or thirty should be often enough.
</p><p>(Of course a work going into public domain also shouldn't mean that every element of that work becomes public domain. Mickey Mouse should still be a trademark no matter the status of Steamboat Willie.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be made moot by providing a means for copyright renewals on a sliding scale .
Then the companies that care enough about certain properties to bri...er , lobby Congress into extending the limit every time Steamboat Willie almost becomes public domain will be able to keep them copyrighted .
It does n't even have to be a lot of money for decades worth of renewals , it just has to be an effort by the copyright owner .
Even every ten years after the first twenty or thirty should be often enough .
( Of course a work going into public domain also should n't mean that every element of that work becomes public domain .
Mickey Mouse should still be a trademark no matter the status of Steamboat Willie .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be made moot by providing a means for copyright renewals on a sliding scale.
Then the companies that care enough about certain properties to bri...er, lobby Congress into extending the limit every time Steamboat Willie almost becomes public domain will be able to keep them copyrighted.
It doesn't even have to be a lot of money for decades worth of renewals, it just has to be an effort by the copyright owner.
Even every ten years after the first twenty or thirty should be often enough.
(Of course a work going into public domain also shouldn't mean that every element of that work becomes public domain.
Mickey Mouse should still be a trademark no matter the status of Steamboat Willie.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525394</id>
	<title>Re:Five parties? Not in our system, even if you tr</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1261505820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the AC said - in the UK, we also have a simple plurality voting system that has led to a two party system. The main difference is that we have a significantly sized third party (Liberal Democrats), but unfortunately the Government has been a two party system for a long while. Furthermore, the Government has a majority, so they can force whatever laws they like through even if both the opposition parties disagree (the only hope is our 2nd house, the House of Lords). The opposition party and the Lib Dems can only really influence matters when there is disagreement within the Government itself.</p><p>Condorcet voting would be a lot better for both nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the AC said - in the UK , we also have a simple plurality voting system that has led to a two party system .
The main difference is that we have a significantly sized third party ( Liberal Democrats ) , but unfortunately the Government has been a two party system for a long while .
Furthermore , the Government has a majority , so they can force whatever laws they like through even if both the opposition parties disagree ( the only hope is our 2nd house , the House of Lords ) .
The opposition party and the Lib Dems can only really influence matters when there is disagreement within the Government itself.Condorcet voting would be a lot better for both nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the AC said - in the UK, we also have a simple plurality voting system that has led to a two party system.
The main difference is that we have a significantly sized third party (Liberal Democrats), but unfortunately the Government has been a two party system for a long while.
Furthermore, the Government has a majority, so they can force whatever laws they like through even if both the opposition parties disagree (the only hope is our 2nd house, the House of Lords).
The opposition party and the Lib Dems can only really influence matters when there is disagreement within the Government itself.Condorcet voting would be a lot better for both nations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523076</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1261493940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps Richard Stallman's argument applies here:  copyrights are out of date, and the entire concept needs to be rethought.  Stallman argues that copyrights were originally an industrial regulation, created in an age where one required industrial grade equipment to efficiently copy creative works.  Personal computers and the Internet have changed the situation, since individuals routinely possess both the equipment and knowledge of how to efficiently copy information.  The very concept of a copyright needs to be updated to reflect new technologies.<br> <br>

Of course, the people who stand to lose money from a revamped copyright system also happen to be the people with the most influence over the government, which is why instead we keep seeing laws passed that try to disguise reality and make us all think that nothing has really changed with regard to creative works (e.g. the DMCA).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Richard Stallman 's argument applies here : copyrights are out of date , and the entire concept needs to be rethought .
Stallman argues that copyrights were originally an industrial regulation , created in an age where one required industrial grade equipment to efficiently copy creative works .
Personal computers and the Internet have changed the situation , since individuals routinely possess both the equipment and knowledge of how to efficiently copy information .
The very concept of a copyright needs to be updated to reflect new technologies .
Of course , the people who stand to lose money from a revamped copyright system also happen to be the people with the most influence over the government , which is why instead we keep seeing laws passed that try to disguise reality and make us all think that nothing has really changed with regard to creative works ( e.g .
the DMCA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Richard Stallman's argument applies here:  copyrights are out of date, and the entire concept needs to be rethought.
Stallman argues that copyrights were originally an industrial regulation, created in an age where one required industrial grade equipment to efficiently copy creative works.
Personal computers and the Internet have changed the situation, since individuals routinely possess both the equipment and knowledge of how to efficiently copy information.
The very concept of a copyright needs to be updated to reflect new technologies.
Of course, the people who stand to lose money from a revamped copyright system also happen to be the people with the most influence over the government, which is why instead we keep seeing laws passed that try to disguise reality and make us all think that nothing has really changed with regard to creative works (e.g.
the DMCA).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524352</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1261500960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately we may as well take it as a given that the copyright on "Steamboat Willy" will NEVER expire.  Disney just has too much money, too much influence, and employs too many people. (Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! in the current economy, another root password to the Constitution, in addition to "Think of the children!")</p><p>So let's get more practical... I'd simply like to see copyright extension never happen automatically.  Disney has a whole team of lawyers, let them earn some of their pay by periodically filing for copyright extensions on the Disney stable of cash-cows.  Let the other companies do the same.  But here's the good side... Let the copyrights on the other stuff expire!  Unfortunately some stuff is just going to stay copyrighted, perhaps forever minus 1 day.  But let's get what we can into the public domain, if only for historic preservation purposes.</p><p>Who knows, perhaps in thousands of years archaeologists will look back at this era, gleaning what they can from our surviving digital records, and wonder whatever the heck "Steamboat Willy" was, while dissertations are written on the cultural significance of "It's a Wonderful Life" in 20th and 21st century America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately we may as well take it as a given that the copyright on " Steamboat Willy " will NEVER expire .
Disney just has too much money , too much influence , and employs too many people .
( Jobs ! Jobs !
Jobs ! in the current economy , another root password to the Constitution , in addition to " Think of the children !
" ) So let 's get more practical... I 'd simply like to see copyright extension never happen automatically .
Disney has a whole team of lawyers , let them earn some of their pay by periodically filing for copyright extensions on the Disney stable of cash-cows .
Let the other companies do the same .
But here 's the good side... Let the copyrights on the other stuff expire !
Unfortunately some stuff is just going to stay copyrighted , perhaps forever minus 1 day .
But let 's get what we can into the public domain , if only for historic preservation purposes.Who knows , perhaps in thousands of years archaeologists will look back at this era , gleaning what they can from our surviving digital records , and wonder whatever the heck " Steamboat Willy " was , while dissertations are written on the cultural significance of " It 's a Wonderful Life " in 20th and 21st century America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately we may as well take it as a given that the copyright on "Steamboat Willy" will NEVER expire.
Disney just has too much money, too much influence, and employs too many people.
(Jobs! Jobs!
Jobs! in the current economy, another root password to the Constitution, in addition to "Think of the children!
")So let's get more practical... I'd simply like to see copyright extension never happen automatically.
Disney has a whole team of lawyers, let them earn some of their pay by periodically filing for copyright extensions on the Disney stable of cash-cows.
Let the other companies do the same.
But here's the good side... Let the copyrights on the other stuff expire!
Unfortunately some stuff is just going to stay copyrighted, perhaps forever minus 1 day.
But let's get what we can into the public domain, if only for historic preservation purposes.Who knows, perhaps in thousands of years archaeologists will look back at this era, gleaning what they can from our surviving digital records, and wonder whatever the heck "Steamboat Willy" was, while dissertations are written on the cultural significance of "It's a Wonderful Life" in 20th and 21st century America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523732</id>
	<title>Re:Sonny Bono - I own you babe!</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1261497780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you actually arguing that the world would be a better place if that song were in the public domain?</p><p>Personally, I'll be fine if they keep that one locked up forever plus 50 years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... LOL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you actually arguing that the world would be a better place if that song were in the public domain ? Personally , I 'll be fine if they keep that one locked up forever plus 50 years ... LOL .... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you actually arguing that the world would be a better place if that song were in the public domain?Personally, I'll be fine if they keep that one locked up forever plus 50 years ... LOL .... ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523632</id>
	<title>Why copyrights and not patents ?</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1261497300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The stated purpose of these government-granted IP monopolies is "to advance the progress of science and the useful arts".  Fine.  Patents run 19 years, why does copyright run 95?  Are Thomas Alva Edison's daughters less deserving of a legacy than Samuel Clements [Mark Twain]?</p><p>The overlong copyright is beyond irrelevant to the act of creation -- in prospect, something is worth the creative effort based on the chances of near-term success, not long term.  The power of compound interest, unless the US Constitution is meant to support irrationality.</p><p>In 1995 of course with expiry looming, mediacorps wish to extend their monopolies.  Long past influing creation.  Perhaps media ought to be allowed in a more limited way through trademark.  There can be no question Disney has maintained the Mouse as a TM, and this would give them defenses against [sexual] parodies.</p><p>Of course, this applies only for works created expressly for profitable publication.  Private papers remain secret, just like trade secrets.  If subsequently published, that would start the clock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stated purpose of these government-granted IP monopolies is " to advance the progress of science and the useful arts " .
Fine. Patents run 19 years , why does copyright run 95 ?
Are Thomas Alva Edison 's daughters less deserving of a legacy than Samuel Clements [ Mark Twain ] ? The overlong copyright is beyond irrelevant to the act of creation -- in prospect , something is worth the creative effort based on the chances of near-term success , not long term .
The power of compound interest , unless the US Constitution is meant to support irrationality.In 1995 of course with expiry looming , mediacorps wish to extend their monopolies .
Long past influing creation .
Perhaps media ought to be allowed in a more limited way through trademark .
There can be no question Disney has maintained the Mouse as a TM , and this would give them defenses against [ sexual ] parodies.Of course , this applies only for works created expressly for profitable publication .
Private papers remain secret , just like trade secrets .
If subsequently published , that would start the clock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stated purpose of these government-granted IP monopolies is "to advance the progress of science and the useful arts".
Fine.  Patents run 19 years, why does copyright run 95?
Are Thomas Alva Edison's daughters less deserving of a legacy than Samuel Clements [Mark Twain]?The overlong copyright is beyond irrelevant to the act of creation -- in prospect, something is worth the creative effort based on the chances of near-term success, not long term.
The power of compound interest, unless the US Constitution is meant to support irrationality.In 1995 of course with expiry looming, mediacorps wish to extend their monopolies.
Long past influing creation.
Perhaps media ought to be allowed in a more limited way through trademark.
There can be no question Disney has maintained the Mouse as a TM, and this would give them defenses against [sexual] parodies.Of course, this applies only for works created expressly for profitable publication.
Private papers remain secret, just like trade secrets.
If subsequently published, that would start the clock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30533010</id>
	<title>Thoughts on Slashdot Discussion</title>
	<author>jrincayc</author>
	<datestamp>1261509180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read many of the posts in this discussion, and I thought I would weigh in.</p><p>First of all, as I went through creating the list of expiring copyrights, I noticed that as I got farther back in time the copyrights that expired were less interesting to me.  For example the 28 year old ones are closing in on being able to legally start emulating most games of the older consoles.  By the time we get into 1934, I had trouble finding ones that I cared about.</p><p>For the questions as to why shouldn't we just write new stories and software etc?  I do agree with that up to a point, and I have certainly written quite a few things that public domain or permissively licensed.   But, first of all, the economically efficient price for information is its marginal cost, or zero.  Second of all, if you care about stories and software being created, it is often easier to start from an existing work, and make improvements.  For example, "What Child is This" uses the tune of Greensleeves.  Or Shakespeare using existing plays, but improving them.  Human time is precious, and if you can use less by 'stealing' that helps society. Why reinvent the wheel? In short, economically, copyright should last long enough to compensate the creator, and then it should be freed.  (I have written about this before, but I know more now than I knew then: <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/1/8/122920/9442" title="kuro5hin.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/1/8/122920/9442</a> [kuro5hin.org] )</p><p>As for the people who think that no body follows copyright anymore, so why do we care? There is some truth to that, but things that are legal are much easier to do.  For example, it is legal to download freeciv, but not starcraft.  I'll let you guess which is easier to do.</p><p>Now, on to kdawson's question about the odds that Congress lets 1923 works expire in 2018. I think there is a fair chance that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension in 1998 was the last major copyright extension that occurs in the US.  Why? Because more and more people are realizing that the public domain matters and is useful.  In 1976, people stated with a straight face that if it wasn't available commercially, it wasn't available.  So in 1976 it could be argued that keeping it in copyright kept it available to the public.  In 1998, there was protest by a few people such as Michael Hart, founder of the Project Gutenberg.  In 2009 places like Project Gutenberg, Archive.org, and Google Books prove that public domain content is more accessible.  Plus you have people like the pirate party calling for 5 year copyright ( <a href="http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english" title="piratpartiet.se" rel="nofollow">http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english</a> [piratpartiet.se] ).  So I think there will be a serious fight to stop any further copyright extension.  I wrote this slashdot story to try and get the message out that copyright is not what it used to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read many of the posts in this discussion , and I thought I would weigh in.First of all , as I went through creating the list of expiring copyrights , I noticed that as I got farther back in time the copyrights that expired were less interesting to me .
For example the 28 year old ones are closing in on being able to legally start emulating most games of the older consoles .
By the time we get into 1934 , I had trouble finding ones that I cared about.For the questions as to why should n't we just write new stories and software etc ?
I do agree with that up to a point , and I have certainly written quite a few things that public domain or permissively licensed .
But , first of all , the economically efficient price for information is its marginal cost , or zero .
Second of all , if you care about stories and software being created , it is often easier to start from an existing work , and make improvements .
For example , " What Child is This " uses the tune of Greensleeves .
Or Shakespeare using existing plays , but improving them .
Human time is precious , and if you can use less by 'stealing ' that helps society .
Why reinvent the wheel ?
In short , economically , copyright should last long enough to compensate the creator , and then it should be freed .
( I have written about this before , but I know more now than I knew then : http : //www.kuro5hin.org/ ? op = displaystory ; sid = 2002/1/8/122920/9442 [ kuro5hin.org ] ) As for the people who think that no body follows copyright anymore , so why do we care ?
There is some truth to that , but things that are legal are much easier to do .
For example , it is legal to download freeciv , but not starcraft .
I 'll let you guess which is easier to do.Now , on to kdawson 's question about the odds that Congress lets 1923 works expire in 2018 .
I think there is a fair chance that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension in 1998 was the last major copyright extension that occurs in the US .
Why ? Because more and more people are realizing that the public domain matters and is useful .
In 1976 , people stated with a straight face that if it was n't available commercially , it was n't available .
So in 1976 it could be argued that keeping it in copyright kept it available to the public .
In 1998 , there was protest by a few people such as Michael Hart , founder of the Project Gutenberg .
In 2009 places like Project Gutenberg , Archive.org , and Google Books prove that public domain content is more accessible .
Plus you have people like the pirate party calling for 5 year copyright ( http : //www.piratpartiet.se/international/english [ piratpartiet.se ] ) .
So I think there will be a serious fight to stop any further copyright extension .
I wrote this slashdot story to try and get the message out that copyright is not what it used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read many of the posts in this discussion, and I thought I would weigh in.First of all, as I went through creating the list of expiring copyrights, I noticed that as I got farther back in time the copyrights that expired were less interesting to me.
For example the 28 year old ones are closing in on being able to legally start emulating most games of the older consoles.
By the time we get into 1934, I had trouble finding ones that I cared about.For the questions as to why shouldn't we just write new stories and software etc?
I do agree with that up to a point, and I have certainly written quite a few things that public domain or permissively licensed.
But, first of all, the economically efficient price for information is its marginal cost, or zero.
Second of all, if you care about stories and software being created, it is often easier to start from an existing work, and make improvements.
For example, "What Child is This" uses the tune of Greensleeves.
Or Shakespeare using existing plays, but improving them.
Human time is precious, and if you can use less by 'stealing' that helps society.
Why reinvent the wheel?
In short, economically, copyright should last long enough to compensate the creator, and then it should be freed.
(I have written about this before, but I know more now than I knew then: http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/1/8/122920/9442 [kuro5hin.org] )As for the people who think that no body follows copyright anymore, so why do we care?
There is some truth to that, but things that are legal are much easier to do.
For example, it is legal to download freeciv, but not starcraft.
I'll let you guess which is easier to do.Now, on to kdawson's question about the odds that Congress lets 1923 works expire in 2018.
I think there is a fair chance that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension in 1998 was the last major copyright extension that occurs in the US.
Why? Because more and more people are realizing that the public domain matters and is useful.
In 1976, people stated with a straight face that if it wasn't available commercially, it wasn't available.
So in 1976 it could be argued that keeping it in copyright kept it available to the public.
In 1998, there was protest by a few people such as Michael Hart, founder of the Project Gutenberg.
In 2009 places like Project Gutenberg, Archive.org, and Google Books prove that public domain content is more accessible.
Plus you have people like the pirate party calling for 5 year copyright ( http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english [piratpartiet.se] ).
So I think there will be a serious fight to stop any further copyright extension.
I wrote this slashdot story to try and get the message out that copyright is not what it used to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550</id>
	<title>For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1261474260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so the original Ultima and God Emperor of Dune and would be available for remixing and mashing up.</p></div><p>Remixing and mashing up? I like a good remix as much as anybody, but the faddish use of these terms needs to die. Mashup, really? You think you're being edgy, but you're actually being a giant cuntnozzle. Get off my lawn!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so the original Ultima and God Emperor of Dune and would be available for remixing and mashing up.Remixing and mashing up ?
I like a good remix as much as anybody , but the faddish use of these terms needs to die .
Mashup , really ?
You think you 're being edgy , but you 're actually being a giant cuntnozzle .
Get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the original Ultima and God Emperor of Dune and would be available for remixing and mashing up.Remixing and mashing up?
I like a good remix as much as anybody, but the faddish use of these terms needs to die.
Mashup, really?
You think you're being edgy, but you're actually being a giant cuntnozzle.
Get off my lawn!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521668</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see any reason the shipping time decreasing from weeks to days should have any effect on copyright.  Please explain your logic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see any reason the shipping time decreasing from weeks to days should have any effect on copyright .
Please explain your logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see any reason the shipping time decreasing from weeks to days should have any effect on copyright.
Please explain your logic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527056</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261512600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>kill Mikey</p></div><p>Give him some cyanide. "He'll eat anything!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>kill MikeyGive him some cyanide .
" He 'll eat anything !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kill MikeyGive him some cyanide.
"He'll eat anything!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522158</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1261482540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main problem with indefinite copyright extension is not that it stops people copying, but that it discourages new works being created from those old works, or wider legitimate distribution of said works (a website for instance which streams all out of copyright movies, books, music for a nominal fee to cover bandwidth) which might otherwise bring them to a newer, wider audience, because there is the fear of legal action. It's just a ridiculous additional hurdle they're putting in place for no good reason (since we've already agreed it doesn't stop people copying things).

I don't doubt that many niche works which were not originally commercially viable and have not been maintained by the originators which are now lost to time, many of these could have been saved with shorter copyight periods helping them enter the public domain sooner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem with indefinite copyright extension is not that it stops people copying , but that it discourages new works being created from those old works , or wider legitimate distribution of said works ( a website for instance which streams all out of copyright movies , books , music for a nominal fee to cover bandwidth ) which might otherwise bring them to a newer , wider audience , because there is the fear of legal action .
It 's just a ridiculous additional hurdle they 're putting in place for no good reason ( since we 've already agreed it does n't stop people copying things ) .
I do n't doubt that many niche works which were not originally commercially viable and have not been maintained by the originators which are now lost to time , many of these could have been saved with shorter copyight periods helping them enter the public domain sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem with indefinite copyright extension is not that it stops people copying, but that it discourages new works being created from those old works, or wider legitimate distribution of said works (a website for instance which streams all out of copyright movies, books, music for a nominal fee to cover bandwidth) which might otherwise bring them to a newer, wider audience, because there is the fear of legal action.
It's just a ridiculous additional hurdle they're putting in place for no good reason (since we've already agreed it doesn't stop people copying things).
I don't doubt that many niche works which were not originally commercially viable and have not been maintained by the originators which are now lost to time, many of these could have been saved with shorter copyight periods helping them enter the public domain sooner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523998</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261499280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The biggest problem with copyrights though isn't that it is becoming such a big political issue, at least with some groups of people, or that it is easy to "presuade" lawmakers to side with the copyright holders; it's that Copyright laws are merely a symptom of the disease. Simply rolling copyright laws back to 1790 levels would only be a temporary solution. That fix would be repealed within the decade. The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?), or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills. But if we only see more of the same, I expect to eventually see copyrights last an "indetermined" amount of time. Your great-grand-children may live to see the Mickey Mouse copyright expire...maybe.</p></div><p>The only way I can see this working is if we instated run-off elections, where we ranked the choices. The reason is that under the current system a 3rd party vote is considered 'wasted' by most, thus they will not do it. Under run-off voting a person is free to vote for the least likely candidate, and so on with a 2-party candidate lower on their preferred list, thus even if all the 3rd party candidates they 'want' lose, the main party candidate gets their vote and thus they haven't wasted it. Enabling people to vote for who they want rather than against who they dread would enable 3rd parties to become mainstream, and is, IMO the only way to properly fix this system. Oh that and campaign finance reform that makes political contributions from private members illegal and distributes public funds to the parties according to the percents of 'first choice' votes in the most recent election.</p><p>Any idea if such a platform would get me anywhere in politics? My guess is no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem with copyrights though is n't that it is becoming such a big political issue , at least with some groups of people , or that it is easy to " presuade " lawmakers to side with the copyright holders ; it 's that Copyright laws are merely a symptom of the disease .
Simply rolling copyright laws back to 1790 levels would only be a temporary solution .
That fix would be repealed within the decade .
The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America , perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely ( 5 political parties , anyone ?
) , or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills .
But if we only see more of the same , I expect to eventually see copyrights last an " indetermined " amount of time .
Your great-grand-children may live to see the Mickey Mouse copyright expire...maybe.The only way I can see this working is if we instated run-off elections , where we ranked the choices .
The reason is that under the current system a 3rd party vote is considered 'wasted ' by most , thus they will not do it .
Under run-off voting a person is free to vote for the least likely candidate , and so on with a 2-party candidate lower on their preferred list , thus even if all the 3rd party candidates they 'want ' lose , the main party candidate gets their vote and thus they have n't wasted it .
Enabling people to vote for who they want rather than against who they dread would enable 3rd parties to become mainstream , and is , IMO the only way to properly fix this system .
Oh that and campaign finance reform that makes political contributions from private members illegal and distributes public funds to the parties according to the percents of 'first choice ' votes in the most recent election.Any idea if such a platform would get me anywhere in politics ?
My guess is no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The biggest problem with copyrights though isn't that it is becoming such a big political issue, at least with some groups of people, or that it is easy to "presuade" lawmakers to side with the copyright holders; it's that Copyright laws are merely a symptom of the disease.
Simply rolling copyright laws back to 1790 levels would only be a temporary solution.
That fix would be repealed within the decade.
The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?
), or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills.
But if we only see more of the same, I expect to eventually see copyrights last an "indetermined" amount of time.
Your great-grand-children may live to see the Mickey Mouse copyright expire...maybe.The only way I can see this working is if we instated run-off elections, where we ranked the choices.
The reason is that under the current system a 3rd party vote is considered 'wasted' by most, thus they will not do it.
Under run-off voting a person is free to vote for the least likely candidate, and so on with a 2-party candidate lower on their preferred list, thus even if all the 3rd party candidates they 'want' lose, the main party candidate gets their vote and thus they haven't wasted it.
Enabling people to vote for who they want rather than against who they dread would enable 3rd parties to become mainstream, and is, IMO the only way to properly fix this system.
Oh that and campaign finance reform that makes political contributions from private members illegal and distributes public funds to the parties according to the percents of 'first choice' votes in the most recent election.Any idea if such a platform would get me anywhere in politics?
My guess is no.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521858</id>
	<title>Five parties? Not in our system, even if you try.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not going to have more than two parties until we change the way we vote. Our simple <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality\_voting\_system" title="wikipedia.org">plurality voting</a> [wikipedia.org] system <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's\_law" title="wikipedia.org">naturally leads to</a> [wikipedia.org] a two-party steady state system as surely an electron orbiting a proton leads to a hydrogen atom in the ground state. No amount of imploring, scolding, pleading or whining will change that reality.</p><p>If you really want more diverse representation, change the way we vote. Granted, a perfect voting system <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's\_theorem" title="wikipedia.org">is impossible</a> [wikipedia.org], but we can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet\_method" title="wikipedia.org">far better</a> [wikipedia.org] than the system we have today.</p><p>That said, I'm not sure that adding political parties will necessary end corruption. After all, the British have a multi-party proportional system and still ended up with Tony Blair and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/28/mandelson-date-blocking-filesharers-connections" title="guardian.co.uk">Darth Mandelson</a> [guardian.co.uk]. Corruption is a different problem, and is best fought by an enthusiastic and educated public demanding sunshine laws and public campaign financing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not going to have more than two parties until we change the way we vote .
Our simple plurality voting [ wikipedia.org ] system naturally leads to [ wikipedia.org ] a two-party steady state system as surely an electron orbiting a proton leads to a hydrogen atom in the ground state .
No amount of imploring , scolding , pleading or whining will change that reality.If you really want more diverse representation , change the way we vote .
Granted , a perfect voting system is impossible [ wikipedia.org ] , but we can far better [ wikipedia.org ] than the system we have today.That said , I 'm not sure that adding political parties will necessary end corruption .
After all , the British have a multi-party proportional system and still ended up with Tony Blair and Darth Mandelson [ guardian.co.uk ] .
Corruption is a different problem , and is best fought by an enthusiastic and educated public demanding sunshine laws and public campaign financing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not going to have more than two parties until we change the way we vote.
Our simple plurality voting [wikipedia.org] system naturally leads to [wikipedia.org] a two-party steady state system as surely an electron orbiting a proton leads to a hydrogen atom in the ground state.
No amount of imploring, scolding, pleading or whining will change that reality.If you really want more diverse representation, change the way we vote.
Granted, a perfect voting system is impossible [wikipedia.org], but we can far better [wikipedia.org] than the system we have today.That said, I'm not sure that adding political parties will necessary end corruption.
After all, the British have a multi-party proportional system and still ended up with Tony Blair and Darth Mandelson [guardian.co.uk].
Corruption is a different problem, and is best fought by an enthusiastic and educated public demanding sunshine laws and public campaign financing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521508</id>
	<title>What are the odds?</title>
	<author>Donkey\_Hotey</author>
	<datestamp>1261473660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Assuming Congress doesn't step in with a Copyright Extension Act of 2017. What are the odds?</p></div></blockquote><p>The odds fall somewhere between slim and you-have-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming Congress does n't step in with a Copyright Extension Act of 2017 .
What are the odds ? The odds fall somewhere between slim and you-have-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming Congress doesn't step in with a Copyright Extension Act of 2017.
What are the odds?The odds fall somewhere between slim and you-have-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261478460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the answer is simple.  We must culturally kill Mikey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the answer is simple .
We must culturally kill Mikey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the answer is simple.
We must culturally kill Mikey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521624</id>
	<title>Sonny Bono - I own you babe!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1261475520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act</i></p><p>They say we're young and we don't know.<br>Won't be out of copyright till we grow.<br>Well I don't know Babe if you think that's true<br>But I've got a bill that'll F*** you!</p><p>Babe.<br>I own you babe.<br>I own you babe.</p><p>They say this music won't pay the rent<br>But I'll increase copyright and they'll get bent<br>I guess that's so, this song is dross<br>But at least I'm sure that I won't make a loss</p><p>Babe.<br>I own you babe.<br>I own you babe.</p><p>I got money coming in<br>And I don't have to do a thing<br>And when I'm sad, I'll copyright a clown<br>Then laud it over parents all over the town</p><p>Don't let them say your copyright's too long<br>Why would I care? I can buy a thousand bongs<br>Then put your awful song with mine<br>Sit on our backside while our profits climb</p><p>Babe.<br>I own you babe.<br>I own you babe.</p><p>I got though this song's bland<br>I got you, you understand?<br>I got you if you walk like that<br>I've got you if you talk like that<br>I've got you kiss your music goodnight<br>I've got you and you know what you can bite<br>I got you, I won't let go<br>I got you to pay me so</p><p>I own you babe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension ActThey say we 're young and we do n't know.Wo n't be out of copyright till we grow.Well I do n't know Babe if you think that 's trueBut I 've got a bill that 'll F * * * you ! Babe.I own you babe.I own you babe.They say this music wo n't pay the rentBut I 'll increase copyright and they 'll get bentI guess that 's so , this song is drossBut at least I 'm sure that I wo n't make a lossBabe.I own you babe.I own you babe.I got money coming inAnd I do n't have to do a thingAnd when I 'm sad , I 'll copyright a clownThen laud it over parents all over the townDo n't let them say your copyright 's too longWhy would I care ?
I can buy a thousand bongsThen put your awful song with mineSit on our backside while our profits climbBabe.I own you babe.I own you babe.I got though this song 's blandI got you , you understand ? I got you if you walk like thatI 've got you if you talk like thatI 've got you kiss your music goodnightI 've got you and you know what you can biteI got you , I wo n't let goI got you to pay me soI own you babe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension ActThey say we're young and we don't know.Won't be out of copyright till we grow.Well I don't know Babe if you think that's trueBut I've got a bill that'll F*** you!Babe.I own you babe.I own you babe.They say this music won't pay the rentBut I'll increase copyright and they'll get bentI guess that's so, this song is drossBut at least I'm sure that I won't make a lossBabe.I own you babe.I own you babe.I got money coming inAnd I don't have to do a thingAnd when I'm sad, I'll copyright a clownThen laud it over parents all over the townDon't let them say your copyright's too longWhy would I care?
I can buy a thousand bongsThen put your awful song with mineSit on our backside while our profits climbBabe.I own you babe.I own you babe.I got though this song's blandI got you, you understand?I got you if you walk like thatI've got you if you talk like thatI've got you kiss your music goodnightI've got you and you know what you can biteI got you, I won't let goI got you to pay me soI own you babe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524814</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1261502820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but there's a certain amount of "vicious circle" in copyright law and copyright violation.</p><p>Speed laws are routinely broken, but as the speed limits become more reasonable for road conditions, more people follow them.  If the speed limit on the Interstate were set at 25MPH, you'd have a LOT of people violating it and it would be hard to justify enforcement.  Now that it's 55-65, there's a much smaller population of people speeding, and it's easy to justify giving the speed demons real penalties for it.  You'll always have speeders and copyright violators, but if the speed limits and laws surrounding copyright are reasonable, speeders and copyright violators will receive a lot less sympathy and you can justify harsher penalties.</p><p>At the moment, copyright law is analogous to setting interstate speed limits at 25MPH and mandating instant impounding of a vehicle and significant fines if someone reports someone else speeding until innocence is determined.</p><p>If the terms of a copyright went for, say, seven years, I for one would be far more willing to tolerate a higher incidence of DRM (provided it somehow released the work when it became public domain) and more vigorous enforcement of copyright law, because there would be a reasonable body of work I could enjoy free of those encumbrances if I chose.  I'm all for compensating artists for their work, but it doesn't entitle their great-grandkids to a guaranteed income for life.</p><p>Right now, we have a system where all works are fully protected, in essence, forever.  Nothing created since my father was born will stand a reasonable chance of reverting to public domain before I die.  Multi-generational absolute copyright protection was NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they protected the rights of cartographers to make money on their original maps (which took a hell of a lot of work to create) for a 20-year period.  Limited protection encourages innovation.  Unlimited protection stifles it, because anyone who comes out with anything has to spend massive amounts of time making sure it doesn't resemble in any way anything that has come before it.</p><p>You'd still have violators, but it would be a LOT harder to self-justify it, and you'd have a much easier time justifying stiff fines for violation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but there 's a certain amount of " vicious circle " in copyright law and copyright violation.Speed laws are routinely broken , but as the speed limits become more reasonable for road conditions , more people follow them .
If the speed limit on the Interstate were set at 25MPH , you 'd have a LOT of people violating it and it would be hard to justify enforcement .
Now that it 's 55-65 , there 's a much smaller population of people speeding , and it 's easy to justify giving the speed demons real penalties for it .
You 'll always have speeders and copyright violators , but if the speed limits and laws surrounding copyright are reasonable , speeders and copyright violators will receive a lot less sympathy and you can justify harsher penalties.At the moment , copyright law is analogous to setting interstate speed limits at 25MPH and mandating instant impounding of a vehicle and significant fines if someone reports someone else speeding until innocence is determined.If the terms of a copyright went for , say , seven years , I for one would be far more willing to tolerate a higher incidence of DRM ( provided it somehow released the work when it became public domain ) and more vigorous enforcement of copyright law , because there would be a reasonable body of work I could enjoy free of those encumbrances if I chose .
I 'm all for compensating artists for their work , but it does n't entitle their great-grandkids to a guaranteed income for life.Right now , we have a system where all works are fully protected , in essence , forever .
Nothing created since my father was born will stand a reasonable chance of reverting to public domain before I die .
Multi-generational absolute copyright protection was NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they protected the rights of cartographers to make money on their original maps ( which took a hell of a lot of work to create ) for a 20-year period .
Limited protection encourages innovation .
Unlimited protection stifles it , because anyone who comes out with anything has to spend massive amounts of time making sure it does n't resemble in any way anything that has come before it.You 'd still have violators , but it would be a LOT harder to self-justify it , and you 'd have a much easier time justifying stiff fines for violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but there's a certain amount of "vicious circle" in copyright law and copyright violation.Speed laws are routinely broken, but as the speed limits become more reasonable for road conditions, more people follow them.
If the speed limit on the Interstate were set at 25MPH, you'd have a LOT of people violating it and it would be hard to justify enforcement.
Now that it's 55-65, there's a much smaller population of people speeding, and it's easy to justify giving the speed demons real penalties for it.
You'll always have speeders and copyright violators, but if the speed limits and laws surrounding copyright are reasonable, speeders and copyright violators will receive a lot less sympathy and you can justify harsher penalties.At the moment, copyright law is analogous to setting interstate speed limits at 25MPH and mandating instant impounding of a vehicle and significant fines if someone reports someone else speeding until innocence is determined.If the terms of a copyright went for, say, seven years, I for one would be far more willing to tolerate a higher incidence of DRM (provided it somehow released the work when it became public domain) and more vigorous enforcement of copyright law, because there would be a reasonable body of work I could enjoy free of those encumbrances if I chose.
I'm all for compensating artists for their work, but it doesn't entitle their great-grandkids to a guaranteed income for life.Right now, we have a system where all works are fully protected, in essence, forever.
Nothing created since my father was born will stand a reasonable chance of reverting to public domain before I die.
Multi-generational absolute copyright protection was NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they protected the rights of cartographers to make money on their original maps (which took a hell of a lot of work to create) for a 20-year period.
Limited protection encourages innovation.
Unlimited protection stifles it, because anyone who comes out with anything has to spend massive amounts of time making sure it doesn't resemble in any way anything that has come before it.You'd still have violators, but it would be a LOT harder to self-justify it, and you'd have a much easier time justifying stiff fines for violation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521914</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>backslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1261478940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The supreme court has decided that its up to congress to determine what "limited times" means<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. which is really stupid because if anything that's the one thing that judges are for it's for is exercising what's reasonable and what's not. And a hundred years in unreasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The supreme court has decided that its up to congress to determine what " limited times " means .. which is really stupid because if anything that 's the one thing that judges are for it 's for is exercising what 's reasonable and what 's not .
And a hundred years in unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The supreme court has decided that its up to congress to determine what "limited times" means .. which is really stupid because if anything that's the one thing that judges are for it's for is exercising what's reasonable and what's not.
And a hundred years in unreasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525312</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261505220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I recall, his main argument was that continually tacking small extensions on to copyright was effectively the same as having an unlimited one. That is, if there is no hard limit on how much or how often it can be extended, it is for all intents and purposes unlimited. At the very least, old works should not have been included in the extensions, as their creators got the full duration that they were promised. But that would have screwed up the main point, which was to make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I recall , his main argument was that continually tacking small extensions on to copyright was effectively the same as having an unlimited one .
That is , if there is no hard limit on how much or how often it can be extended , it is for all intents and purposes unlimited .
At the very least , old works should not have been included in the extensions , as their creators got the full duration that they were promised .
But that would have screwed up the main point , which was to make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I recall, his main argument was that continually tacking small extensions on to copyright was effectively the same as having an unlimited one.
That is, if there is no hard limit on how much or how often it can be extended, it is for all intents and purposes unlimited.
At the very least, old works should not have been included in the extensions, as their creators got the full duration that they were promised.
But that would have screwed up the main point, which was to make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523654</id>
	<title>Why does this upset anyone?</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1261497420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to ask why so many of you want other people's art to be in the public domain so badly?  I simply don't understand what difference it would make if "Achy Breaky Heart" were in the public domain.  Or more recently, who cares if Taylor Swift owns her song forever?  It's not like that stops other people from writing songs.</p><p>If you honestly believe that it's better for the country, for us as a people and for the creators themselves for work to be in the public domain then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... go create your own art (music, movies, paintings, whatever) and release it to the public domain.  It is the right of the creator to control copy and distribution of the work (which is of course why it's called "Copyright").  So go create a killer song and exercise your right to release it to the world for free.</p><p>I just don't get the hubub.  What do you think will be gained by reducing Copyright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to ask why so many of you want other people 's art to be in the public domain so badly ?
I simply do n't understand what difference it would make if " Achy Breaky Heart " were in the public domain .
Or more recently , who cares if Taylor Swift owns her song forever ?
It 's not like that stops other people from writing songs.If you honestly believe that it 's better for the country , for us as a people and for the creators themselves for work to be in the public domain then ... go create your own art ( music , movies , paintings , whatever ) and release it to the public domain .
It is the right of the creator to control copy and distribution of the work ( which is of course why it 's called " Copyright " ) .
So go create a killer song and exercise your right to release it to the world for free.I just do n't get the hubub .
What do you think will be gained by reducing Copyright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to ask why so many of you want other people's art to be in the public domain so badly?
I simply don't understand what difference it would make if "Achy Breaky Heart" were in the public domain.
Or more recently, who cares if Taylor Swift owns her song forever?
It's not like that stops other people from writing songs.If you honestly believe that it's better for the country, for us as a people and for the creators themselves for work to be in the public domain then ... go create your own art (music, movies, paintings, whatever) and release it to the public domain.
It is the right of the creator to control copy and distribution of the work (which is of course why it's called "Copyright").
So go create a killer song and exercise your right to release it to the world for free.I just don't get the hubub.
What do you think will be gained by reducing Copyright?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522732</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional and illegal</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1261490640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Change your tactics! Stop appealing to reason and law solely.</p><p>Raise a LOT of money and buy politicians. A strong logical argument and political hired hands would probably get the job done!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Change your tactics !
Stop appealing to reason and law solely.Raise a LOT of money and buy politicians .
A strong logical argument and political hired hands would probably get the job done !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change your tactics!
Stop appealing to reason and law solely.Raise a LOT of money and buy politicians.
A strong logical argument and political hired hands would probably get the job done!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521536</id>
	<title>Dear Powers That Be.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261474080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please deal with this inanity at once. Just grant Disney their eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse as an exception, and be done with it. Nobody wants the bloody rodent anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please deal with this inanity at once .
Just grant Disney their eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse as an exception , and be done with it .
Nobody wants the bloody rodent anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please deal with this inanity at once.
Just grant Disney their eternal copyright on Mickey Mouse as an exception, and be done with it.
Nobody wants the bloody rodent anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30532168</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Crag</author>
	<datestamp>1261497780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that losing all this art is tragic, but we should also keep in mind that before 1900 we had no practical way of preserving this kind of art.  For that matter, a lot of other art was lost which can now be preserved because of our ability to make copies automatically.  Certainly digitizing sculptures, pictures and performances is a lossy first copy, but every copy after that can be lossless if someone is willing to foot the bill.</p><p>In 100 years we're going to have the opposite problem: we will have more art than we know what to do with.  It's a good problem to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that losing all this art is tragic , but we should also keep in mind that before 1900 we had no practical way of preserving this kind of art .
For that matter , a lot of other art was lost which can now be preserved because of our ability to make copies automatically .
Certainly digitizing sculptures , pictures and performances is a lossy first copy , but every copy after that can be lossless if someone is willing to foot the bill.In 100 years we 're going to have the opposite problem : we will have more art than we know what to do with .
It 's a good problem to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that losing all this art is tragic, but we should also keep in mind that before 1900 we had no practical way of preserving this kind of art.
For that matter, a lot of other art was lost which can now be preserved because of our ability to make copies automatically.
Certainly digitizing sculptures, pictures and performances is a lossy first copy, but every copy after that can be lossless if someone is willing to foot the bill.In 100 years we're going to have the opposite problem: we will have more art than we know what to do with.
It's a good problem to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522300</id>
	<title>US copyright in other countries?</title>
	<author>foolserrend1975</author>
	<datestamp>1261485120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>stupid question here - If a work is copyrighted in the US, does the US copyright law apply to another country, or is the local law of the land (unless there is a specific copyright agreement between US and said country).</htmltext>
<tokenext>stupid question here - If a work is copyrighted in the US , does the US copyright law apply to another country , or is the local law of the land ( unless there is a specific copyright agreement between US and said country ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stupid question here - If a work is copyrighted in the US, does the US copyright law apply to another country, or is the local law of the land (unless there is a specific copyright agreement between US and said country).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522674</id>
	<title>Happy new...</title>
	<author>Lazypete</author>
	<datestamp>1261489980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Happy new copyright and merry suing to everyone of you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Happy new copyright and merry suing to everyone of you : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happy new copyright and merry suing to everyone of you :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522728</id>
	<title>Never</title>
	<author>OverflowingBitBucket</author>
	<datestamp>1261490580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless people care about it specifically, you will find that it will never expire, as it will be extended every x years, until the heat-death of the universe. Why? Because as time goes by, there's more money locked up in this vault of old works, and whatever forces are there to push through these laws today, they will be there and stronger tomorrow. This will be the case until people care enough to break this lock, or your system of government collapses entirely.</p><p>I wouldn't put 2018 in your diary at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless people care about it specifically , you will find that it will never expire , as it will be extended every x years , until the heat-death of the universe .
Why ? Because as time goes by , there 's more money locked up in this vault of old works , and whatever forces are there to push through these laws today , they will be there and stronger tomorrow .
This will be the case until people care enough to break this lock , or your system of government collapses entirely.I would n't put 2018 in your diary at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless people care about it specifically, you will find that it will never expire, as it will be extended every x years, until the heat-death of the universe.
Why? Because as time goes by, there's more money locked up in this vault of old works, and whatever forces are there to push through these laws today, they will be there and stronger tomorrow.
This will be the case until people care enough to break this lock, or your system of government collapses entirely.I wouldn't put 2018 in your diary at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522006</id>
	<title>The original mashup</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1261480200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You call <i>that</i> a mash-up? <i>This</i> is a mash-up:</p><p>The year is 315 AD, and the absolute despot of the western world, Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine\_I" title="wikipedia.org">Constantinus Augustus has commissioned a Mission Acc^W^W </a> [wikipedia.org]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch\_of\_Constantine" title="wikipedia.org">triumphal arch</a> [wikipedia.org] to celebrate a battle his army* won for him three years ago. He orders that this arch be constructed in the style of triumphal arches of emperors long ago.</p><p>The only problem is that a century of warfare, overtaxation, hyperinflation, and neglect has driven the Roman middle class to extinction, along with its sculptors, masons, goldsmiths and painters. There is nobody left alive who knows how to build a triumphal arch! Yet you are a loyal imperial servant (capricious executions tend to breed a kind of loyalty), and you have to figure out a way to give the emperor what he wants.</p><p>What do you do? You build the basic framework of an arch. You take statues from the <a href="http://www.aviewoncities.com/rome/constantinearch.htm" title="aviewoncities.com">forum of Trajan</a> [aviewoncities.com] and stick them on top of your arch. You chisel some ba-relief sculptures off of Hadrian's buildings, touch them up to look like your emperor, and paste them onto your structure.</p><p>At the end of the day, you show your emperor his "new" arch, and all is well. You go to bed that night and don't think anything of it, because it's <b>routine</b> and <b>expected</b> to cannibalize old monuments. If everyone does it, it can't be wrong, right? It can't indicate that your culture is terminally sick, can it?</p><p>* By that time the army had a huge portion of auxiliari^W mercenar^W<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater\_Worldwide" title="wikipedia.org">private security contractors</a> [wikipedia.org]. Italians go the war? That was <i>so</i> 100AD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You call that a mash-up ?
This is a mash-up : The year is 315 AD , and the absolute despot of the western world , Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus has commissioned a Mission Acc ^ W ^ W [ wikipedia.org ] triumphal arch [ wikipedia.org ] to celebrate a battle his army * won for him three years ago .
He orders that this arch be constructed in the style of triumphal arches of emperors long ago.The only problem is that a century of warfare , overtaxation , hyperinflation , and neglect has driven the Roman middle class to extinction , along with its sculptors , masons , goldsmiths and painters .
There is nobody left alive who knows how to build a triumphal arch !
Yet you are a loyal imperial servant ( capricious executions tend to breed a kind of loyalty ) , and you have to figure out a way to give the emperor what he wants.What do you do ?
You build the basic framework of an arch .
You take statues from the forum of Trajan [ aviewoncities.com ] and stick them on top of your arch .
You chisel some ba-relief sculptures off of Hadrian 's buildings , touch them up to look like your emperor , and paste them onto your structure.At the end of the day , you show your emperor his " new " arch , and all is well .
You go to bed that night and do n't think anything of it , because it 's routine and expected to cannibalize old monuments .
If everyone does it , it ca n't be wrong , right ?
It ca n't indicate that your culture is terminally sick , can it ?
* By that time the army had a huge portion of auxiliari ^ W mercenar ^ Wprivate security contractors [ wikipedia.org ] .
Italians go the war ?
That was so 100AD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You call that a mash-up?
This is a mash-up:The year is 315 AD, and the absolute despot of the western world, Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus has commissioned a Mission Acc^W^W  [wikipedia.org]triumphal arch [wikipedia.org] to celebrate a battle his army* won for him three years ago.
He orders that this arch be constructed in the style of triumphal arches of emperors long ago.The only problem is that a century of warfare, overtaxation, hyperinflation, and neglect has driven the Roman middle class to extinction, along with its sculptors, masons, goldsmiths and painters.
There is nobody left alive who knows how to build a triumphal arch!
Yet you are a loyal imperial servant (capricious executions tend to breed a kind of loyalty), and you have to figure out a way to give the emperor what he wants.What do you do?
You build the basic framework of an arch.
You take statues from the forum of Trajan [aviewoncities.com] and stick them on top of your arch.
You chisel some ba-relief sculptures off of Hadrian's buildings, touch them up to look like your emperor, and paste them onto your structure.At the end of the day, you show your emperor his "new" arch, and all is well.
You go to bed that night and don't think anything of it, because it's routine and expected to cannibalize old monuments.
If everyone does it, it can't be wrong, right?
It can't indicate that your culture is terminally sick, can it?
* By that time the army had a huge portion of auxiliari^W mercenar^Wprivate security contractors [wikipedia.org].
Italians go the war?
That was so 100AD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521790</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>NovaHorizon</author>
	<datestamp>1261477380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then make it 1000 years and just call it good. No one will care about the copyrighted works of someone over a thousand years in the past, and it will take care of these questions until this time ~2950</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then make it 1000 years and just call it good .
No one will care about the copyrighted works of someone over a thousand years in the past , and it will take care of these questions until this time ~ 2950</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then make it 1000 years and just call it good.
No one will care about the copyrighted works of someone over a thousand years in the past, and it will take care of these questions until this time ~2950</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521636</id>
	<title>Meanwhile, Outside the USA...</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1261475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.3 billion Chinese are laughing at your legal shenanigans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.3 billion Chinese are laughing at your legal shenanigans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.3 billion Chinese are laughing at your legal shenanigans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522444</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1261487640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?), or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills.</p></div><p>You are modded insightful only because the choices don't include "Yeah, and chocolate should fall from the skies."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America , perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely ( 5 political parties , anyone ?
) , or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills.You are modded insightful only because the choices do n't include " Yeah , and chocolate should fall from the skies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?
), or at least reforming the political parties so that Special Interests have much less of a say on future laws and bills.You are modded insightful only because the choices don't include "Yeah, and chocolate should fall from the skies.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30526004</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1261508700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For that in a democracy, you need an educated populace, and in particular, a populace that values education. Good luck with that one. The entire culture is geared towards a dual party system. The prevailing mentality has been and short of something drastic happening, will remain, if you're not with us, you're against us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For that in a democracy , you need an educated populace , and in particular , a populace that values education .
Good luck with that one .
The entire culture is geared towards a dual party system .
The prevailing mentality has been and short of something drastic happening , will remain , if you 're not with us , you 're against us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that in a democracy, you need an educated populace, and in particular, a populace that values education.
Good luck with that one.
The entire culture is geared towards a dual party system.
The prevailing mentality has been and short of something drastic happening, will remain, if you're not with us, you're against us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521612</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1261475220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawrence Lessig <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-980792.html" title="cnet.com">argued that before the SCOTUS</a> [cnet.com], and they wouldn't buy even that basic point, IIRC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawrence Lessig argued that before the SCOTUS [ cnet.com ] , and they would n't buy even that basic point , IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawrence Lessig argued that before the SCOTUS [cnet.com], and they wouldn't buy even that basic point, IIRC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523302</id>
	<title>We Could Have a Pirate Party</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1261495440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets face it, the Republicans and the Democrats are effectively the same party, both sides suckling at the teats of their corporate masters. It was recently pointed out that you could select Congress at random from a phone book and the job they do would be no worse than what we have now. The only real difference is the brand of tinfoil the guys who elected them were wearing on their head.
<p>
Now with the schism in the Republican party and the Democrats as ineffective as ever because they'll take damn near anyone who says they're a Democrat, there's a golden opportunity for a third party. The path to victory is to field a bunch of generally-moderate and, and this is key, incredibly competent candidates to cash in on voter disenchantment.
</p><p>
The window of opportunity is pretty thin though -- once voters forget the pain of the current recession it'll be back to business as usual in Washington.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , the Republicans and the Democrats are effectively the same party , both sides suckling at the teats of their corporate masters .
It was recently pointed out that you could select Congress at random from a phone book and the job they do would be no worse than what we have now .
The only real difference is the brand of tinfoil the guys who elected them were wearing on their head .
Now with the schism in the Republican party and the Democrats as ineffective as ever because they 'll take damn near anyone who says they 're a Democrat , there 's a golden opportunity for a third party .
The path to victory is to field a bunch of generally-moderate and , and this is key , incredibly competent candidates to cash in on voter disenchantment .
The window of opportunity is pretty thin though -- once voters forget the pain of the current recession it 'll be back to business as usual in Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, the Republicans and the Democrats are effectively the same party, both sides suckling at the teats of their corporate masters.
It was recently pointed out that you could select Congress at random from a phone book and the job they do would be no worse than what we have now.
The only real difference is the brand of tinfoil the guys who elected them were wearing on their head.
Now with the schism in the Republican party and the Democrats as ineffective as ever because they'll take damn near anyone who says they're a Democrat, there's a golden opportunity for a third party.
The path to victory is to field a bunch of generally-moderate and, and this is key, incredibly competent candidates to cash in on voter disenchantment.
The window of opportunity is pretty thin though -- once voters forget the pain of the current recession it'll be back to business as usual in Washington.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can't happen without amending the U.S. Constitution.</p><blockquote><div><p>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; -<br>Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8</p></div></blockquote><p>The key word there is limited time. The problem has arisen is that the courts have defined limited as anything short of forever, and I think it stretches the Constitution beyond all meaning. Originally you could register a copyright for 7 years, and renew it one time for another 7. This was when shipping between cities could take weeks, and to cross continents could take years. With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasing. Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't happen without amending the U.S. Constitution.To promote the progress of science and useful arts , by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ; -Article 1 , Section 8 , Clause 8The key word there is limited time .
The problem has arisen is that the courts have defined limited as anything short of forever , and I think it stretches the Constitution beyond all meaning .
Originally you could register a copyright for 7 years , and renew it one time for another 7 .
This was when shipping between cities could take weeks , and to cross continents could take years .
With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasing .
Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source , and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't happen without amending the U.S. Constitution.To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; -Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8The key word there is limited time.
The problem has arisen is that the courts have defined limited as anything short of forever, and I think it stretches the Constitution beyond all meaning.
Originally you could register a copyright for 7 years, and renew it one time for another 7.
This was when shipping between cities could take weeks, and to cross continents could take years.
With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasing.
Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522038</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261480620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I concur, as long as Disney exists, copyright will continue to get extended.  You have no idea how much money they make off of Mickey alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur , as long as Disney exists , copyright will continue to get extended .
You have no idea how much money they make off of Mickey alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur, as long as Disney exists, copyright will continue to get extended.
You have no idea how much money they make off of Mickey alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521664</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional and illegal</title>
	<author>neghvar1</author>
	<datestamp>1261475940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EFF and other consumer rights and public domain supports are pushing to ban perpetual copyright extensions which is what will happen as each extension approaches its lifespan.  The judges read limited as infinity minus 1 second.  They think like a computer or robot.  Total lack of commonsense.

But as we know, our government does not give a shit about what we, want, believe or think.  Their ears are listening to the lobbyists and corporations with deep pockets that hand them a bill with a check attached to it under the table.  It's bribery.  Pure and simple

The purpose of copyright was to promote creativity meaning that when a singer writes a song and copyrights it, they will profit from it, but when it expires, if that singer want to continue getting profits, he must continue to use his creativity.

Personally, I believe copyright of movies, music and literature should be 30 years or when the original copyright holder dies. Software should be 10 years.

i.e. Micheal Jackson did not create the Beetles music, yet he owned the rights to them.  They were never his and never should have been.
"Elvis sure makes a lot of money for a dead guy"  And nor should the creators heirs and their heirs and there heirs live off the works of someone over a century ago.  Along with that, of all copyrights ever filed, these extension acts are only working for the less than 10\% which are still commercially exploitable.  Thus all those other fall into the abyss of time.  In order to preserve great works of the past, the laws must be broken</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EFF and other consumer rights and public domain supports are pushing to ban perpetual copyright extensions which is what will happen as each extension approaches its lifespan .
The judges read limited as infinity minus 1 second .
They think like a computer or robot .
Total lack of commonsense .
But as we know , our government does not give a shit about what we , want , believe or think .
Their ears are listening to the lobbyists and corporations with deep pockets that hand them a bill with a check attached to it under the table .
It 's bribery .
Pure and simple The purpose of copyright was to promote creativity meaning that when a singer writes a song and copyrights it , they will profit from it , but when it expires , if that singer want to continue getting profits , he must continue to use his creativity .
Personally , I believe copyright of movies , music and literature should be 30 years or when the original copyright holder dies .
Software should be 10 years .
i.e. Micheal Jackson did not create the Beetles music , yet he owned the rights to them .
They were never his and never should have been .
" Elvis sure makes a lot of money for a dead guy " And nor should the creators heirs and their heirs and there heirs live off the works of someone over a century ago .
Along with that , of all copyrights ever filed , these extension acts are only working for the less than 10 \ % which are still commercially exploitable .
Thus all those other fall into the abyss of time .
In order to preserve great works of the past , the laws must be broken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EFF and other consumer rights and public domain supports are pushing to ban perpetual copyright extensions which is what will happen as each extension approaches its lifespan.
The judges read limited as infinity minus 1 second.
They think like a computer or robot.
Total lack of commonsense.
But as we know, our government does not give a shit about what we, want, believe or think.
Their ears are listening to the lobbyists and corporations with deep pockets that hand them a bill with a check attached to it under the table.
It's bribery.
Pure and simple

The purpose of copyright was to promote creativity meaning that when a singer writes a song and copyrights it, they will profit from it, but when it expires, if that singer want to continue getting profits, he must continue to use his creativity.
Personally, I believe copyright of movies, music and literature should be 30 years or when the original copyright holder dies.
Software should be 10 years.
i.e. Micheal Jackson did not create the Beetles music, yet he owned the rights to them.
They were never his and never should have been.
"Elvis sure makes a lot of money for a dead guy"  And nor should the creators heirs and their heirs and there heirs live off the works of someone over a century ago.
Along with that, of all copyrights ever filed, these extension acts are only working for the less than 10\% which are still commercially exploitable.
Thus all those other fall into the abyss of time.
In order to preserve great works of the past, the laws must be broken</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521976</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1261479840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.</i> </p><p>No, it's intended to be an indefinite source of income for the RIAA, MPAA, and a growing list of IP holders who effectively want to own all meaningful human endeavor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source , and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs .
No , it 's intended to be an indefinite source of income for the RIAA , MPAA , and a growing list of IP holders who effectively want to own all meaningful human endeavor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Copyright was never intended to be a life time income source, and it definitely was not intended to cover heirs.
No, it's intended to be an indefinite source of income for the RIAA, MPAA, and a growing list of IP holders who effectively want to own all meaningful human endeavor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521944</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1261479360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could trademark it.
</p><p>That way they may lose the copyrights on old cartoons featuring Mickey but no-one will be able to make any works with Mickey in it's current looks. There is afaik no need for copyright to keep Mickey Mouse the unique symbol/character that belongs to Disney.
</p><p>This way it becomes kind of a logo. A moving, talking logo. And trademarks iirc are protected for as long as they are in use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could trademark it .
That way they may lose the copyrights on old cartoons featuring Mickey but no-one will be able to make any works with Mickey in it 's current looks .
There is afaik no need for copyright to keep Mickey Mouse the unique symbol/character that belongs to Disney .
This way it becomes kind of a logo .
A moving , talking logo .
And trademarks iirc are protected for as long as they are in use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could trademark it.
That way they may lose the copyrights on old cartoons featuring Mickey but no-one will be able to make any works with Mickey in it's current looks.
There is afaik no need for copyright to keep Mickey Mouse the unique symbol/character that belongs to Disney.
This way it becomes kind of a logo.
A moving, talking logo.
And trademarks iirc are protected for as long as they are in use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524974</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1261503600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, why do you have to bully <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYEXzx-TINc" title="youtube.com">Mikey?</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , why do you have to bully Mikey ?
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, why do you have to bully Mikey?
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522248</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261484160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The next copyright extension will be by 2023. Why? Because that's when the Walt Disney Corp will lose it's copyright on Mickey Mouse [wikipedia.org]. And there is no way they would ever willingly lose their symbol. Walt Disney is the largest lobbying force in the Copyright Term Extensions, primarily because of all their older, but well recognized artistic works. </i></p><p>IMO this will certainly happen. The vote to enforce cloture in the Senate on the health care bill proves that the USA has the best legislators that money can buy! I expect this will be moot in Dec. 2012 when the landlord comes to collect the rent....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next copyright extension will be by 2023 .
Why ? Because that 's when the Walt Disney Corp will lose it 's copyright on Mickey Mouse [ wikipedia.org ] .
And there is no way they would ever willingly lose their symbol .
Walt Disney is the largest lobbying force in the Copyright Term Extensions , primarily because of all their older , but well recognized artistic works .
IMO this will certainly happen .
The vote to enforce cloture in the Senate on the health care bill proves that the USA has the best legislators that money can buy !
I expect this will be moot in Dec. 2012 when the landlord comes to collect the rent... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next copyright extension will be by 2023.
Why? Because that's when the Walt Disney Corp will lose it's copyright on Mickey Mouse [wikipedia.org].
And there is no way they would ever willingly lose their symbol.
Walt Disney is the largest lobbying force in the Copyright Term Extensions, primarily because of all their older, but well recognized artistic works.
IMO this will certainly happen.
The vote to enforce cloture in the Senate on the health care bill proves that the USA has the best legislators that money can buy!
I expect this will be moot in Dec. 2012 when the landlord comes to collect the rent....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30526818</id>
	<title>How about this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261511700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We, the People act together to reverse copyright terms to a maximum term of 23 years. Go on the offense. Is that unthinkable / impossible? If law can be changed in one direction to provide more profit for a few corporations why not change it in the other direction to provide relief to the public and return the wealth of knowledge, art and human genius where it belongs -- to humanity...</p><p>Even if the laws are be taken off balance to benefit the few, they can be surely brought back to a healthy balance, no?</p><p>Trusting that greed will bring the highest good for everyone, and that politicians will take care of our interest has proven inefficient. It is time to outlaw the very principles allowing tyranny, theft and oppression in the fabric of our society.</p><p>Extended copyright = extortion. Usury = exploitation and slavery. Why is that OK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We , the People act together to reverse copyright terms to a maximum term of 23 years .
Go on the offense .
Is that unthinkable / impossible ?
If law can be changed in one direction to provide more profit for a few corporations why not change it in the other direction to provide relief to the public and return the wealth of knowledge , art and human genius where it belongs -- to humanity...Even if the laws are be taken off balance to benefit the few , they can be surely brought back to a healthy balance , no ? Trusting that greed will bring the highest good for everyone , and that politicians will take care of our interest has proven inefficient .
It is time to outlaw the very principles allowing tyranny , theft and oppression in the fabric of our society.Extended copyright = extortion .
Usury = exploitation and slavery .
Why is that OK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We, the People act together to reverse copyright terms to a maximum term of 23 years.
Go on the offense.
Is that unthinkable / impossible?
If law can be changed in one direction to provide more profit for a few corporations why not change it in the other direction to provide relief to the public and return the wealth of knowledge, art and human genius where it belongs -- to humanity...Even if the laws are be taken off balance to benefit the few, they can be surely brought back to a healthy balance, no?Trusting that greed will bring the highest good for everyone, and that politicians will take care of our interest has proven inefficient.
It is time to outlaw the very principles allowing tyranny, theft and oppression in the fabric of our society.Extended copyright = extortion.
Usury = exploitation and slavery.
Why is that OK?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522752</id>
	<title>Copyright digs its own grave</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1261490880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that copyright is mostly ignored when it gets in the way - especially by the younger generations. The cries that 'copyright is stealing' do not stick to society as a whole in the US.. and the US is behind the rest of the world with copyright piracy.</p><p>The more ridiculous the laws, the more they get ignored.. The government and corporations can do nothing against the majority of the people if they decide to ignore the laws or copyright terms. Corporate lobbying has stacked the cards so far against the consumer that the average consumer can merely ignore them and still feel good about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that copyright is mostly ignored when it gets in the way - especially by the younger generations .
The cries that 'copyright is stealing ' do not stick to society as a whole in the US.. and the US is behind the rest of the world with copyright piracy.The more ridiculous the laws , the more they get ignored.. The government and corporations can do nothing against the majority of the people if they decide to ignore the laws or copyright terms .
Corporate lobbying has stacked the cards so far against the consumer that the average consumer can merely ignore them and still feel good about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that copyright is mostly ignored when it gets in the way - especially by the younger generations.
The cries that 'copyright is stealing' do not stick to society as a whole in the US.. and the US is behind the rest of the world with copyright piracy.The more ridiculous the laws, the more they get ignored.. The government and corporations can do nothing against the majority of the people if they decide to ignore the laws or copyright terms.
Corporate lobbying has stacked the cards so far against the consumer that the average consumer can merely ignore them and still feel good about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521948</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1261479480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And when both parties agree... everyone loses.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Indeed.  They both certainly seem to be against murder, the rotten bastards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when both parties agree... everyone loses .
Indeed. They both certainly seem to be against murder , the rotten bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when both parties agree... everyone loses.
Indeed.  They both certainly seem to be against murder, the rotten bastards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524090</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261499820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? That kid from the Life cereal commercials?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
That kid from the Life cereal commercials ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
That kid from the Life cereal commercials?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527392</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261513800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did Mikey do to deserve that?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did Mikey do to deserve that ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did Mikey do to deserve that?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a hard time getting excited about this. Whether copyright expired in 1, 10 or 100 years, people would still violate it, whether it be by torrent or some other means of sharing. Copyright infringement has taken the same character as speeding to many people: while people get caught and fined, almost everyone does it to some degree or another, and almost nobody feels guilty about doing so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard time getting excited about this .
Whether copyright expired in 1 , 10 or 100 years , people would still violate it , whether it be by torrent or some other means of sharing .
Copyright infringement has taken the same character as speeding to many people : while people get caught and fined , almost everyone does it to some degree or another , and almost nobody feels guilty about doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard time getting excited about this.
Whether copyright expired in 1, 10 or 100 years, people would still violate it, whether it be by torrent or some other means of sharing.
Copyright infringement has taken the same character as speeding to many people: while people get caught and fined, almost everyone does it to some degree or another, and almost nobody feels guilty about doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524924</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional and illegal</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261503300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When copyright was started you couldn't copyright a song, although you could copyright sheet music and printed lyrics. At the time the only thing to copyright was books.</p><p>They had to specifially change copyright law to include piano rolls when they were invented; same with recorded music when the gramophone was invented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When copyright was started you could n't copyright a song , although you could copyright sheet music and printed lyrics .
At the time the only thing to copyright was books.They had to specifially change copyright law to include piano rolls when they were invented ; same with recorded music when the gramophone was invented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When copyright was started you couldn't copyright a song, although you could copyright sheet music and printed lyrics.
At the time the only thing to copyright was books.They had to specifially change copyright law to include piano rolls when they were invented; same with recorded music when the gramophone was invented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524314</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261500720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this be because they don't respect the law that doesn't protect their interests in the least?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be because they do n't respect the law that does n't protect their interests in the least ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be because they don't respect the law that doesn't protect their interests in the least?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521606</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>dryo</author>
	<datestamp>1261475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a well-known fact that the limit of US copyright is always at least the age of Mickey Mouse plus one year. It's kind like Moore's Law for copyright attorneys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a well-known fact that the limit of US copyright is always at least the age of Mickey Mouse plus one year .
It 's kind like Moore 's Law for copyright attorneys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a well-known fact that the limit of US copyright is always at least the age of Mickey Mouse plus one year.
It's kind like Moore's Law for copyright attorneys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522002</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261480200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the more important question is - how do we convince more democrats to have abortions and get their existing children to start smoking earlier?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the more important question is - how do we convince more democrats to have abortions and get their existing children to start smoking earlier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the more important question is - how do we convince more democrats to have abortions and get their existing children to start smoking earlier?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521778</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1261477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mickey Mouse, and the Ears, are registered trademarks of Disney. Steamboat Willie, et. al., are the copyrightable works. There's a huge difference between issuing Steamboat Willie on a rogue DVD and selling your product with Disney ears for a logo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mickey Mouse , and the Ears , are registered trademarks of Disney .
Steamboat Willie , et .
al. , are the copyrightable works .
There 's a huge difference between issuing Steamboat Willie on a rogue DVD and selling your product with Disney ears for a logo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mickey Mouse, and the Ears, are registered trademarks of Disney.
Steamboat Willie, et.
al., are the copyrightable works.
There's a huge difference between issuing Steamboat Willie on a rogue DVD and selling your product with Disney ears for a logo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522368</id>
	<title>who cares</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1261486560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the internet has rendered all copyright laws obsolete</p><p>let them pass all the laws they want. its unenforceable and therefore pointless. sure they can nab the occasional grandma for what her grandson's friend does, or the occasional soccer mom for what her neighbor does with her unprotected wifi. its all just more bad pr for the corporate goons</p><p>new technology changes the law. the law does not change new technology. of course they always try, but it will take a decade or more before the morons wake up to reality. until such time, happy obfuscated downloading</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the internet has rendered all copyright laws obsoletelet them pass all the laws they want .
its unenforceable and therefore pointless .
sure they can nab the occasional grandma for what her grandson 's friend does , or the occasional soccer mom for what her neighbor does with her unprotected wifi .
its all just more bad pr for the corporate goonsnew technology changes the law .
the law does not change new technology .
of course they always try , but it will take a decade or more before the morons wake up to reality .
until such time , happy obfuscated downloading</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the internet has rendered all copyright laws obsoletelet them pass all the laws they want.
its unenforceable and therefore pointless.
sure they can nab the occasional grandma for what her grandson's friend does, or the occasional soccer mom for what her neighbor does with her unprotected wifi.
its all just more bad pr for the corporate goonsnew technology changes the law.
the law does not change new technology.
of course they always try, but it will take a decade or more before the morons wake up to reality.
until such time, happy obfuscated downloading</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525520</id>
	<title>Forbidden Planet?</title>
	<author>Preston Pfarner</author>
	<datestamp>1261506360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amusing that you mention "Forbidden Planet", which is itself a mashup of "The Tempest" (which is in the public domain).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amusing that you mention " Forbidden Planet " , which is itself a mashup of " The Tempest " ( which is in the public domain ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amusing that you mention "Forbidden Planet", which is itself a mashup of "The Tempest" (which is in the public domain).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522054</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1261480860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasing</em></p><p>Actually, modern distribution is precisely why copyright should be increasing not decreasing. If it takes forever to ship something, who wants to order and wait? Let people take a copy of the "local cache". It wouldn't hurt revenues.</p><p>The counter reason in favor of decreasing copyright duration comes from the ease of copying and the sheer quantity of competition. Material that has been published and then produced in limited supply without a good reason in spite of demand should be taken out of bloody copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasingActually , modern distribution is precisely why copyright should be increasing not decreasing .
If it takes forever to ship something , who wants to order and wait ?
Let people take a copy of the " local cache " .
It would n't hurt revenues.The counter reason in favor of decreasing copyright duration comes from the ease of copying and the sheer quantity of competition .
Material that has been published and then produced in limited supply without a good reason in spite of demand should be taken out of bloody copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With modern distribution copyright durations should be decreasing not increasingActually, modern distribution is precisely why copyright should be increasing not decreasing.
If it takes forever to ship something, who wants to order and wait?
Let people take a copy of the "local cache".
It wouldn't hurt revenues.The counter reason in favor of decreasing copyright duration comes from the ease of copying and the sheer quantity of competition.
Material that has been published and then produced in limited supply without a good reason in spite of demand should be taken out of bloody copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523748</id>
	<title>WHAT???</title>
	<author>Voltar</author>
	<datestamp>1261497960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And kill the business of copyright trolls? The nerve!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And kill the business of copyright trolls ?
The nerve !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And kill the business of copyright trolls?
The nerve!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521730</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cuntnozzle? Cuntnozzle!  I was using that wod in the days when buggies still needed whips. These new-fangled whipless buggies are an invention of the devil, I tells ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cuntnozzle ?
Cuntnozzle ! I was using that wod in the days when buggies still needed whips .
These new-fangled whipless buggies are an invention of the devil , I tells ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cuntnozzle?
Cuntnozzle!  I was using that wod in the days when buggies still needed whips.
These new-fangled whipless buggies are an invention of the devil, I tells ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523760</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261498020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disney won't lose Mickey Mouse; he's covered by trademark law. Disney will, however, lose <i>Steamboat Willy</i>, the first Mickey Mouse Cartoon.</p><p><i>The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?)</i></p><p>There were five parties in the last Presidential election on the ballot in enough states that they all had a mathematical possibility of winning the White House. The problem is that the media is owned by the corporations, who have a vested interest in the "two party system" fiction and they're not about to report on anybody but the Republicans and Democrats.</p><p>I'd like to see it illegal to "contribute" to more than one candidate in any race, or to contribute to any candidate you're not eligible to vote for. Why should a millionaire in California have more of a say about who becomes a Senator in Illinois than an Illinois voter does?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disney wo n't lose Mickey Mouse ; he 's covered by trademark law .
Disney will , however , lose Steamboat Willy , the first Mickey Mouse Cartoon.The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America , perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely ( 5 political parties , anyone ?
) There were five parties in the last Presidential election on the ballot in enough states that they all had a mathematical possibility of winning the White House .
The problem is that the media is owned by the corporations , who have a vested interest in the " two party system " fiction and they 're not about to report on anybody but the Republicans and Democrats.I 'd like to see it illegal to " contribute " to more than one candidate in any race , or to contribute to any candidate you 're not eligible to vote for .
Why should a millionaire in California have more of a say about who becomes a Senator in Illinois than an Illinois voter does ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disney won't lose Mickey Mouse; he's covered by trademark law.
Disney will, however, lose Steamboat Willy, the first Mickey Mouse Cartoon.The voters need to completely re-shape the political atmosphere of America, perhaps removing the 2 party system entirely (5 political parties, anyone?
)There were five parties in the last Presidential election on the ballot in enough states that they all had a mathematical possibility of winning the White House.
The problem is that the media is owned by the corporations, who have a vested interest in the "two party system" fiction and they're not about to report on anybody but the Republicans and Democrats.I'd like to see it illegal to "contribute" to more than one candidate in any race, or to contribute to any candidate you're not eligible to vote for.
Why should a millionaire in California have more of a say about who becomes a Senator in Illinois than an Illinois voter does?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30526112</id>
	<title>Vultures....</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1261509180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get this overwhelming feeling of vultures waiting to pounce on the unlucky copyrighted material that will expire and be grist for the endlessly unoriginal rehashing of other peoples work.  The mish mash of once popular icons used in a muck of re-done banality simply because they were once popular.<br>
Am I the only one wishing these people would actually think and create for themselves instead of wishing for the bits and pieces of popular culture to be available for free.  Or even man up and pay the license fee if what they think is original and is possibly worth the sharing with the rest of us?  <br>
<br> <br>
I am so fed up with the "OMG" it's still copyrighted, it's the end of the world woe is me I might have to shell out some bucks to be uncreative and use a piece of someone else's creative drivel.
<i>this post copyright 2009 by Methius Incorporated</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get this overwhelming feeling of vultures waiting to pounce on the unlucky copyrighted material that will expire and be grist for the endlessly unoriginal rehashing of other peoples work .
The mish mash of once popular icons used in a muck of re-done banality simply because they were once popular .
Am I the only one wishing these people would actually think and create for themselves instead of wishing for the bits and pieces of popular culture to be available for free .
Or even man up and pay the license fee if what they think is original and is possibly worth the sharing with the rest of us ?
I am so fed up with the " OMG " it 's still copyrighted , it 's the end of the world woe is me I might have to shell out some bucks to be uncreative and use a piece of someone else 's creative drivel .
this post copyright 2009 by Methius Incorporated</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get this overwhelming feeling of vultures waiting to pounce on the unlucky copyrighted material that will expire and be grist for the endlessly unoriginal rehashing of other peoples work.
The mish mash of once popular icons used in a muck of re-done banality simply because they were once popular.
Am I the only one wishing these people would actually think and create for themselves instead of wishing for the bits and pieces of popular culture to be available for free.
Or even man up and pay the license fee if what they think is original and is possibly worth the sharing with the rest of us?
I am so fed up with the "OMG" it's still copyrighted, it's the end of the world woe is me I might have to shell out some bucks to be uncreative and use a piece of someone else's creative drivel.
this post copyright 2009 by Methius Incorporated</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522356</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>a0schweitzer</author>
	<datestamp>1261486380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Either way, the world ends in 2012...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either way , the world ends in 2012.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either way, the world ends in 2012...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522552</id>
	<title>Re:What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1261488540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy.</p><p>When I need time to reap the rewards of my work, I should be protected to actually be able to do just that. Patents originally served a similar purpose, to give inventors a way to get funding for their inventions to produce them instead of crafty businessmen looking at the invention and simply building it without giving the originator any money for it. Likewise, the patent time was supposed to be long enough to give businesses an incentive to actually buy the patent instead of "sitting it out", knowing that a poor 19th century inventor could never manufacture in grand scale and saturate the market quickly.</p><p>If my means to publish my findings are limited to the speed of a person or horse cart, the time it takes to reach the other end of a continent can become critical. Imagine it's 1890 and copyright lasts for 6 months. You're in New York and make a movie. Before your movie can be shown in LA or even Europe, months will pass. Maybe enough months that by the time that you could show your movie it's only weeks until your copyright expires, so cinemas might consider sitting it out and waiting so they don't have to pay you a dime.</p><p>Fast forward to 2009 when you can instantly ship a movie, if everything fails overnight, to any point on this planet where it could sensibly be shown. You have the entire 6 months at your disposal to show it. More than enough time to convince any cinema owner that sitting it out is not an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy.When I need time to reap the rewards of my work , I should be protected to actually be able to do just that .
Patents originally served a similar purpose , to give inventors a way to get funding for their inventions to produce them instead of crafty businessmen looking at the invention and simply building it without giving the originator any money for it .
Likewise , the patent time was supposed to be long enough to give businesses an incentive to actually buy the patent instead of " sitting it out " , knowing that a poor 19th century inventor could never manufacture in grand scale and saturate the market quickly.If my means to publish my findings are limited to the speed of a person or horse cart , the time it takes to reach the other end of a continent can become critical .
Imagine it 's 1890 and copyright lasts for 6 months .
You 're in New York and make a movie .
Before your movie can be shown in LA or even Europe , months will pass .
Maybe enough months that by the time that you could show your movie it 's only weeks until your copyright expires , so cinemas might consider sitting it out and waiting so they do n't have to pay you a dime.Fast forward to 2009 when you can instantly ship a movie , if everything fails overnight , to any point on this planet where it could sensibly be shown .
You have the entire 6 months at your disposal to show it .
More than enough time to convince any cinema owner that sitting it out is not an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy.When I need time to reap the rewards of my work, I should be protected to actually be able to do just that.
Patents originally served a similar purpose, to give inventors a way to get funding for their inventions to produce them instead of crafty businessmen looking at the invention and simply building it without giving the originator any money for it.
Likewise, the patent time was supposed to be long enough to give businesses an incentive to actually buy the patent instead of "sitting it out", knowing that a poor 19th century inventor could never manufacture in grand scale and saturate the market quickly.If my means to publish my findings are limited to the speed of a person or horse cart, the time it takes to reach the other end of a continent can become critical.
Imagine it's 1890 and copyright lasts for 6 months.
You're in New York and make a movie.
Before your movie can be shown in LA or even Europe, months will pass.
Maybe enough months that by the time that you could show your movie it's only weeks until your copyright expires, so cinemas might consider sitting it out and waiting so they don't have to pay you a dime.Fast forward to 2009 when you can instantly ship a movie, if everything fails overnight, to any point on this planet where it could sensibly be shown.
You have the entire 6 months at your disposal to show it.
More than enough time to convince any cinema owner that sitting it out is not an option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522848</id>
	<title>Re:Sonny Bono - I own you babe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261491960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act</i> </p><p>They say we're young and we don't know.<br>Won't be out of copyright till we grow.<br>Well I don't know Babe if you think that's true<br>But I've got a bill that'll F*** you!</p><p>Babe.<br>I own you babe.<br>I own you babe.</p><p>Filkers! You spray, you trap, you poison and the damn things keep coming back.<br>When the nuclear armageddon comes, the only thing left will be roaches and filk.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act They say we 're young and we do n't know.Wo n't be out of copyright till we grow.Well I do n't know Babe if you think that 's trueBut I 've got a bill that 'll F * * * you ! Babe.I own you babe.I own you babe.Filkers !
You spray , you trap , you poison and the damn things keep coming back.When the nuclear armageddon comes , the only thing left will be roaches and filk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act They say we're young and we don't know.Won't be out of copyright till we grow.Well I don't know Babe if you think that's trueBut I've got a bill that'll F*** you!Babe.I own you babe.I own you babe.Filkers!
You spray, you trap, you poison and the damn things keep coming back.When the nuclear armageddon comes, the only thing left will be roaches and filk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527514</id>
	<title>Re:For fuck's sake!</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1261514220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, "cuntnozzle" sounds like a mashup to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , " cuntnozzle " sounds like a mashup to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, "cuntnozzle" sounds like a mashup to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524714</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261502460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Europe has a kajillion parties and their copyright laws are worse than ours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe has a kajillion parties and their copyright laws are worse than ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe has a kajillion parties and their copyright laws are worse than ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525562</id>
	<title>they have failed</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1261506600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally 100\% disrespect copyright.  I copy any and all data as I see fit.  I DON'T FUCKING CARE if its 'illegal' or not.  the law has ceased to serve us (the common man).  so I turn my back on the law and do as I see fit.  just like the companies have turned their backs on the laws REBOUGHT new laws as they see fit.</p><p>its all good.  they do what they want and feel is 'best' and so do we!</p><p>but if they think that by adding more and more time to copyright this will CHANGE our behavior, they have another thing coming.</p><p>the only way you get people to RESPECT laws is to have respectable laws (duh!).  have kangaroo court (or congress; same thing, effectively) laws and you'll have people totally ignoring them and even laughing in their faces.</p><p>and so, I have NO qualms about making copies of 'paid for' works.  I simply DO NOT RESPECT THE LAWS ANYMORE.  they do not serve us and have not served us for decades.  therefore, in my morality, they simply do not apply to me.</p><p>I'm also not a 20something or even a 30something.  I can easily afford to buy my media.  but due to bad behavior by the industry, overall, I CHOOSE NOT TO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally 100 \ % disrespect copyright .
I copy any and all data as I see fit .
I DO N'T FUCKING CARE if its 'illegal ' or not .
the law has ceased to serve us ( the common man ) .
so I turn my back on the law and do as I see fit .
just like the companies have turned their backs on the laws REBOUGHT new laws as they see fit.its all good .
they do what they want and feel is 'best ' and so do we ! but if they think that by adding more and more time to copyright this will CHANGE our behavior , they have another thing coming.the only way you get people to RESPECT laws is to have respectable laws ( duh ! ) .
have kangaroo court ( or congress ; same thing , effectively ) laws and you 'll have people totally ignoring them and even laughing in their faces.and so , I have NO qualms about making copies of 'paid for ' works .
I simply DO NOT RESPECT THE LAWS ANYMORE .
they do not serve us and have not served us for decades .
therefore , in my morality , they simply do not apply to me.I 'm also not a 20something or even a 30something .
I can easily afford to buy my media .
but due to bad behavior by the industry , overall , I CHOOSE NOT TO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally 100\% disrespect copyright.
I copy any and all data as I see fit.
I DON'T FUCKING CARE if its 'illegal' or not.
the law has ceased to serve us (the common man).
so I turn my back on the law and do as I see fit.
just like the companies have turned their backs on the laws REBOUGHT new laws as they see fit.its all good.
they do what they want and feel is 'best' and so do we!but if they think that by adding more and more time to copyright this will CHANGE our behavior, they have another thing coming.the only way you get people to RESPECT laws is to have respectable laws (duh!).
have kangaroo court (or congress; same thing, effectively) laws and you'll have people totally ignoring them and even laughing in their faces.and so, I have NO qualms about making copies of 'paid for' works.
I simply DO NOT RESPECT THE LAWS ANYMORE.
they do not serve us and have not served us for decades.
therefore, in my morality, they simply do not apply to me.I'm also not a 20something or even a 30something.
I can easily afford to buy my media.
but due to bad behavior by the industry, overall, I CHOOSE NOT TO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521796</id>
	<title>Re:Not 2017, but by 2023...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wouldn't be Copyright stopping you from using it but Mickey is the symbol for Disney and thus Trademarked. Much like how you wouldn't expect to use the McDonalds Golden Arches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't be Copyright stopping you from using it but Mickey is the symbol for Disney and thus Trademarked .
Much like how you would n't expect to use the McDonalds Golden Arches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't be Copyright stopping you from using it but Mickey is the symbol for Disney and thus Trademarked.
Much like how you wouldn't expect to use the McDonalds Golden Arches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523658</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1261497420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law can be as unreasonable as it wants. We don't care because we're all criminals...</p><p>When applied on the broader scale, isn't this how civilizations collapse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law can be as unreasonable as it wants .
We do n't care because we 're all criminals...When applied on the broader scale , is n't this how civilizations collapse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law can be as unreasonable as it wants.
We don't care because we're all criminals...When applied on the broader scale, isn't this how civilizations collapse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522426</id>
	<title>Victor Hugo was wrong</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1261487400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Victor Hugo was wrong, and these long copyright terms are a disgrace - put it back to 28 years (14 years with one extension).</p><p>Now that there is an industry interest in shortening copyright, I expect to see some shortening in due course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Victor Hugo was wrong , and these long copyright terms are a disgrace - put it back to 28 years ( 14 years with one extension ) .Now that there is an industry interest in shortening copyright , I expect to see some shortening in due course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Victor Hugo was wrong, and these long copyright terms are a disgrace - put it back to 28 years (14 years with one extension).Now that there is an industry interest in shortening copyright, I expect to see some shortening in due course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30526004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30532168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_2352241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30526818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30526004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30523654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30527514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30525312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30524352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521790
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522832
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30532168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30521914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_2352241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_2352241.30522244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
